Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013

[Rob Tucker]

Correct me if I am wrong James but is it not true that you were on the PCDP Transportation Working Group which, as far as an alternate route is concerned, determined that PMAR was needed? I recall you being part of that group. I was at a number of their meetings and their conclusions are public record.

[pahoated]

Not to worry, Zendo and Greggor are on top of it. Actually, Ruderman is taking care of everything plus more. He just submitted a CIP bill for Puna and has another study of the Railroad Ave alternate route, a stop light at the Pahoa Post Office intersection, albizia control, Puna emergency medical room, wastewater treatment (plant?), remodel Pohoiki boat ramp area, a few others.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session201...SB377_.pdf


"It was a majority decision to descend into the Dark Ages. Don't worry, be happy, bang on da drum all day!"

[james weatherford]

Yes, Rob, I was one of several people on the Transportation Working Group for the PCDP.
I was also one of a smaller group, and the convener of, the Agriculture Working Group where I directed most of my energy and time.
Yes, the Transportation Working Group for the PCDP recommended an alternate route and they recommended several other things as higher priority (as can be seen from looking at the PCDP document) -- the largest concern for the group was consistently internal traffic demand.
No, Rob, (as I have told you several times here) neither I nor the rest of the HPPOA PMAR Committee took a position "for" or "against" PMAR as part of our work.
We did, and rightly so, raise questions about a process (post-PCDP) that, as presented to us by the Planning Dept., was not well thought through and did not reflect discussions during PCDP. Certainly, from my viewpoint, it is not a good idea to take the position of "any alternate route any way" -- that would be irresponsible.
The last we (the HPPOA PMAR Committee) heard from Planning Dept. was that they would be proposing starting at the beginning of the planning process and undertake scoping of needs and input from the community (using funds the County already has earmarked for that purpose). The PCDP only recommended PMAR (and that not as the highest transportation priority), and never did the focussed scoping work.

[Rob Tucker]

Interesting hair splitting James. I have a copy of the letter the HPP group (which you are part of) sent to the governor asking that the funding of $1.5 million not be released for a study and community input on PMAR.

That was in direct with the letter of the Action Committee asking for release of the funds. You can dance around it all you like byt your actions were obstructionist to the long term interest of Puna, The PCDP, and the Action Committee to fnally get a funded study of PMAR.

I am not suggesting that your letter itself was the only thing that diverted the funds. Shipman made a similar request. I am suggesting that your interested were and continue to be opposite to the interests of the Puna community in whole.

You have been consistent though in your opposition to even the study of a route through HPP. I was and remain also appalled at the way your "poll" of HPP residents was skewed and misrepresented to the Governor.

And the beat goes on. Your actions do not go away, they follow you.

[james weatherford]

quote]Originally posted by Rob Tucker


"poll" of HPP residents was skewed and misrepresented to the Governor.

[/quote]

You would have details? or is is another one of your vague and unsubstantiated attacks?

[Rob Tucker]

Details? I have the same details you and your committee produced. You surveyed about 2% of HPP residents. Of those, about 88 expressed reservations about PMAR- about 1% of HPP residents. On that basis the letter from your HPP PMAR committee told the governor that the trend in HPP was against having PMAR pass through HPP. 1% does not a trend make - unless you want to misrepresent the facts.

On top of that you focused a substantial portion of the polling on residents living along a practical route through HPP. That was funny because your group, with you as spokesman to the Action Committe, stated to the AC that you couldn't come to any conclusion until you knew the proposed route though HPP. So if you didn't know what route might be used how did you focus on residents living in a proposed route area as stated? Very funny business.

Pretty slim conclusions from your committee. Nothing slim and vague about what I have stated. It is backed up by your testimony and the written record.

Using that "survey" to support the governor not releasing $1.5 million to study the community need and support for PMAR was skewed.

For someone with a PhD to use such slim data to support a conclusion was appalling.

Have a nice day.

[bluesboy]

polls only query a small percentage of the population. statisticians have methods to quantify how accurate a poll may be. just because the poll queried a small number of people does not necessarily mean it is not representative of the population, with a certain degree of confidence.

[Rob Tucker]

Very true. But focusing a poll on an area of HPP where resistance might be assumed to be higher is another matter isn't it?

Overall it highlights the importance of an independent third party survey adequately funded to survey all stakeholders.

A small unfunded sampling by individuals with an expressed bias is of little practical value. I would not presume to do such a thing. The input from a state funded contractor on the needs, scale and or scope of an alternate route would be of high interest to everyone......

[james weatherford]

We always identified that survey as preliminary and there being a need for more indepth information. Our budget was limited to a few pages of photocopying.

We DID NOT "focus" or any way restrict the survey to any particular area -- the owners in a particular area had a higher response rate (your paranoia and eagerness to attack shows through, Rob).

I totally support a "third party" survey.

[csgray]

I remember the survey going out to all HPP residents. I know some "neighborhoods" within HPP that had high concentrations of owner occupied houses got pretty organized about reminding their neighbors to respond, while the relatively thinly populated areas with mostly off island and overseas owners had a very low response rate. That is to be expected, people who feel they will be directly affected by proposal are more likely to respond than people whose day to day lives will be unaffected. I don't think it took a grand conspiracy to have people along proposed PMAR routes have a higher response rate than those who will not be affected.

Carol