This is a copy of our letter to the editor that was published in todays Hawaii Tribune Herald on SB2274.
This is a response to Senator Ruderman's letter to the editor on March 15th. Senator Ruderman is misleading his constituents by claiming that SB2274 is about "sustainability". Embedded within this bill is the potential for construction, roads, commercial wind geothermal alternative power plants, parking lots, buildings, and much more all under a very vague "research" category within agriculture classified lands.
Ruderman failed to mention that he accepted this proposed legislation from a nonprofit organization, who were strong supporters of his election campaign, even appearing in his campaign brochure. Our complaint to the State board of ethics was filed to bring attention to this dangerous alliance within our community. SB2274 will potentially deny the community the right to object to commercial/nonprofit development and it was authored by a nonprofit that stands to financially gain from its passage.
This tax exempt entity has been at odds with their neighbors for years. They want to expand their nonprofit operations near the pristine Kehena beach area. The majority of the community was opposed to such development. This nonprofit group applied for a special use permit for future activities that would require more infrastructure than they presently have such as roads, buildings' and parking lots. They realized they were never going to obtain a county special use permit so they drafted this legislation with attorneys to side step the variance process and deny their neighbors a right to object, all in the name of research. They couldn't get their special use permit so Senator Ruderman gave them special rewards package, SB2274.
Accepting and introducing legislation written by a 501© (3) who stands to benefit is called "direct lobbying" there are federal laws strictly prohibiting this kind of specific activities. Politicians need to know when they are being lobbied and by whom.
Isn't it the job and responsibility of a Senator to listen to his entire contingency instead of just his good friends and not pass legislation for their benefit but for the benefit of all?
Below is a letter that was forwarded to me this morning that Senator Ruderman wrote to constituents please look at the part where he says:
" Please accept my apologies – I was mistaken when I said the bill (SB2274) was for a special use permit. I had read an earlier version of the bill and not thoroughly read the latest draft. The bill has changed several times in the last few weeks."
I would like to point out that bypassing the special use permit was in the original bill that Senator Ruderman introduced not the amended versions as he claims in the quote above. So what is he talking about? Senator Ruderman's email proves that he did not even know the contents of his own legislation that he introduced.
From: "Sen. Russell Ruderman" <senruderman@capitol.hawaii.gov>
Subject: RE: clarification about contradicting statements to SB2274
Date: March 13, 2014 9:19:56 AM HST
To: <deleted by moderator>
Aloha Mr. & Mrs. <deleted by moderator>,
Please accept my apologies – I was mistaken when I said the bill was for a special use permit. I had read an earlier version of the bill and not thoroughly read the latest draft. The bill has changed several times in the last few weeks.
You are correct- this bill would be an alternative to the SUP process, not a step along the way as I had thought.
There would still be an opportunity for the community to express its opposition to the planning department after a notice is published about the new permit request.
I think it’s unlikely that Seaview would be the first such research test site, since there is so much concern in your community about it. I would guess that a non-controversial site will be the first test case.
I cannot guarantee this, of course, but surely the planning department is well aware of your concerns and will proceed with great caution.
The bill would not legalize all the activities you mention. The bill creates an application process. What is permissible in each case would be up to the Planning Department in reviewing the application to determine which activities are allowable.
Again I sincerely apologize for my error. I was not intentionally misleading anyone; I was simply incorrect about the most recently drafted form of the bill.
Thank you for writing to me with such a respectful tone, and giving me the opportunity to answer your questions. It is greatly appreciated!
Mahalo,
Senator Russell E Ruderman
Hawaii State Senate
senruderman@capitol.hawaii.gov
808-586-6890
Toll free from the Big Island (808) 974-4000 ext. 6-6890
415 S. Beretania St. Room 217
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Moderator: Please do not post contact information of private individuals without express written permission.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
quote:
This tax exempt entity has been at odds with their neighbors for years.
Would these "neighbors" be happier if all schools, farmers' markets, commercial and retail activities were concentrated in a designated area, as stipulated by the PCDP? Realize this means "drive to Hilo", a task for which the current roads are inadequate -- (Yes, Pahoa might someday have meaningful retail, but with that project contingent on the roundabout, I doubt it will happen in the current presidential term.)
quote:
"... The bill has changed several times in the last few weeks."
Translation: powerful interests are modifying the original intent of the bill in order to maintain their stranglehold on development. This already happened with HR2646; Ruderman would do well to adopt the "minimum lot size" restriction imposed by that bill. Requiring a 1-acre minimum lot size should mitigate the resistance from the 7500sf crowd (Seaview, Ainaloa, Nanavale, etc).
All this petty bickering is not going to create any "sustainability", but that clearly wasn't the point... now get in your car (you have one, right?) and drive to Hilo (with an extra 2h delay for the road construction).
quote:
"Would these "neighbors" be happier if all schools, farmers' markets, commercial and retail activities were concentrated in a designated area, as stipulated by the PCDP? Realize this means 'drive to Hilo'"
Does this mean that you would like to see ACE hardware, Wal-Mart or maybe Senator Ruderman will open up an Island Naturals across the street from Kehena beach...all for your connivance and the saving of petro? Commercial operations are meant for Pahoa town not meant for our coastal roads that are crowded enough already from 3 subdivisions, Kehena beach, S.P.A.C.E market, Kalani Honua and the school. Also, people don't seem to leave the area when the events are over. They park and hang out thereby congesting the roadways and causing other problems too numerous to name here. Pahoa town is expanding and trying to meet our insatiable needs for goods and services. If you don't want to shop at Pahoa then it is your choice to go to Hilo.
Quote:
"Translation: powerful interests are modifying the original intent of the bill in order to maintain their stranglehold on development. This already happened with HR2646; "
Actually, the amendments to this bill have been very small and very few. All of the development language in SB2274 was in the original bill admittedly authored by a nonprofit to bypass the special use permitting process on the county level to tangibly increase the value of this tax exempt entity's special interests.
Quote:
That is, we are hearing from the usual 3 or 4 "anti-ruderman people who want to attack ruderman and don't actually care about the bill one way or the other."
This is not about whether we are for or against Senator Ruderman. This is about scrutinizing a piece of legislation that was barreling its way on to the floor of the house. In case you haven't heard, SB2274 will not be heard in this session which means it is dead in the water for now.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
quote:
[our coastal roads that are crowded enough already from 3 subdivisions, Kehena beach, S.P.A.C.E market, Kalani Honua and the school.
Great, let's centralize development.
Now, when will the roads be upgraded to meet the demand?
County is way behind the infrastructure curve -- either catch up, or get out of the way.
quote:
"Now, when will the roads be upgraded to meet the demand?
County is way behind the infrastructure curve -- either catch up, or get out of the way."
Sure, why don't you go find the money to do all that. Instead of finding money to improve our schools or our septic systems let's spend the money widening 137. When you talk about the county is way behind you need to understand the financial situation this county is in. Do you really think widening 137 is a priority with all that we are facing on this island?
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
The pros vastly outweigh the cons on this bill and the cons seem to be limited to - "nimby" ism - maybe combined with I got my pie already so lets close down the bakery.
Rainyjim, the thing is dead anyhow...you're beating a dead horse. Oh excuse me, I mean a dead bill. Con's 1 Pro's O...try again.
quote:
The pros vastly outweigh the cons on this bill and the cons seem to be limited to - "nimby" ism - maybe combined with I got my pie already so lets close down the bakery.
Protecting my "backyard" is about all I can do in this democracy while my rights are being legislated away. One of them is to object to SB2274 and not wait until it becomes the county's purview. Lord knows these people have better things to do then take on another responsibility.
|
