Why? (lot sizes)

[Haaheo okole puka]

It's not my problem... ordinances 56,57 and 58 were repealed. They may indeed exist on paper in a book but they were repealed at some point. Did you find when they were repealed?

[Rob Tucker]

They were in effect for decades following the subdivisions in discussion.

I only tracked the legislative history through the subdivision's creation. Any changes, amendments or repeal of code after that point in time do not retroactively change the force of code in 1959.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Okay, well I cant find the ordinance no. 58 online through the County. I would like to read it sometime and see what it actually said.

[kalakoa]

It hardly matters what laws were in effect and/or what those laws stipulated; the reality is still "no infrastructure" and "no accountability".

[kimo wires]

I like it the way it is. Built my own independent infrastructure.
Power is available. Catchment Tank, Hole in the ground.
No frills, Low bills. Now if I could just get rid of Helco...

[Haaheo okole puka]

That's what I like about Waa Waa - no umbilical cord option.

[Rob Tucker]

That is all great. Just be aware that Puna's tax dollars (millions) are being siphoned off to serve other areas. You are paying for things that you are not getting. If you are happy with that then good for you.

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

You are paying for things that you are not getting.

---

We all know this to be true, but I have yet to see anyone quantify it. A per-district breakdown of tax revenues would be a good start.

Not to restart the controversy, but: many Puna residents have an unpermitted shack on a "worthless" Ag lot and therefore pay the minimum $25/year property tax. Is it really "cheating" to avoid paying for services that will never actually be provided?

[Rob Tucker]

I can't answer your cheating question.... that is in the eye of the beholder.

There was a thorough study done by a Puna resident who tracked the flow of property tax revenues and infastructure disbursements by district over about fifty years through to 1999. The result of that study was that prior to 1960 there was a generally even distribution of county disbursements to the districts.

Following 1960 that changed and several districts (Puna notably) were steadily shortchanged in favor of Hilo.

My own read on that study is this:

In 1960 there was a tsunami which devastated the Hilo waterfront. It is likely normal in a pre FEMA way for the resources of the local government to focus on repairing the tsunami damage. Hence the flow of general funds to Hilo for the next few years seems reasonable. The problem I see is that after Hilo recovered the increased flow of general funds remained focused on Hilo for several more decades and basically continues to this day.

One study I can refer to (Level of Service 1999) was done by Bonnie Goodell and was accessible at http://www.bonniegoodell.com/ I see that the Level of Service Study link may be broken so you may need to contact that website to ask about it. I have a PDF copy as a graphic display in my computer. Email me directly with your current email address and I can send it to any of you that are interested.

[Haaheo okole puka]

So what's it going to take to get the funds redirected here, where they belong? We have lava heading down towards 130 at this moment and no alternative lower road to replace the current 130 should it be inundated. We can't even get the county to pave a short 4 mile section of road they have claimed that's used as a main thoroughfare for the lower coastal Pahoa area.