We The People

[Bob Orts]

Once again, since the County does not and will never have authority over federal air operation rules, it would be a futile effort to give anyone a power they can never use. But John is on track with the need for someone to take control of this situation and be the power. He’s also right that it has to be all inclusive with a leading edge to the citizens. I don’t want this to be another pie in the sky complaint with no possibility of implementation. So how about this?

The County of Hawaii shall appoint an Air Service Impact Commission (Commission) of thirteen people consisting of:
1) two operators of tour helicopters
2) two employees of the County Department of Planning
3) nine civilian land and/or home owners from each of the county districts
Each individual will serve for a period of 2 years with overlapping reappointment periods.

The commission shall be granted by law the exclusive power to serve as the governing body on any and all issues related to aircraft operations over the County of Hawaii on behalf of the County and its citizens.

Recommendations, suggestions and policy shall not be subject to county Council or Mayoral override.

The Commission shall have the power to receive, conduct and set forth the following:
a. Conduct a study comprising the number of air tour operations conducted each day, location of overlapping flight clusters, list of complaints received, and duration of flights over targeted areas, and observation of aircraft impact on land use, natural resources, wildlife and environmental impact.
b. Petition the FAA on behalf of the County of Hawaii and its people, the immediate reauthorization of Special Flight Advisory Rule -71.
c. To be the County’s official representing body on all information, recommendations, implementation, and revisions related to the authorization and implementation of the Air Tour Management Act or any other FAA rulemaking impacting the county.
d. To meet regularly with the FAA, Hawaii Dept of Transportation, County, State and Federal elected officials regarding issues covered under the Commission.
e. To develop, recommend and submit air tour flight corridors to the FAA for consideration in any FAA flight rules over the County of Hawaii.
f. The commission shall hire an investigator whose duty will be to investigate any complaint related to aircraft and submit factual findings to the commission for action.
g. The commission shall speak and/or testify on behalf of the county at all hearings related to the impact of air operations on the County.
h. The commission shall publish all factual complaints, studies and recommendations for public review and comment.
i. The commission members will actively seek the input from the body they represent and incorporate the input in their decisions.
j. The commission shall be funded by a dedicated user fee of $3.00 per sightseeing passenger to be collected and remitted by the air tour operators.

Thoughts?

[JWFITZ]

Just out of curiosity, don't you think that two tour operators on that board make for a highly disproportionate representation of that industry? It's not like we need affirmative action for bad business practices.

I think this can be framed as a simple property rights issue. You might have the right to fly over it, but not thunder over it, anymore than anyone has the right to blast loud music, or ride 2 cycle motorcycles all day and night. The NOISE is the primary issue and causes a material damage. If my property is worth 5000 dollars less than it would be if I didn't get noisy helicopters flying over it, and I get 500 flights over it a year-- a pretty reasonable assumption--it seems like every helicopter that flies over owes me a dollar or so--as that's what that 5000 bucks of equity really ought to earn me. That's the same for every other property owner in the state--and a settlement of anything less than that is a simple rip-off and theft of the value of my property and the efforts I make to keep it good "scenery."

Easily, a surcharge of a hundred bucks a head would be needed to repair the economic destruction of the helicopter tours. If one through in the potential ecological damage, the cost would be simply prohibitive. Who should that money go to? I don't know, but I'm not going to ask for it. There's plenty of good causes needing attention.

Ban 'em completely. They've proven to play crooked, and they can just kiss off as far as I'm concerned.

[DanielP]

This will take a few days to chew on

Dan

[DanielP]

Bob, John and all,

I think that it is a good start to mandate to the county that they create a commission to address the impacts of air traffic on the county, it's citizens and the environment.

To dictate at this point, the exact make-up, the exact powers and authority, the exact functions of this commission might be a bit premature at this point. Perhaps the Council may want to define these.

Simply to create a commission available for citizens to go to with their concerns and suggestions could be of great benefit and a reasonable start.

