Land use and zoning reform in Puna

[JWFITZ]

Sure. . .

Did I make the claim that money would be worthless 18 months ago?

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/

[Rob Tucker]

You made a major case for it. Investments were dead. Money would soon be worthless. Plant sweet potatoes now if you hope to have anything to eat.

How's your sweet potatoes doing?

[JWFITZ]

Obviously your answer is "no." Don't be reading into real solutions things you wish not to be true. Or elsewise. Don't assume things about valid positions because you wish them to be false. Don't willfully misread the positions of honest people because you want to disagree. Rob, you have access to every post I've ever posted here, and I defy you to find anything that supports your accusations in any more than the most vague manner. You'll find a lot of stuff where I think the future will be difficult. Well, it is, isn't it? I also go on record now saying 2 years down the road it will be more so.

As for sweet potatoes:

Very well, thank you. Not only did I grow more than I could possibly eat, but so did my neighbors, and a 100 more other people who got cuttings off my place. . .seems very likely there's a 100000 pounds of harvest there. . . All in all if you want to credit views to me I'd appreciate it if you'd quote me. If you want to go quoting you might find I made made projections for bull runs in commodities such as copper. . .but no one paid any attention to that either.

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/

[DanielP]

Glen,

Two ingredients that you neglected to include in the agriculture scenario is soil and labor. It is really not very efficient to have truck farms every 100 ft. or so. The expense of ripping down the rainforest to grow tomatoes in pahoehoe is not very efficient. The aging population is not much good at farm labor either. Inclination aside.

Pele may decide or she may not. To hide behind that issue is more laziness that our politicians turn to when they have no better argument to justify their lack of foresight or action.
I believe that Puna will have massive population growth. Effective planning will determine the quality.

Dan

[Greg]

Kilauea will someday be as large as Mauna Loa. What business with any foresight is going to invest in large buildings or permanent infrastructure in the path of such relentless lava flows.

Agriculture is our future in Puna. The Hawaiians of old practiced it successfully without soil. In lower Puna they grew sweet potatoes in mounds of rock and mulch. We now have Hydroponic and aquaponic techniques and technology that could make Puna the breadbasket of the state.

Dirt is nice, but not neccessary. ask any export nurseryman what they ship their plants in (hint: no dirt allowed by USDA)





Stoneface

[PaulW]

"I made made projections for bull runs in commodities such as copper"

Where? After a quick search I only found:

03/07/2008
"we face a future of real material shortages...Oil is the obvious issue, but one of only several very important commodities we're mostly out of. Copper is another"

When you wrote this, copper was at a near-record high of $4 per pound. By Jan '09 it had dropped under $1.50
a pound, and is now around $3.40. So, copper has gone down, not up.

[Kelena]

Daniel,

You are probably right about population growth, but I do believe that everything possible should be done to prevent that, and I believe there are things that can be done. You simply cannot have a large population in this area because of Pele. Royal Gardens should never have been permitted, period.

The way to prevent the influx of population is to make the agricultural designation meaningful again. A non-agricultural use would be a non-conforming use, which can be addressed in a number of ways. I advocate that it be addressed by a significant tax burden. Those who are doing agricultural on their land would pay peanuts. Those that are not, would pay through the nose as they are promoting development and demoting sustainability.

I'm with Jay. Things are going to get bad.

[JWFITZ]

Here goes Paul again. . .

Here's the topic Paul is attempting to make some sort of case out of. I provide the link because the lack of it is telling. If anybody is actually interested I'd recommend reading it. . . Actually the whole thread is worth re-reading at this moment and it contributes a LOT to our current conversation. It also shows how contentious we've become.

http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5230&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=copper

Paul, here your link to an actual projection about copper(the previous thread contains predictions of drought...). May of 09. A pretty good call. You'll note no one is predicting the end of the world, but simply offering a measured view what we're likely to be facing.

http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8581&whichpage=6&SearchTerms=PMAR

I think I'll bow out of this discussion. It doesn't appear to me that we're ready as a community to constructively discuss these issues, and appears that there isn't sufficient good will to even start discussing the validity of our primary assumptions without getting personal and antagonistic. And there's no good end to that.

And also an apology to other Punaweb members for my obvious ire.


http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/

[Rob Tucker]

Earlier Jay stated:

"We need to not plan for population growth, but resource cost increase. Population growth is dependent on static resource costs. That's a fantasy. Cost's will and have risen. This will flatten the growth profile here locally. The evidence is there, if we want to talk evidence, well, let's have at it."

I have not seen any evidence that population growth is dependent on static resource costs. Population growth is dependent on people making babies and immigration and migration. Population growth is measurable and is done by census and other metrics (vehicle registration is another metric). The State of Hawaii has identified Puna as having the fastest rate of growth in the state. Our 2010 census is expected to verify this. We plan for population growth.

Attempting to plan for growth using anticipated growth of costs is simply playing the stock market. No planners do that. It may well be that increased costs in one location (California for example) will make a location like Puna more attractive. And that is capable of inspiring more people to move here.

Costs move in cycles. Population growth moves in a rather constant upward track by birthrate and immigration. Nevertheless our growth rate can be documented and the availability of empty affordable lots is a known factor. In that manner the stage is set for a Puna population in excess of 200,000. What year might that occur? Hopefully far in the future but I would not bet on any specific date.

The PCDP is attempting to not do what was done to us fifty years ago... leave a congested planning nightmare for the next generations. Decade by decade this planning will have to be studied and revised as Bob has suggested. That is why something like a CDP is considered a living document.

I will admit that Pele may have the last word. The destruction of Kapoho in 1960 and Kalpana in the 1980's probably slowed things down for a period. But today we are the fastest growing district in the state.

[DanielP]

It may be unwise for significant developement below the East rift zone. I wouldn't. The rest is as much a crap shoot than anywhere else.

I hear folks talk about sustainability via agriculture, etc. but I think that there are very few who don't depend on the general commercial infrastructure for their sustainance.

This train is comin'. You can get on board, you can get run over, or perhaps, you can help lay the track and drive a smarter course.

Dan