Posts: 820
Threads: 106
Joined: Mar 2006
quote:
Originally posted by 808blogger
quote:
Originally posted by ++++
This island will always have inadequate infrastructure until changes are made regarding how developers mitigate the impacts from their projects. people decide living in crappy crammed subdivions in kona and kohala are not worth the money, people will leave and the resources will be freed up. FTFY!!!!
808, no man is a island. There will always be people who will move here to live. Thus, we need to have a fair way to mitigate these impacts. The current system allows the developers to weasel out of their responsibility help build new infrastructure. Thus, the sole responsibility is placed upon the taxpayers to finance these projects.
This is not fair by any stretch of the imagination.
Posts: 447
Threads: 36
Joined: Sep 2009
first, if you look at what i did FTFY = FIXED THAT FOR YOU...
http://www.internetslang.com/FTFY.asp
its ok you guys are really out of it though so i understand.
Second, yes i am serious, in a sarcastic way in my edit.
everyone has an ASSUMED responsibility of the developer to build "Public" infrastructure.
and IMHO the infrastructure as far as roads go are not that bad on Big Island at all.
Obviously not many of you ever drove down Ft Weaver or Nimitz or Beretania street past the board of water supply to get on the h1....or hit the dukes of hazard bump at the h1 on ramp by carls jr. (just to name a few) that is what bad road infrastructure looks like....
somehow it seems people want this place to look like socal, all gridded out nice, with sidewalks, street lamps, etc all i say to that is LOL
Posts: 820
Threads: 106
Joined: Mar 2006
808, developers are held responsible to mitigate the impact from their projects on the mainland. Why is Hawaii held to different standard, in your eyes ?
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Dan, I'm not sure what he was referring too. You can't compare what a developer pays under the current system to what a residential homeowner would pay under the new system. For all we know, the developer could also be paying less under the new system. If he was talking about what a developer would pay under the new system compared to what a residential homeowner would pay under the new system, that's also a bad comparison since we have no idea if he was comparing a homeowner's single family home to developer's retail shopping plaza.
Under Impact Fees, an individual homeowner and a developer would be paying the exact same thing per similar project. Impact fees are based on project impact not on who is conducting the project. So a $100 Impact Fee for the individual single family homeowner is also the same Impact Fee for a developer. The developer may appear to be paying more simply because they may be building 10 homes which means a total of 10 $100 fees.
Posts: 2,014
Threads: 46
Joined: Jun 2003
Maybe I'm missing something? Seems the article says the developers are responsible for a whole lot of money that hasn't been collected. Why isn't there an effort to collect what is already owed BEFORE changing the system? Or is the goal to change the system so this money isn't collected? And why not change the rules that determine how this money can be spent if the current rules make it almost impossible. I'd guess that if the developers were properly assessed these fees, then they built them into the prices people paid, so not quite accurate to hint the developers suffered any burden - they just passed it on. - or more likely just pocketed the extra.
And I personally do NOT trust the county to assess/collect impact fees in a fair/equitable manner. I was part of a discussion on the topic this evening and all agreed that impact fees would would be of little value to us other than perhaps the road that gets us to our homes. Yes, we do get police and fire, but basically no county services or infrastructure that were impacted by our building and hopefully we are entitled to something for the taxes we pay.
Impact fees may well be a good way to mitigate the impact of a development, be it commercial or multiple residential units, but I don't see them as appropriate for individually built single family housing. Given the history in the referenced article, I'd be concerned that the only fees collected would be from owner-builders and small contractors while the real developers skate.
David
Ninole Resident
Ninole Resident
Posts: 1,839
Threads: 48
Joined: May 2007
Bob,
For some reason I thought that Hoffman was comparing same kind project impact fees at a different rate for "developers" and owner/builders.
BTW, Owner/builders ARE developers. Just small Kine.
Dan
Posts: 820
Threads: 106
Joined: Mar 2006
It is my understanding that the current fair share assessment system is NOT codified into law. This is among the reasons why Judge Ibarra declared that these assessments are illegal
http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inver...ecide.html
84. County does not have statutory authority to impose a "fair share" assessment, but has statutory authority to enact impact fee ordinances pursuant to section 46-141 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended.
Waimea attorney Margaret Wille wrote this commentary urging the county to enact a impact fee ordinance.
http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inver...ou-do.html
Posts: 1,839
Threads: 48
Joined: May 2007
Good commentary. Sounds like the 50% discount applies to "affordable housing" projects.
Posts: 2,014
Threads: 46
Joined: Jun 2003
Thanks for the link. Sure didn't bolster my confidence in the county.
David
Ninole Resident
Ninole Resident
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron S
It is my understanding that the current fair share assessment system is NOT codified into law. This is among the reasons why Judge Ibarra declared that these assessments are illegal
And what is so funny about this is it was a snow job from the start. Developers agreed to the fair Share only to wait until the County came after them for the money. They would bait the County into saying it was to mitigate the affect their project had on County services and the developers would raise their hand and say you mean Impact Fee? The County was stuck dead in their tracks. This could have been resolved long ago if the County just didn't keep insisting it was legal. Isn’t this the same issue that led to Honolulu's impact fees and the states education impact fee many moons ago?
