Posts: 24
Threads: 9
Joined: Feb 2012
you know by letting the building code stand as is or changing it wont help the trueness of how rich our islands are.. think back when traditional buildings were thatched,and people would come together and build and shore up buildings .by having building codes that dont reflect the history of our past and the promise of the future generations being able to rebuild in the ways as they once did.. we will loose our true sense of self and the things that make all of the big island so very special.. we all as kanaka(humans) have a choice we can remember our past and walk thru the door of the future with open eyes to help and preserve or we can just forget about the rich cultural history of where we live and just close our eyes and bulldoze it all.. and in my eyes that what bill 270 does. it closes our cultural eyes and only sees profit.. i shall not stand for that.. and i hope you wont either and you'll help me design something that take more cultural understanding and can be a help to the people a resource instead of a reason for such high tension
IKE PAYNE
IKE PAYNE
Posts: 1,955
Threads: 100
Joined: Aug 2005
the states version has an appendix X, which covers traditional thatched construction. its klugy but its there
Posts: 24
Threads: 9
Joined: Feb 2012
maybe so but that has less to do with bill 270 and the big island and more about the state
IKE PAYNE
IKE PAYNE
Posts: 1,955
Threads: 100
Joined: Aug 2005
The state code is what their amending and adopting and if the county doesn't adopt something by the deadline we get the states version by default
Posts: 1,955
Threads: 100
Joined: Aug 2005
There should be an FAQ or a Puna Wikipedia ( Punapedia ?) for some of these issues that have been going on for years
Posts: 24
Threads: 9
Joined: Feb 2012
i agree. and there needs to be a commmuinty vetting so we can get all our issues on the baord so we can handle them and look at the reality of them before our rights get taken away from us as of what there doing with this bill and others like it
IKE PAYNE
IKE PAYNE
Posts: 10
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
What???? What!!!! "During the recess they were discussing bill 270" That is a blantant violation of the Sunshine Law.
So they can break the law and in the same act criminalize subsistance housing.
I thought I smelled a rat when they came back and slickly called the question and voted slam bam and passed the bill.
Up yours, "you the people", listening to the peons is too tiring. Reading what you are voting on is too tiring.
It's time for Fred and his handlers to get some alone time to rest.
I am embarrassed I ever voted for that bum.
Posts: 10
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
I was refering to James Weatherford's post of 2/12/12 when I posted the above
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
niele,
To clarify, the discussion of Bill 270 was not during the recess.
The recess was during the meeting that Bill 270 was being discussed.
The two Council members sitting next to each other were not engaged in any type of discussion.
Posts: 631
Threads: 53
Joined: Oct 2006
To clarify about the Sunshine Law: Two can discuss, but not three or more, outside of a meeting. And the discussions cannot be sequential: you can't discuss with one other person and then, later, with a third person. So even if the two persons referred to above were in recess and discussing an agendized item, that's allowed. As long as they don't take it any further.
