Puna Trafic

[Rob Tucker]

Wax, they are all opinions, yours, DHHL, Shipman, mine, residents of Puna, Hilo all of them. Except Keaau. There are never any opinions in Keaau... only one entity seems to ever speak for Keaau and that is Shipman Ltd.

[JerryCarr]

Wax and James Weatherford have pretty much summed up what I see as the major realities of PMAR, but I will add a few points. First, in what is a rarity for HPP, we have had an on-going and well-attended process for over a year now to gather information, share information, and get opinions from the HPP community and others who would be affected by PMAR as it was proposed. I am the chairman of that committee, and James Weatherford is a member. The committee and its individual members have bent over backwards to be objective and present as many points of view and as much information as we could acquire. At one point, James was even accused of trying to "sell" the thing, which was not the case at all.

Acquiring information was made difficult by the fact that the County Planning Department insisted on beginning an environmental impact study (EIS) without defining the scope of the project. It took the Planning Department over six months of repeated questioning to finally admit that they were going for a 120 foot right of way when they knew all along that one that big was required to get the funding designation that they needed. Besides that, they also couldn't (or wouldn't) tell us where the road would begin, where it would end, or exactly where it would cross HPP. So were being asked to accept what was becoming a very big pig in a poke that would cost the taxpayers about $180 million. The only thing that they were really clear about was that this would be a commuter route to Hilo, and not an emergency evacuation route.

Faye Hanohano did pass a $1.5 million EIS funding bill saying PMAR should go through the "least possible number of developed lots in HPP," but she didn't bother to talk with our community before doing so. Fortunately, the Governor has refused to release the funds after getting letters from our committee and Hawaiian Homelands asking him not to. We oppose beginning the EIS without further definition of the project because our research has shown us that in a preponderance of cases where an EIS is begun without thorough scoping, the powers that be get what they want built, often by choosing EIS consultants who will do their bidding.

Over 200 HPP lot owners responded to a survey which had the following results:

41% : NO.
24% : YES, with community input/influence.
21% : Uncertain, need more information.
14% : YES.

Quite a few survey respondents in the "24% : Yes, but . . ." category followed the obfuscation and evasiveness of the Planning Department and remarked that they wish they had voted "No." In perhaps the most telling moment, the Planning Department representative, when told that many in the HPP community did not trust the County to keep any promises regarding community input, he replied, "I don't blame you."

So don't blame us if we don't exactly have a lot of faith in the politicians, the bureaucracy or their process. I'll close my rant with something that James and our neighbors, the Shipmans, have both mentioned. It goes something like this:

"Is PMAR the best investment of $180 million in Puna's economic development and infrastructure that we can make? Is reinforcing the old and not too successful Puna economic model of "go to Hilo for everything" what we really need?"

Think about it. We have.

[Rob Tucker]

It will be very interesting to see how your polling goes once work on Hwy 130 begins and continues for several years. But I do congratulate you on working with your community... not easy getting 200 people to respond to a survey.

[james weatherford]

Rob, re investment.
We'll just have to disagree -- your attempt to "explain" did not reveal any truths.
Money spent on PMAR will not be spent anywhere else.
Once that money is spent, Puna will be told, "You got yours. Now somebody else will get the next money."
Money spent in Hilo by someone traveling there on PMAR will not be spent in Puna.
When money is spent in Hilo instead of Puna, then investment happens in Hilo, rather than in Puna, in response to market demand in Hilo and not in Puna.
A rural major collector will perpetuate Puna being a bedroom community of Hilo and reduce both public and private investment in Puna infrastructure.

[james weatherford]

Another thing, Rob.
Your comments about DHHL are very accusatory.
Can you demonstrate specific cases?

btw: are you in Puna?

[Rob Tucker]

Yeah, Take a look at the Walmart and Home Depot deals for a start. Astonishing details are found in DHHL's state budgets. Their ability to waste big money and produce little effect is a travesty.

[james weatherford]

Since you are the one making accusations, you tell me the details you are referring to in those "deals".

Like wax said, the opposition to PMAR across Hawaiian Homesteads Land came from the residents on that land -- anyone who is on the ground in Puna in the community and talks to people knows that. Kina hard to get that perspective from Kali.

[Rob Tucker]

My perspective comes from dealing with DHHL and reading their budgets. But this topic is not about DHHL especially except that Wax and you state their opposition to PMAR and I state their ability to to extract the maximum from a situation and deliver the minimum. I am not out to reform DHHL - not my job - or anyone's it seems.

I find it a bit incredulous for anyone to think Shipman hasn't been a primary beneficiary of the improvements creating Hwy 11 and Highway 130. No highways crossing your land = no shopping center and no master plan for a future Gateway Shopping Center or hundreds of home lots. I sat in Shipman's offices and got to look over their plans. Take away the major roads and you take away the primary value in their land.

So James, Back to Seeb's opening question regarding traffic on hwy 130: "What would the candidates do to alleviate the problem?". As the only candidate currently announced for District 4 what is your answer?

[james weatherford]

Invest in infrastructure in Puna to grow services and opportunities in Puna and thus reduce demand for traffic -- this was identified as a need from the beginning and throughout the Puna Community Development Plan.

I will try to catch you up on some local news.
I am not, as you stated, the only announced candidate for District 4.
If you were here, you would have seen that Fred Blas has several banners up. Also, you would know that Greggor Ilagan is, like myself, actively working to qualify for public funding. Also, you would know that Ike Payne has pulled nomination papers.

[wax]

Rob, frankly your cynicism is coming through fairly strongly. I always start with the statement that is made and take it at face value. In the case of the residents of Hawaiian Home lands, their concerns are the impact of additional traffic on quality of life, security, theft and crime. Those are very reasonable concerns. When you add to that that the statement comes from current residents and that they have virtually no benefit from greater DHHL income - the statement stands on its own and can be accepted for the reasons given. As to Shipman, their statements have to do with protection of agricultural lands both their complete loss to more pavement and to increases in what is apparently a severe problem to all farm areas: agricultural theft and illegal hunting/trespassing. I, too, have seen parts of their master plan and they show a very long term commitment to agriculture exactly where the county shows PMAR. All of that adds up to reasons why they would object to PMAR as presented. It is all in a line. Whether they have or have not benefitted from prior roads is tangential. There is no solid reason to not take them at their word.

Beyond that is the greater question and that is the impact of the road on the long term health of Puna. James points to this issue and so do many others. You used to be among those who were very concerned that all road infrastructure primarily leading to Hilo sucked strength out of Puna and should be rethought. I agree with that reasoning personally. I believe that infrastructure $ in Puna need to be focused almost singularly on making all of Puna stronger, more self sustaining and better able to support Puna residents. In terms of priorities, then, PMAR contributes at a much lower level to these principles than do other investments that can be made and are very desperately needed. It is that simple. Whether DHHL or Shipman or others agree is not so much the point as the point itself. We need to make Puna stronger and better able to stand on its own. For $200 million there is a lot more bang we can get then PMAR and PMAR arguably sucks strength from us at least in the near term (i.e. greater dependence on the existing urban area - Hilo; loss of productive agricultural lands and jobs; influx of more crime; etc.). That is my point.