When, not If lava crosses 130...

[geochem]

Bluesboy is 100% correct - the term I think he might have best used is "relentless" - Kilauea has been erupting nearly continuously for 30 years - could easily go for another 30 - or 130 - more. Diversion might conceivably work - for a while - then what?

Not that I disagree with vancouverislander - what's the incentive for the NPS to cooperate. Their cultural advisory committee - allegedly - was responsible for shutting down the Volcano Run - a very popular activity in the National Park - due to cultural concerns and disrespecting Pele traditions. What's the likelihood that that committee would approve bulldozing and blowing up an active vent? If the eastern flank of Kilauea was covered with lava flows, I wouldn't be surprised if the NPS' first move was to try to add that land to the National Park...

IMHO, none of the land in lava flow zones 1 or 2 should have been subdivided for residential development - they will all be covered by lava flows at some point in the future - and some of that future may well be upon us. All of us make decisions and take calculated risks - land is cheaper in Puna than elsewhere on the island - part of that lower cost was the result of less county infrastructure, and part was associated with the risk from lava flow coverage. Information was available to purchasers of Puna lots about the infrastructure and to learn about those risks - and everyone had the option of purchasing in areas of the island at lower risk and having more extensive infrastructure - but chose not to... Why does the County - or more to the point the County taxpayers who paid higher prices for homes outside of the high risk areas - have a responsibility to those who chose to take the higher risk?

[Rob Tucker]

Quote: "Why does the County - or more to the point the County taxpayers who paid higher prices for homes outside of the high risk areas - have a responsibility to those who chose to take the higher risk?"

They have responsibility because the county approved the subdivisions.

[Chunkster]

Lava incursion or not, the county's approach to providing services and infrastructure in Puna provides the basis for a massive class action suit. Unfortunately, no one has the gumption or resources to go for it. As Rob Tucker has pointed out many times, they approved the subdivisions without any intention that they would ever have any responsibilities in relation to the tax money derived from them.

If a huge section of Puna gets cut off and becomes almost uninabitable in the sense of its current use, the county will take a huge revenue hit when the suddenly devalued properties drop the tax digest like a rock. That will get their attention, but likely too late.

[Wao nahele kane]

As per the risks here... they're relatively negligible compared to many other far more dangerous areas around the world. At best we're only talking about structures and their infrastructure and even then the inundation devastation is historically relatively minimal thus far. We see far more damage from Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Earth Quakes, Flooding, Lahars, Tsunamis and explosive Volcanoes such as mount St. Helens and the remaining likes around the USA. Lava inundation? LOL... get real this lava is minor beans comparatively and there are no lives lost from it unless one is simply placing themselves in harms way for no apparent reason.
Lava RISK? LOL... lets not get carried away, the risk we take here with regard to lava inundation is minor on the existing risk scales.

[Wao nahele kane]

At this point I don't see any need to jump the gun and alter anything with regard to the current flow and I would consider it counter productive at this time. Every time one of these flows occurs to the North and then stops, it increases the elevation to the North of the vent bringing it ever closer to the elevation of the rift in that region. It could potentially create a natural barrier to the north that guides everything to the south of the rift if left alone.

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

They have responsibility because the county approved the subdivisions.

---

The statute of limitations has long since passed on this illegal action.

Anyone with a recent enough building permit, however, would have a solid claim. Is it any wonder that County doesn't pursue unpermitted shacks?

[Seeb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalakoa

quote:

---

They have responsibility because the county approved the subdivisions.

---

The statute of limitations has long since passed on this illegal action.

---

but it would give history for a RICO case

[peteadams]

I'm of two minds here. The county and the developers, hand in hand (or hand in pocket maybe) ignored laws on the books at the time and created cheap subdivisions without infrastructure that then able to be sold at great profit for the developers and created many taxable lots for county income.

OTOH, as geochem points out, the buyers of those lots had all the information they needed to assess lava risk and lack of infrastructure before they bought their land. On our property, as part of the title, we had to hold the county harmless for not providing a water supply. Those purchasers also happily accepted the discounted, far lower price of their property that resulted from the same lava risk and lack of infrastructure.

The mis/malfeasance of the county and developers was decades ago and I suppose that many of the principals are long gone. But HPP and other substandard subdivision land purchasers are still purchasing relatively cheaply and the conditions of their purchases are still the same: no infrastructure and lava risk. It's very unclear to me why the county should now "gift" the subdivisions with improved infrastructure on the backs of the taxpayers when buyers who bought cheaply knew what they were getting into. If there's a statute of limitations that prevents the county from seizing the assets of the developers or their heirs for their ill-gotten gains in order to pay for the neglected infrastructure, then there probably should be a statute of limitations for the county to pay for the machinations of their previous leadership.

In any place I've ever lived, when the sprawl creeps out to the rural unimproved margins people are assessed in utility districts for the improvements, typically sewer and water lines, even against their will. Why should HPP, HA or the other subdivisions expect anything different here?

[missydog1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chunkster

they approved the subdivisions without any intention that they would ever have any responsibilities in relation to the tax money derived from them.

---

But the tax money derived was proportional to the value of the land, and the value reflected the lack of infrastructure.

Compare to the real property tax paid for land that had all utilities and low volcanic risk. It seems fair enough.

According to "Land and Power In HawaiÔi," most original buyers of the land in the lava subdivisions made a profit on their investment, so they werenÔt actually bilked by developers. In fact many or most people have made a profit off land speculation in Puna (up until the crash that affected all real estate).

No doubt there was some fraud committed in advertising made to out of state buyers, but the statute of limitations for that is rather short.

I am not defending the actions of the developers or the corrupt planning that allowed this debacle to be set in motion, but the complaining also amazes me.

Land sellers typically donÔt warranty the land for any specific use.

When we sold some vacant land a few years back, there was not even a law requiring Seller Disclosure for vacant land (and I doubt that has changed). Our agent had us fill one out, but sellers are not required to know much about land on which they do not live.

Caveat emptor, due diligence on the buyerÔs part, donÔt cry afterwards when you paid very little for the land and now you expect tons of money to be put into it to make it more valuable for you.

A decent unimproved lot (not acreage) in Hilo costs over 100K, and might cost up to 200K. Buyers pay a lot to have those utilities and roads and so forth, and they pay higher property taxes, so it irks me when people pay 5-20% the price and far lower taxes but want the same thing. That is not how it works.

When you looked at property here, you had a choice to pay more and get all of these things and not to live on the slope of Kilauea, but you chose the cheap route, which was a gamble. (And itÔs all a gamble, even the expensive land.)

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

Those purchasers also happily accepted the discounted, far lower price of their property that resulted from the same lava risk and lack of infrastructure.

---

...except that County insists on holding those lot owners to the same standards as the "less-risky/more-stable" areas.

The HPP "fugitive dust" complaint is an excellent example of something that should not be inflicted on people who "chose" the lava risk and lack of infrastructure.

If it's really all "too dangerous" to allow people to build homes, County needs to stop issuing building permits in lava zones 1 and 2.

"All investment is at risk" -- but you're taxed the same anyway? No thanks.