Hawaiian Acres Issues

[birchl]

laurie - 'several lot owners' would be gross exaggeration.i believe it took four. (and two of those were married)

#10048;

[kalakoa]

To sue the entire subdivision would mean each owner must be sued.

Yet an easement through the entire subdivision can be granted by a handful of owners...

[cfscott]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie

Good try Wolverine2! And I so enjoy your humor! My understanding of how the PEAR is maintained, cfscott, is that the county has assumed maintenance & liability thru having an easement agreement with several lotowners. This includes signage at each intersection from the top of 8 Rd to F Rd, over to 9 Rd and into Ainaloa subdivision. No signage would be provided for anywhere else in the Acres, so sorry, but 10 & C rd intersection will not be a county maintained intersection. When a sign goes missing, the public works dept is to be notified and the county will replace it.

---

Thanks Laurie, I checked it out and sent in a request, so we'll see what the county says. Whether enforced or not, signage at some of the blind intersections near pavement (like B Rd turning onto 9 Rd) would be useful, simply because people are moving a lot faster on paved areas than gravel. (All of this is my opinion. HARC hasn't made a definitive decision on sign placement at the moment.)

[Laurie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by birchl

laurie - 'several lot owners' would be gross exaggeration.i believe it took four. (and two of those were married)

#10048;

---

I sense discomfort on this issue from you. I have a way different viewpoint of the PEAR. The easement agreement was necessary and worked to our subdivision’s benefit as 8 rd was deteriorating beyond our community's ability to repair it. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter how many or who signed the easement agreement. It especially doesn’t matter if the folks were related, as this couple owned 2 lots. At least 6-8 lots were "represented". Is it your opinion that the PEAR should not have been created, or is it just the "how it was done" that riles you?

[Laurie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalakoa

To sue the entire subdivision would mean each owner must be sued.

Yet an easement through the entire subdivision can be granted by a handful of owners...

---

Yes, to Hawaiian Acres benefit. You also seem uncomfortable with the PEAR if this technicality bothers you. Were you around when 8 Rd was getting really bad before the PEAR was created?

[kalakoa]

You also seem uncomfortable with the PEAR if this technicality bothers you.

I'm "uncomfortable" with the way County fails to maintain PEAR as required by the terms of their easement. Perhaps the pavement meets some "minimum standard"?

[birchl]

its the 'how it was done' bit as far as my research goes at the moment, there appears to have been a lot of misdirection involved and very little input or information given to or sought from the actual community. how were 6-8 lots represented? and were any of those actually affected by the agreement? was it actually even their property they were backing on to what is now a major thoroughfare? which is all by the by, and in the past, except that it sets a precedent for the future? what about the development plans? when they decide to turn road one into a highway, and f road? will those owners have any say? how much right does the county have to 'eminent domain'? what are our rights? how do we find those things out? the association exists to further the best interest of the acres. i would have thought that would require input of some kind from the people involved in changes. from all i can gather that did not happen. if it did not happen then, how do we insure that the same will not occur tomorrow? as i understand it, 8 road had serious issues, but did the turning of it into a bypass resolve or worsen them? did the splitting of the estate into two help us or harm us? are our children safer or in more danger? i think that the current limited sight, excessive traffic, and constant spending is going to result in someones death. probably a cyclist. just my two cents. ps. i live on f so i have a vested interest in the proceedings.


#10048;

[cfscott]

quote:

---

Originally posted by birchl

its the 'how it was done' bit as far as my research goes at the moment, there appears to have been a lot of misdirection involved and very little input or information given to or sought from the actual community. how were 6-8 lots represented? and were any of those actually affected by the agreement? was it actually even their property they were backing on to what is now a major thoroughfare? which is all by the by, and in the past, except that it sets a precedent for the future? what about the development plans? when they decide to turn road one into a highway, and f road? will those owners have any say? how much right does the county have to 'eminent domain'? what are our rights? how do we find those things out? the association exists to further the best interest of the acres. i would have thought that would require input of some kind from the people involved in changes. from all i can gather that did not happen. if it did not happen then, how do we insure that the same will not occur tomorrow? as i understand it, 8 road had serious issues, but did the turning of it into a bypass resolve or worsen them? did the splitting of the estate into two help us or harm us? are our children safer or in more danger? i think that the current limited sight, excessive traffic, and constant spending is going to result in someones death. probably a cyclist. just my two cents. ps. i live on f so i have a vested interest in the proceedings.


#10048;

---

While these won't answer all your questions, it might answer some. Under the heading Road 8 http://www.hawaiianacresroads.org/ongoing-legal/. Should be documents saying who signed the easement over, etc.

[Laurie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by birchl

its the 'how it was done' bit as far as my research goes at the moment, there appears to have been a lot of misdirection involved and very little input or information given to or sought from the actual community. how were 6-8 lots represented? and were any of those actually affected by the agreement? was it actually even their property they were backing on to what is now a major thoroughfare? which is all by the by, and in the past, except that it sets a precedent for the future? what about the development plans? when they decide to turn road one into a highway, and f road? will those owners have any say? how much right does the county have to 'eminent domain'? what are our rights? how do we find those things out? the association exists to further the best interest of the acres. i would have thought that would require input of some kind from the people involved in changes. from all i can gather that did not happen. if it did not happen then, how do we insure that the same will not occur tomorrow? as i understand it, 8 road had serious issues, but did the turning of it into a bypass resolve or worsen them? did the splitting of the estate into two help us or harm us? are our children safer or in more danger? i think that the current limited sight, excessive traffic, and constant spending is going to result in someones death. probably a cyclist. just my two cents. ps. i live on f so i have a vested interest in the proceedings.


#10048;

---

There was info and notification way back in the day when the PEAR was being considered and developed. Very very few were against this improvement to the road. Signage for speeding needs inprovement, agreed. What do you mean "divide the estate in two"? The road was aleady there, it did not keep neighbors from continuing to be neighbors, or part of the Acres no longer part of the subdivision.

[Laurie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalakoa

You also seem uncomfortable with the PEAR if this technicality bothers you.

I'm "uncomfortable" with the way County fails to maintain PEAR as required by the terms of their easement. Perhaps the pavement meets some "minimum standard"?

---

I do not agree that the county has not maintained the PEAR. The agreement was for the county to take full liability & maintenance, not use herbicides, provide signage at the intersections. HARC was to organize annual or semi-annual weed-eating of the corners and around poles. I have never seen the mention of street lights or bike paths in the agreement. The county regularly fills potholes, mows and does not use herbicides. Lotowners are still the owners of it. Sounds like a deal to many of us! I do agree that the signage needs improvement at this time.