Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013

[Rob Tucker]

As I recall the written report from the committee there were 212 respondents out of 8,800 property owners - which just highlights the pressing need for a third party funded study - which James and the committee opposed in testimony to the Action Committee.

[csgray]

That number isn't much less than the returns on the last survey HPP sent out, and that one involved a proposal to drastically increase the road fees. I think the large number of off island or overseas owners has more to do with the low response rate than any nefarious scheme. HPP is only about 25% built out, as long as that is the case I don't see that an outside third party will have any better return rate, but it would be really great if someone would fund a new survey.

Carol

[JerryCarr]

Rob, you don't have a real perspective on the survey or the process the committee had to go through to get information from the County Planning Department. I have said over and over again that James Weatherford did not run the HPP response to PMAR on his own. There were four other people from diverse areas and backgrounds on the committee, some of whom started with a favorable outlook toward PMAR. I find it amazing that you, who has frequently and stridently criticized the Planning Department, can't accept the fact that we encountered withheld information, misinformation, and a set of pre-determined conclusions when we started talking with Planning. We wrote our letter to the Governor only after 10-12 hours of fruitless talks with the County. It should also be noted that I, not James, wrote the letter. James did edit it, however, and he wisely advised me to tone down some of my more strident rhetoric.
As for the survey, Carol is absolutely correct when she says that everyone in HPP was asked to participate and that it is only natural for those along prospective routes to be more interested. You may minimize the response rate all you like, Rob, but at the time it was done, this was the biggest response of its sort in the history of HPP. The survey was just one part of our reasoning behind the letter, though. When I told the guy from the County that many of our people didn't trust the County to keep its promises about mitigating the negative effects PMAR would have on the HPP community, he replied, "I don't blame you." Now who in their right mind would want the County to cash that check after being told that! We eventually met with Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd and asked for a full scoping process, and she agreed. That was the "reset button" we had asked for all along. We never demanded that an alternate route proposal be abandoned.

I am not a political supporter of James Weatherford, but I can't sit by and see his very useful and moderating work on PMAR be characterized the way Rob has done. I sense a personal vendetta of some sort, and it is disturbing to me. So go ahead Rob, and ignore me once again when I tell the truth about this process. I was there, I was in charge, and I know what happened.

[james weatherford]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

third party funded study - which James and the committee opposed in testimony to the Action Committee.

---

Not.

[Rob Tucker]

James I was sitting in the room when you made your case and after the Puna Action Committee rejected your argument I also watched as you stomped out of the room muttering loudly "we've been screwed again!". You made quite an impression. Memorable.

I'm done with you until you decide to run for council again.

Goodbye.

[james weatherford]

Neither I nor anyone on the committee opposed a third party survey.

Glad to hear you are through committing libel against me.
Please be sure to stick to that.

[kalakoa]

I agree: we're screwed.

[pahoated]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalakoa

I agree: we're screwed.

---

Laughed at that longer than I should.


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