Land use and zoning reform in Puna

[Rob Tucker]

???

[JWFITZ]

Surely we don't want to go there, and it would be best to keep things constructive and on topic.

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/

[james weatherford]

First, some comments, then back to the topic:

As for population projections based on number of lots, it should be recognized that several people own more than one lot. While that will reduce the population projection derived from the basic calculation, there is still potential for a very large population growth.
What impact will leaner economic times on Continental USA have on this population growth? If we look around now, do we see people moving to Puna because the economy on ConUSA is good or because it is bad?

As Rob does, it is an honest assessment to say that planning for Puna has amounted to “drive to Hilo”. From my viewpoint, that is not a good plan.

As J proposes, it is also good to ask questions about assumptions about important matters such as energy prices and employment conditions. Notably, these have not been included in past planning. Like Rob said, PCDP is the best that’s been done, even with the absence of these questions.

Bob,
Any plan must not be seen as static, but rather a dynamic activity.

J,
You said, “Doing nothing can be a very fine investment strategy. One of the best really, and how fortunes are made. Hawaii has a chance to get a piece of that action if we clear our minds and look solidly at the future.”
It would be my view that looking at the future IS a key part of planning.
Could you please cite one or two examples where doing nothing has proven to be a good investment strategy? Note: making a conscious decision to wait to do something is not the same as doing nothing.

Now, back on topic: What are the problems? (Then we’ll have to start there to find solutions).
According to posts so far, the problem could be: no planning, too much planning, wrong kind of planning, wrong people doing the planning, or not following the plan.
Looks like we’ve got some work to do here yet.


James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[JWFITZ]

Define what we're planning for: then let's plan. Maybe have a half assed reason for what anyone projects. I'm reasonable, and I'll listen. You don't have to agree with me, in spite of the fact there's a lot of data there. You just have something beyond "it's always going to be the same, all the time, forever." The whole "just don't want to hear it" retort is tired and only has a year or two left of steam in it. Rob can quote this one.

Let's quantify, reach consensus within sensible parameters, allowing for error-- then plan. How radical is that?

Rotten deal, getting the conversation dragged kicking and screaming into the realm of quantifiables.

I haven't ever represented myself as diplomatic, only constructive.

Oh, and yes, I will cite example of where doing nothing is a great strategy, but frankly, I must cook dinner, and allow for pressing issues.

You must understand doing "nothing" might be more properly phrased "I don't understand, and I choose to hold position" which is commonly understood among either elite investors or sailors. . .

James, you're the economist, hardly you can disagree.

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/

[DanielP]

What do we plan for? Population growth. Moving people,goods and services efficently and safely.

Sometimes I go to Kona to dive and will watch the am news cams showing the traffic on Oahu. Who'dofthought? And how could Puna possibly grow that size?

Baby boomers bringing their retirement nesteggs to spend in Paradise where you can buy 2 acres for $15K and build your little shack to retire in, for one.

[JWFITZ]

You tell me.

I've my idea, what's yours?

Whoops, sorry Dan. I read your post to quickly. Edited.

No, I politely disagree. 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.

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/

[DanielP]

James,

In my opinion, the number one priority is traffic circulation. That is where it has to start, and I hope that you have a broader vision than roundabouts for a solution. The rest follows.

While working for a client one day, I stopped to admire his beautiful garden. Since I had just bought a new homesite, I asked "How do you go about building such a beautiful garden?" He replied "First you layout the paths".

Dan

[Kelena]

What a gorgeous metaphor, Dan. "First you lay out the paths". It has always been a bit of a conundrum, that. In California, the 2 lane highway begat the 4 lane highway begat the monstrous 8 lane highway.

As someone upthread said, Pele is the greatest limiter on growth in Puna. I have a greater understanding for that than I did before. And that is where planning should start. Puna should be mostly agricultural and everything should be done to encourage that. We have the water, we have the warmth and we have the space. But that requires that Hawaii begin to think in terms of what it can do to become self-sustaining. There should hysteria when the state is down to its last milk producing farm, for example. Linda Lingle should get the vapors and have to lie on the reclining couch to think that we are importing tomatoes, papayas, avocados and pineapples for crissakes. Puna can produce three of the foregoing well. The tax structure should encourage such endeavors and discourage single family residences that are not associated with at least small scale farming. I, for example, should get a huge tax break if I produce a few tons of fruit and vegetables on my property, or something else of importance to the state, that reduces its reliance on imports, which I find comical and odious at the same time.

[JWFITZ]

Good thinking Glen.

Why is this the case?

Part of the reason is that agriculture must compete either with issues of 1) cost, per acre 2) cost, per compliance 3) cost per taxation-- with residential construction. Agriculture is a high investment, low return business that's good for the community. Building is a low investment, high return, business that's bad for the community.

Why? Why do we have the state of affairs which we do?

Who writes the laws and designs the plans?

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/

[Rob Tucker]

The district has not been zoned for meaningful agriculture. It has been zoned to sell one acre lots for retirees to build shacks.

You are now back to zoning where the topic started.

Why we have the state of affairs we do was given explanation above.... so the large landowners could make some easy money with minimum investment.

Who writes that laws and designs the plans? As stated earlier the history has been the large land owners do so and continue to do so....

With SimCity you can start with a blank page and play with planning. In Puna you have to start with what we have now the way it is.