SB2274-Sustainable Living

[rainyjim]

I think you've been stuck in your own "backyard" and don't appear to have a clue about the needs of the island...

-who suggested widening 137?

-by your own admission all you "can do" is protect your "own backyard"...

-the island has a major issue with food security and any measures that could address this issue are a positive step towards sustainability - killing bills because you don't like the author and/or your neighbor will benefit from them is just selfish and shows you care only about your "own backyard".

-----

Fyi, I point out nimby issue and - beating a dead horse? ...next thing you are going on about protecting your "own backyard".

Whos beating what here?

Anyways - this is a moot point - its obvious this island is facing major issues in sustainability irregardless of our opinions and/or the fate of this specific bill.

Awesome that your vendetta against " " (neighbor) - is worth more than providing sustainability for our island.

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

who suggested widening 137?

---

I believe that would be me; the proposition is actually quite simple.

County's "plan" is to centralize all commercial development into "designated zones", while also refusing to upgrade the infrastructure in a way that facilitiates regular commute to those designated zones.

Those who seek to avoid the inadequate highway system by creating locally sustainable commerce are then harassed by Planning for their "non-compliant land-use".

NEITHER of these options is "sustainable" unless you're (a) one of the large local landowners who happens to hold commercial property, (b) a State highway worker, © an oil company.

I'll say it again: if County wants everyone to "drive to town" for everything, we're going to need wider highways and an alternate route. If, however, "sustainbility" is to be meaningful, individual communities must be allowed to create their own local commerce as meets their needs. Bill 96 would have been a good start.

[kjlpahoa]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

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.

---

I don't think so. The fact is that those who are in opposition are really afraid to speak up due to the possibility of intimidation and retaliation. It already has happened to some who oppose this bill. I just hope you are not the one or part of the few that are taking unethical approaches to discourage the opposition.

[kjlpahoa]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

Sustainability on the big island is THE ISSUE - what pray tell is more important?

"fringe" issue? - what world are YOU living in?

He answered the question - maui has interest also apparently. I see you casting aspersions at Senator Ruderman - behind a screen name - something you have done every time someone posts related to Ruderman - and once again where is the relevancy to the bill on sustainability? You are attacking ruderman - not the Bill, and FYI his responses were perfectly cordial.

---

And lets keep it on the Big Island with our own legislation amending our Building Code and the section that permits "alternative materials and construction" and were we can have good local input via local Public Hearings. FYI, I am attacking the Bill and the favoritism that it intended for. I am only criticizing Sen. Ruderman for his methodology and contradictory statements he makes in trying to justify the Bill. You should know that maybe his public responses have been cordial, but his private responses have NOT been cordial.

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

And lets keep it on the Big Island with our own legislation amending our Building Code and the section that permits "alternative materials and construction" ...

---

Waste of time and effort unless/until the State grants that authority to our County, which seems to be the intent of SB2274.

Furthermore, because the Special Use process is still required, no actual circumvention of County authority is implied -- however, this also makes SB2274 nearly meaningless, because the SUP requires unsustainable resources (and is nearly impossible to actually obtain).

It does make for good theatre, though, especially when people twist it around into things like a geothermal plant next door to your residential home. Really? Wow.

[Guest]

Kalakoa quote:

"It does make for good theatre, though, especially when people twist it around into things like a geothermal plant next door to your residential home. Really? Wow."



Good theatre? We are talking about the future here. The possibility for geothermal development exists within SB2274. Bob Petricci, president of the Puna Pona Alliance, sent out a communication, of which I received, that states:

"It is remotely possible that a geothermal developer could try to use a sustainable living site as a hoax to do geothermal research (i.e., exploratory drilling) under the guise of sustainable research, but it seems unlikely"

So what is this about? Is it about getting a bill passed at any cost? Compromising our future for the demands of a few who have figured out to get over on a process that all of us must follow as citizens of Hawai'i county. What makes these people so freaking special? I don't want communities within communities, throwing up the finger because they are protected by a "research" permit. Does that make any sense? Did anybody notice there was no sunset clause in sb2274? Better then that have you all read the bill word for word? Or compared it to the New Mexico bill HB269 that they allegedly modeled SB2274 after? If you did you would see that the two bills are nothing alike except they both mention the word "sustainable" in the title.

Be careful Big Island for what some people are asking for cause they just might get it. And then our problems begin.

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

The possibility for geothermal development exists within SB2274.

---

Did anyone notice that SB2274 still requires a Special Use permit from County?

SB2274 also stipulates a site of "greater than one acre but less than fifteen acres", which neatly precludes any development in the ticky-tack 7500sf subdivisions and HPP (a one acre lot is, by definition, not "greater than one acre").

Furthermore, SB2274 requires compliance with all State and Federal laws.

Most of the "permitted uses" granted by SB2274 are already permitted uses of Ag-zoned land.

As currently written, SB2274 does not take effect until July 2050. (Yes, probably a placeholder for a "real" date to be determined.)

Given the way County handles Special Use permits, I'm really not concerned at all that SB2274 will create a "permitted use" scenario that causes any actual problems in real life. In fact, quite the contrary: would you rather live next to a "fancy game rooster" farm, a piggery, or some hippies living in shacks and growing organic produce? (Hint: the first two are considered a permitted agricultural use, no permits required.)

That said, please continue with the outrageous suggestions; I can always use a good laugh.

[Guest]

kalakoa Quote:
"Did anyone notice that SB2274 still requires a Special Use permit from County?"



Wait a minute can you point out in SB2274 where it requires a "special use permit." I may be wrong but I could not find that specific language in the bill. It does say in the description of the bill that it exempts research sites from "certain county codes, ordinances, and rules." That is really vague.


kalakoa Quote:
"SB2274 also stipulates a site of "greater than one acre but less than fifteen acres", which neatly precludes any development in the ticky-tack 7500sf subdivisions and HPP (a one acre lot is, by definition, not "greater than one acre")."



SB2274 This bill does NOT address where/what the plot of land might be next to as being un-permissible areas to locate. My subdivision, for example, sits in between two potential research sites. In fact these two 501©3 nonprofits have already publicly disclosed that they are going to apply and one of them authored the bill. Neat trick! Again, there is no concern in SB2274 of what might be located next store to the research site.

[Guest]

kalakoa Quote:
"As currently written, SB2274 does not take effect until July 2050. (Yes, probably a placeholder for a "real" date to be determined.)"

Yes, in fact it was such a placeholder that the original bill said JULY 1, 2014. That was wishful thinking on the authors part. That had to be corrected so it was changed to 2050.

[Guest]

Kalakoa,
Are you still looking for the reference to "special use permits" in SB2274? I am waiting on the edge of my seat for you to point it out to me. The only one I've ever heard using that language is Senator Ruderman who probably hasn't read the bill or he would be using the proper words. Remember this is a law that we are talking about not a trip to the grocery store.
While you are looking for the "special use permits" wording could you also point out why it says that research sites can do commercial, commercial, commercial!!!