Posts: 171
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2013
quote:
Originally posted by mikewj
kalakoa: thanks for your input. The elephant in the room is that the County illegally approved this and similar lots. Should they not be held accountable and required to accept responsibility for their malfeasance? I understand that originally sales of these lots was intended as a "Florida Swamp Land" deal; no-one was actually expected to live here, but as the saying goes, 'karma's a b*tch'.
BTW, I love where I live, just don't want to be forced out by the actions of an incompetent Board.
What he omits (which he likes to do a lot) is how the ada factors into things. In the 90's the ada came out (and has been reinforced by more rules and court victories). The 24 feet is 2 lanes of 8 feet and 2 shoulders/sidewalks of 4 feet, then you need space behind to grade and take care of drainage.
Still trying to figure out how these subdivisions are illegal. Where do you get malfeasence, were you tricked into buying your lot? Did you not know about the lack of services? Were you promisdd anything.
It seems to me you got what you paid for a cheap lot with minimal services out in the middle of nowhere.
PS if you really want to screw over HPP, file an ADA lawsuit. Chip seal would be considered an alteration and hpp would be required to bring the the road to compliance.
Posts: 255
Threads: 22
Joined: Jul 2015
"were you tricked into buying your lot?" From the very beginning in, a word: YES!
I have seen a map and sales brochure for HPP when it was marketed originally. It showed a golf course, shopping center etc, etc
“Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people …to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That is also part of what I knew what I was getting.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws" I am assuming that would include liability laws?
So why is a Puna washboard road get less protection than a Hamakua washboard road? Nothing about "Oh that could be expensive so it doesn't apply".
Posts: 254
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2006
Malfeasance goes back to when the original sub division was approved by the County. Statutory requirements were ignored to the benefit of the developer. At this late juncture we can only speculate as to the reasons, but time does not abrogate the responsibility of the County in allowing this to happen.
My guess would be that in declaring the lots to be designated for agricultural use, the rationale was that services were not necessary since obviously no one would ever live on these lots. However, when building of homes was permitted, there was no change made to alter the standards in order to comply with residential ordinances.
I have no expectation of the County providing mains water or sewage, but taking over the road maintenance with a resulting minimal increase in Property Tax assessment would seem to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To the point of current roads being not up to a standard such as to be taken over by the County, I would remind you that it is possible to bring an existing structure into compliance using the 'as built' provision. Surely something along those lines could be applied to roads?
Posts: 8,432
Threads: 1,031
Joined: May 2003
If the subdivisions would act together on a class action federal lawsuit they would win.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,036
Threads: 51
Joined: Jan 2014
Unfortunately, as pointed out, they’re too busy fighting amongst themselves
Posts: 14,054
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Also worth pointing out that many of the subdivision residents Do Not Want fully paved roads; slow/difficult to navigate also makes it harder for thieves.
Unfortunately, County has only one definition for "road" ... which was amended after all the subdivisions were platted, so the existing "road-shaped lots" are now inadequate, despite having been approved.
Developers were, in fact, required to pave these roads "prior to final subdivision plat approval", but (as mentioned above) County simply ignored those rules to the benefit of the big landowners. Just like they do today -- the vast Shipman holdings are assessed as "pasture" valued at a couple of bucks an acre, but I never see any livestock, unless Shipman is raising feral pigs.
Posts: 1,858
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Tucker
If the subdivisions would act together on a class action federal lawsuit they would win.
I remember you pointing this fact out several times over the years. Too bad the left foot is asleep and the right foot has been amputated...
