Champagne Pond - Best solutions?

[kapohokine]

Carey, the homeowner's of Beach Lots have already installed one rent-a-lua at Champagne Pond without any of the environmental considerations you mention. It is gated off and locked and only available to Beach Lots owners and their vacation rental guests. So, you're suggesting we should remove that one rent-a-lua until we study the effects of a possible tsunami.

[kapohokine]

Carey, if you're qualified to tell us that installing a rent-a-lua on private property, such as at Champagne Pond, requires an EIS, then sure I'll pay. I'll pay with the money I'll make with my new EIS company that will be needed to survey for all construction sites statewide and everywhere else a rent-a-lua has been installed!

[Rob Tucker]

Kapohokine,

I don't have a pony in this race. I don't own any property in Kapoho. I do know that my family and I no longer go to places we once enjoyed because they are no longer enjoyable. So that would be part of my personal interest.

I somehow fail to see how a tour business operating there is a progressive step toward sustainability. But I am confident you will fill me in.

[jerry]

A note on vacation rentals:

I do not think there are any regulations regarding vacation rentals. (Cathy, let me know if I am wrong.) If you pay taxes you are legal. Of course many of them do not pay taxes and that opens them up to being shut down when the county finally begins to enforce that law (like they have done on Maui and Ohau.)

Jerry

Jerry
Art and Orchids B&B
http://www.artandorchids.com

[kapohokine]

Rob, you've just answered your own question. Use tourism to make this place more enjoyable for all of us. I know that my solutions don't really fit in with whatever agenda you opened this thread with. But they are real and they are feasible and they will work to make Champagne Pond a better place for everyone.

And you are dead wrong...you do have a pony in this race...we all do.

The lava road hasn't changed as far as accessibility in the last 7 years, although I can't speak to it before that time.

If there are facilities for locals, campers et al to use at Champagne Pond paid for by the visitors, then that should solve the water quality and sanitation issues created by there being a lack of facilities, which is how you opened this thread. I can't make it any simpler than that.

And my name is Tony, btw.

[kapohokine]

Jerry, the planning department begs to differ. They recognize that all of the vacation rentals in Beach Lots do not comply with the regulations, but do not enforce the regulations with regard to short-term vacation rentals. If there is a complaint the County will send out a notice asking that there not be more than 5 persons in the rental at a time, but this will not bring you into compliance with the law. It just makes it easier for the County to turn a blind eye.

[Carey]

Tony, Facilities using State Lands &/or state funds a a trigger for scoping for EIS concerns....further trigger include Coastal dev. in a state CZM. Privatly owned land not utilizing gov'mt funds or land, nor rezoning do not contain such triggers. SO the answer is, if this is on private or Homeowners land, did not rezone from conservation land & was not in the state CZM, they probably have no EIS concerns.
What you are doing is using state lands for income, on the days of our study there were groups out utililzing this state resource without obtaining the proper permits. If you are utilizing this resource for income, I do hope that you are obtaining the permits, as this land is owned by the state, not the dozer guys, not the tour groups, not the landowners at the ponds.
The big thing is land that is state land, as the ponds land is. The state has developed many sites for the public to use. This is one of the sites that has yet to be developed. It was being investigated for future developement when the dozers illegally torn into it. This one illegal action has put into motion many additional impacts. This is the reason WHY scoping for potential triggers & doing the research prior to changing the landscape is so important. The state does not have the funds to undo all of the work that has been done on this island illegally, much less state wide. Each site must be re-evaluated. This includes airstips & hangars, lakes, irrigation ditches, and bull dozed roads. Millions of dollars would be needed to undo all of these illegal actions.
Those who have gained income from these illegal actions all have reasons to keep things the way they are. Those who did the illegal actions have not had to face the true costs of their actions.
Tony, Check out HRS 343 if you intend to continue to utilize state owned land. also check the with the DLNR, as they are keepers of the land you are using.



Edited by - carey on 10/29/2007 19:47:08

[Rob Tucker]

Okay Tony,

I can think on it. The agenda of this topic was to solicate ideas toward solutions for the problems identified in the Trib article. You have a point of view and set of solutions to suggest. That is a contribution I respect. I am not convinced as of yet though.

The Beach Lots subdivision is a very small and finite place. It is, in it's own way, self-limiting. Maybe more or less self-limiting depending on how you might look at it. I would like to see Kapohocat's suggestion for replacing all the antique cesspools there become a reality -especially as the place approaches build out.

Balancing the interests of public access to all comers against environmental sustainability is a problem which will likely be solved to the displeasure of both sides. Can't be sure what that will be.

My best guess is paved parking, restrooms, Roberts Hawaii buses and zero Honu. If I could vote right now I'd vote for boulders... but this won't be resolved today.

[kapohokine]

Carey, it's clear from the previous posts that no EIS was required nor was it a concern in this case. And we work closely with the DLNR and other State and County agencies. This is a situation that requires more conversation and work amongst those involved rather than citing statutes.

Rob, that's the beauty of this forum, isn't it? Multiple views being aired. But doing so respectfully. I appreciate your time, and more importantly your concern...

As I'm sure you know, we in Beach Lots and Vacationland (where I live) recognize our impact on both Kapoho Bay and Wai Opae through our misinformed use of both cesspools and, to a lesser extent, septic systems. We've been working for some time on an all-encompassing solution to solve this issue which I'm certain will make a huge impact on the health of our waters.

[joseph1]

kapohokine is a treasure of misinformation. Example: The one portopotty visible from the pond was placed there by the lotowner for his family use only. He picnics there 3 or 4. times a year. The roads in the beachlots are very narrow and are owned and maintained by the residents. There is no public or "common" property in the subdivision, only small privately owned lots. There is no place for anyone to park except on their property, even residents are prohibited from parking on roadside and must walk to the ponds. Which property owner would Kapohokine suggest be asked to set up portopotties on their lawn and provide a path so all of the ponds hundreds of visitors could come, day or night, and relieve themselves by their bedroom window?? Would you volunteer?