Putting this in the form of a petition would be a good tool to take to the Mayor and the Council to show them that there is broad concern and support about this issue and they may well be receptive to creating a conduit(commission) to bring the issues before the appropriate governmental bodies for legal action.

Dan





Edited by - DanielP on 11/09/2007 04:48:39

[Bob Orts]

Dan, your point is valid. Who sits on this board, goals etc are all open to discussion. I think the ideas thrown about are for getting feedback. But, it shows that when emotions are removed, the idea of an "official" group with real legal standing and rights to deal with this serious issue is a viable consideration.

The other thing is will it be best to do it by petition or initiative?

A petition is good because you can say anything, request anything, and complain about anything without having to worry about solutions or its legality. An initiative has to be clear in its purpose, legality and outcome. So it’s written differently than a petition.

A petition is nothing but a complaint or request that shows support. So I present a petition to the county signed by 20 million people, asking for a commission to deal with helicopter noise, the petition itself, has no weight. They county can say "thanks, we'll take it under advisement" but has no requirement to do anything with it. Although 20 million people support it, it’s legally nothing but a pile of papers. Yeah they may be required to save it as a received document or recycle the paper, but that's it.

An initiative is basically the same thing but the county must by law, review it, make recommendations, and come up with a plan to implement it. If they do not, or if they revise it and it's not acceptable to the initiative sponsors, it automatically gets placed on the ballot for the people to decide. So the county must act or the people get to act by vote.

Either way, it's the peoples' call and I'll lend whatever help I can.

[Rob Tucker]

Before you launch into a lot of work on petitions (much less initiatives) simply take the proposal to one or more of our council members and see if they would sponser the proposal.

[Bob Orts]

That’s correct, but based on everything being said, how long it's been going on, who knows what, who's done what, and who all have contacted whom, I assumed somebody by now had to have done so. If you’re saying that up until this point it's been more along the lines of getting pissed off and complaining out loud, I would have to agree that the Council must first be approached with a request as a starting point. I guess I was under the impression that talking and requesting action was done and dismissed by the Council, and everyone else, so that's where taking it to the people came in.

[Rob Tucker]

Bob, I surely don't know the history from Day One on the subject. Going to council staff and talking it up might be educational in two directions. It may also be that a issue that gets no traction with one council in (say) 1996 might be a whole different story in 2007 or 2008. Different council.

I definitely think that going to a council member with both a problem and a potential solution is always appreciated.

Another minor/major point might be that in years past the simple numbers of complaintants was small enough to ignore. Our population has increased. Now might be the right time.

I personally commend you all on working together so well to craft a solution.

[DanielP]

It would make sense to simply ask the County council to discuss and move towards researching the overflight issue with the hope that they would see the need and wisdom to address the concerns of the public and to get the ball rolling within the political arena.
.

If they fail to realize that a considerable number of their constituents have significant feelings on this issue, then go the petition route to try to persuade them of the need and level of interest in the community.

If that fails, then an initiative might be the next step, but going the initiative route to begin with seems a bit cumbersome if a simple request might work.

Anyone know a council member who might have an open ear?

Dan

[JerryCarr]

The primary Councilperson for Puna District is Emily Naeole, but the upper part around Volcano and Mountain View is in the council district of Bob Jacobson which also includes Kau. I believe Mr. Jacobson may actually live in or near the area where so many complain about overflights, but I could be mistaken about that.

As for whether either of the aforementioned council members would support some regulatory legislation, I have no clue. I have spoken with Ms. Naeole on two occasions, and she seems willing to listen to her constituents. She does seem to be something of a loose cannon at times, though, having changed her approach to the SuperCenter ban so many times nobody is really sure where she actually stands any more. At any rate, it never hurts to communicate your needs and positions to those with the ability to act on them, so I would contact both council members.

Cheers,
Jerry



Edited by - JerryCarr on 11/09/2007 14:30:21