Yes, I was not talking about any place where recent lava flow already destroyed the coral. The Native Hawaiian viewpoint may well be as you say and I will not speak for it although I would listen to it.
When it comes to tourism, snorkeling is now a bigger draw than swimming. Without coral the snorkeling is poor or useless, so definitely something to consider. Destroying any coral reef would be wrong and I would think illegal. The County cannot do just whatever it wants, as the DLNR would have its say.
But in reality it is not likely to happen.
Look at the situation in Kawaihae harbor, where the existing harbor needs assistance with keeping it dredged, but it has gotten so bad that boats can't launch there and fisherman from North Kohala are having to go to Puako to get in the water.
Our government isn't keeping the facilities we already have in functioning order, so I don't expect to see new projects, especially when they all require an EIS before beginning. Which I am fairly sure would be an issue if they were to make a passable road out to Champagne Cove over the path of the current 4WD track. (I think Carey has discussed that before.)
Posts: 246
Threads: 11
Joined: Apr 2008
I'm not familiar with the intimate details of this matter, but my impression was that Ms. Leithead-Todd was going with the assumption that the road was in use prior to 1892, which under state law would make it a public road.
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Lots of assumptions to be made.
Let's assume that it was a public road in 1892. Let's assume the CoH surrendered it's interest in the road somewhere along the way...or not.
If the CoH was to now take possession of the road will they then owe KBL reimbursement for the improvements and maintenance for a number of decades? Would they have to emminent domain it at market value? That money, divided among the lot owners might help pay for upgraded septic systems.
Voila! County bites itself on the butt.
Let's assume another thing: The CoH documented the private ownership of the road which KBL relied upon for a number of decades. CoH then decides it's positions were lacking in merit. Would that possibly place any large number of CoH private road assumptions into play? Anyone care to examine the originating paperwork for 50,000 lots in private subdivisions?
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 4,902
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
quote:
Originally posted by Kapohocat
Gates do not stop crime. Secondly while the gate may decrease the amount of incidents, the $$$'s per incident went up.
Have the gate, dont have the gate. This is for the homeowners and the county to decide but the reasoning that it lowers crime doesn't fly.
There is a study done (that I am trying to find the link to) that found that some communities in So cal communities that became gated did not lower the $/per crime rate. In fact, because the criminals became smarter and got in with trucks & vans etc that said "so and So's repair service", They actually now had a van or truck to load more than just jewelry and cameras into.
The gate appeared to lower the awareness of "outsiders" in the community and allowed those outsiders that did get in more free rein because neighbors thought "they were supposed to be there" because they got through the gate.
That said, one of these communities were on a natural resource (the Pacific Ocean), same as Beach lots.
Exactly.The people in Beachlots think they can stop crime with a gate and it is never going to work.
However , that is the reason the gate is there and it has nothing to do with septics.
Posts: 2,314
Threads: 59
Joined: Jun 2003
quote:
Originally posted by Obie
Exactly.The people in Beachlots think they can stop crime with a gate and it is never going to work. However , that is the reason the gate is there and it has nothing to do with septics.
I certainly don't want to start a debate about gated communities, but you would be surprised to learn that people living in gated communities actually consider the no trespassing and privacy as the main benefits of living in such communities.
Aloha,
John S. Rabi, GM,PB,ABR,CRB,CM,FHS
808.989.1314
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
"The Next Level of Service!"
Posts: 4,902
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
No,I understand why they want the gate.
My point is that is not working.
They had a gate originally and a tire ripper on the exit.They found out people were putting boards on the tire ripper to drive in.
They installed an exit gate.
People started piggy backing ,so they added an arm to stop that.
Someone tore out the gates.
They put in security cameras.
Someone stole the cameras.
They now have an entrance gate,an exit gate,an arm,a pedestrian gate,a security guard on weekends and 7 security cameras.
People still keep breaking in.
Next is barb wire and machine gun nests.
I believe that having a gate just says to the thieves "I have stuff to steal,come rip me off"
Posts: 194
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2008
You forgot the person who run through the gate one night coming home to Beach Lots when they were "slightly" under the influence...
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me."
-Dudley Field Malone
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
next.........
Planning has dispatched the letter, the associations lawyer sounded even a bit taken aback in the article
Gate comes down and the issue forgotten or more?
This story generating lots of comment at the tribune site, seems to be getting some legs.
One poster here mentioned an economy size can of worms.... lots of wiggles on the way me thinks
aloha
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Maps generally mean nothing.
I can show you a Hawaii map from 1980 showing a road owned by the State of Hawaii. I can show you a 2000 map showing that same road as being owned by the County of Hawaii after a State transfer. But that road is neither State nor County owned/operated property; it is privately owned and held. So maps are nothing but labels on a piece of paper. What matters is the legal trail of ownership.
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
In this case the map not as much the issue as the letter from planning resulting from the "discovery" of the map.
Planning appears to want to bluff or force the association into action regarding access
Meanwhile there is public doubt raised as to the paper chain / proof of title for the road. I have a hard time understanding how all of this can come about without a paper trail. In most places the "deal" not being completed unless the paperwork properly recorded.
My guess is there was never a official transfer*, rather one of the original kapoho good old boys had ties to planning "in the day"
Without proof of transfer, and a planning opinion this road indeed public... its hard to see were we go from here other than improved access for the rest of us
*edit: I am only alluding to the proper documentation of the road transfer not being recorded
