Well, as you are entitled to your opinion, so am I.
As for my foundation of my opinion, just read the second post made on this thread!
Unfortunately - not just for Tiffany, but for the majority of the people who live here, the majority of the "electorate" think like the second poster.
As for it being "complicated" just look at the stated reasons a few of the "electorate" don't want Tiffany.
Seems more like the attitudes of 3rd graders on the school playground versus that of an adult mature "electorate" deciding on who should represent them.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Again: not relevant until/unless some "representation" actually happens for us poor people.
My whole point - IT SHOULD BE RELEVANT!
I think the history of this State is proof positive of the "electorates" desire to throw away votes over non irrelevant issues.
Remember, this State elected a dead Representative and then bitched about the cost of the special election as a result!
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
I am REALLY glad this isnt my district because yes one of the things I would question was her stance on the building next to the surf shop. I would like to see how she will incorporate that into a better economy for her constituents. Because a thriving Puna economy should not be 3 mutually exclusive words.
But luckily not my district.
Now who is running in District 4. Never mind, I will start a new thread for Puna4.
You should really find out why her stance was what it was.
I thought it was clearly articulated - and was at the end of the day, in Puna's best interest.
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
If it was so clearly articulated why not fill us in?
I talked with her about it, she called me very sweetly wanting my support for her position. When I wouldn't agree she went ballistic.
It would be interesting to hear how many versions of Tiffany's position might be out there,
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
The version I am aware of is what has been written and published about it.
The property was up for sale with a re-zoning application running simultaneously while the property was up for sale. This re-zoning application called specifically to re-zone from family residential to village commercial. The sale also pitched a "Boutiques and Bungalows" project.
As I have read and understand, the concern Tiffany had is that the property could be sold and the new owners had no legal requirement to carry out this proposed "Boutiques and Bungalows" project and that by just simply re-zoning to village commercial a total of 48 different types of businesses could be opened with absolutely no ability to challenge it.
Further, I believe her concern was more of a precedent setting issue versus that of this one specific business.
In addition, the skate shop that was operating there was not a legal operation and further, none of the sale/re-zoning paperwork ever mentioned a skate shop business.
In fact the skate shop had been cited for illegal operation.
I fail to see anything wrong with Tiffany's position here.
I also fail to see the animosity you have for her.
So the two of you disagreed. Big deal.
Right, wrong or indifferent – it’s the past.
This is the future.
Ask yourself this – who – among the current and declared candidates – is better than Tiffany?
A nowhere to be found incumbent? Cunningham?
Grudge holding is why religion fails.
And fuels a whole bunch of needless bull****.
Get over it.
If the two of you could get together, as you have in the past, PUNA wins.
This immature crap about a failed skate shop is ridiculous.
And PUNA fails.
It’s chopping off your nose to spite your face.
Posts: 4,240
Threads: 96
Joined: Mar 2014
quote:
Originally posted by Ken
The property was up for sale with a re-zoning application running simultaneously while the property was up for sale. This re-zoning application called specifically to re-zone from family residential to village commercial. The sale also pitched a "Boutiques and Bungalows" project.
As I have read and understand, the concern Tiffany had is that the property could be sold and the new owners had no legal requirement to carry out this proposed "Boutiques and Bungalows" project and that by just simply re-zoning to village commercial a total of 48 different types of businesses could be opened with absolutely no ability to challenge it.
So what is different if Tiffany's family store is sold and the same thing happenes? She was certainly OK with her family (husband) to get commercial zoning (and not follow through on the county requirements in doing so) but the nearly identical place next door to them can't get commercial zoning?
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
quote:
by just simply re-zoning to village commercial a total of 48 different types of businesses could be opened with absolutely no ability to challenge it.
This is quite possibly my favorite of the specious objections to development.
If rezoning is such a Bad Idea, where is her objection to the new Pahoa shopping center? How about that lot at the corner of Kahakai and the highway?
There's also a bunch of rezoning happening in Hilo, but I guess that's even more OK?
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
We can perhaps be grateful that Tiffany protected the village from the prospects that someone might just make a profit on a business. Of course one family's hopes got destroyed but that may be a small price to pay. Now we have the local Unwelcome Wagon, headed by Tiffany Hunt, whose blessing is apparently needed to make any investments in Pahoa.
This is the Emily Naeole school of business.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
