SB2274-Sustainable Living

[Guest]

snorkle quote: "I consider this a blatant misrepresentation of the bill -- it requires a "Special Use" permit, which process has successfully prevented development in Puna."

Snorkle, can you point out in SB 2274 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.

[snorkle]

Sorry sativa, I never said that. You have erred.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by snorkle

Sorry sativa, I never said that. You have erred.

---

Yes Snorkel and I apologize profusely. It was kalakoa and I am asking him the same question.

[Guest]

Kalakoa quote: "I consider this a blatant misrepresentation of the bill -- it requires a "Special Use" permit, which process has successfully prevented development in Puna."

quote:

---

Originally posted by snorkle

Sorry sativa, I never said that. You have erred.

---

Yes Snorkel and I apologize profusely. It was kalakoa and I am asking him the same question. Kalakoa, can you point out in SB 2274 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.[

[/quote]

[kalakoa]

It seems, once again, that nobody has bothered to carefully read the bill text. Here:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session201...4_SD1_.HTM

As I have probably already pointed out, it is not a "Special Use Permit" per se, however, SB2274 stipulates that:

A person desiring a sustainable living research permit shall submit an application to the planning department for the county in which the proposed sustainable living research site is located.

Basically, applicant requests permission to be exempted from various County codes; the exemptions are specific; the permit requires follow-up inspections and can be revoked for cause. Planning, the Department of Health, and other agencies are involved in the permit review process. The number of structures and occupants is defined in the permit application.

1. The worst-case "sustainable strip mall with geothermal fracking" would not realistically survive this permitting process.

2. County brought this on themselves by refusing to provide a legitimate path to these sorts of activities.

3. County could also short-circuit this process by rezoning the "agricultural" subdivisions to a more appropriate land-use (R for smaller lots, RA or FA for larger ones).

4. Belly Acres is still not compliant. SB2274 seeks to codify their existing arrangement with an enforceable agreement -- which seems like it would be an improvement over their current status.

5. People all over Puna are currently engaged in "sustainability" -- and they're able to do so because they aren't asking permission.

[kjlpahoa]

Why did the bill get rejected. The truth is that Senator Solomon, the chair of the conference committee, made the decision not to hear the bill. This was strictly bases on the large number of opposition telephone calls received. When the chips were down, the opposition finally came out in force. So much for special interest legislation. Let's do something locally that doesn't favor any particular party or group.

[kalakoa]

It does not matter why the bill failed; without meaningful regulation, we are left with the same "compliance issues" as before.

I find it particularly ironic that Belly Acres basically asked nicely for a pathway to legitimacy, only to be shot down by the very people who complain so bitterly about their "illegal" activities.

No worries -- there's always next legislative session, and maybe a nice high-profile lawsuit to tide us over -- we're so much better off arguing amongst ourselves about what constitutes "sustainable" while we wring our hands at our dependency on imported food (and the "energy industry" that transports it). Yay team!

[rainyjim]

Yay team!

[missydog1]

kalakoa,

quote:

---

I find it particularly ironic that Belly Acres basically asked nicely for a pathway to legitimacy, only to be shot down by the very people who complain so bitterly about their "illegal" activities.

---

I don't live down there and can't speak to the pros and cons for the area, but in general, isn't this after the fact "asking nicely" an example of the old "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" way of getting around rules?

There are people who are fed up with that approach in general.

It seems to me that the legitimate pathway is to apply for permission before anything is done, the way people are supposed to do it. Applying for permission after you get caught being non-compliant does not IMHO deserve a pat on the back of appreciation. It's more like pragmatism that it is time to ask for forgiveness.

I'm not commenting on the bill, only that I don't get your take on the irony. Knowingly committing violations and then relying on the County to let what is done continue on as long as an application is then filed, is a way of operating much used and over-used, and I wouldn't expect opponents of the operation to praise the righteous motivation.

[kalakoa]

It seems to me that the legitimate pathway is to apply for permission before anything is done

Paraphrased from one of the many public meetings:

SPACE: According to the PCDP, our activities should take place on property which is zoned for commercial use; we would like to see some nearby property rezoned appropriately such that we may conduct our business legitimately.

County: We encourage everyone to participate in the process, however, the answer is going to be no.

Alternate example: County was inclined to deny Pearl Bakery their required Special Use Permit; it was only granted due to a massive show of support from the surrounding community. Within a year, however, County discovered an "error" on the paperwork; Pearl gave up rather than wait for the next challenge.

Basically, Knowingly committing violations and then relying on the County to let what is done continue on as long as an application is then filed seems to be the only way anything gets done in Puna. One way to fix this problem would be to simply abolish the Special Use process entirely: if the answer is always going to be "no", why bother asking the question?

Now get in your car and drive to Hilo.