PMAR

[kalakoa]

The land surrounding Pahoa was planted to sugar, which was totally unsustainable.

The "ag lot scam" isn't sustainable either.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

HPP was never in sugar.

Thanks James. I knew most of HPP was too rocky for cane, but thought the now wild cane stalks I see growing around the subdivision were from tillable areas. But no:

Oddly enough you can see sugar cane growing here and there where some of it spilled off along the right-of-way of the old railroad.
http://www.hppoa.net/general-information...dise-park/

“There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them.”
-Joseph Brodsky

[james weatherford]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalakoa

The land surrounding Pahoa was planted to sugar, which was totally unsustainable.

The "ag lot scam" isn't sustainable either.

---

Clearly...

[geochem]

Rob,
I fully understand - it was a quick fix confidence scheme by the then county administrators to generate revenue. Unfortunately, I know of no way we can go back to penalize those administrators for the con that they perpetrated?

I'm arguing that we shouldn't compound the errors of the previous administrations by continuing to make these unsustainable subdivisions more attractive to future buyers. Prior to the most recent real estate bubble, I approached Harry Kim's administration suggesting that they invoke a strategy that has been used to preserve "open space" in parts of the Mainland. It's a concept called "transferable development rights" that would have allowed then-current owners of un-developed lots to recoup some or all of their investment in the Puna parcels (at minimal cost to the taxpayers - who, for the most part, aren't responsible for the bad decisions made by prior county administrations) while reducing the population density in those subdivisions. They blew me off - couldn't be bothered to even consider it.

I understand that a lot of people bought in Puna because the lots were/are cheaper. My response to that is: if they couldn't afford to purchase a more expensive home outside of a high lava flow hazard zone, can those same people any more afford to lose their home to a lava flow in the "less expensive" area?

And perhaps to clarify my earlier post: my point is that the needs and viability of the agricultural community (which will always represent a minority of the voters) always seem to be dismissed as irrelevant/unimportant and fall victim to desires and demands of the majority non-agricultural community.

[kalakoa]

I'm arguing that we shouldn't compound the errors of the previous administrations by continuing to make these unsustainable subdivisions more attractive to future buyers.

The subdivisions are already unsustainable.

a concept called "transferable development rights"

Great. Let me know when I can buy the empty lots around mine. I need the space.

They blew me off - couldn't be bothered to even consider it.

That's how government works here -- and I'm not snarking, I'm being realistic. Case in point: current development is unsustainable. Either refuse all new development, or double down and create the necessary infrastructure. Seriously. Pick one. Then, let everyone know what choice was made, so we can all plan accordingly.

http://punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22517

Perhaps this is already happening: proposed County Charter amendment would remove the phrase "assure the coordinated development of the county". Now, why would anyone want to remove the words "coordinated" and/or "development" from the County Charter?

[kalakoa]

if they couldn't afford to purchase a more expensive home outside of a high lava flow hazard zone, can those same people any more afford to lose their home to a lava flow in the "less expensive" area?

Interesting question. Better question: if people's homes and lives are at stake, why is County even issuing building permits in a "high lava flow hazard zone"?

the needs and viability of the agricultural community (which will always represent a minority of the voters)

I hate to keep bringing up this technicality, I really do, but it's important: why are the "private subdivisions" totally "agricultural" when necessary to waive land-use requirements, yet they're magically "residential" when considering the will of the people?

Again, yet, still: can we just stop pretending that Puna isn't a huge bedroom community? Either it's "agricultural" (and this is what we get), or it's really "residential" (and massively underserved).

[alaskyn66]

They better hurry up and figure out what they are doing.. by 2020 Punas population is estimated to be 58000 people.


..And the people bowed and prayed... to the neon God they made...

[kalakoa]

They better hurry up and figure out what they are doing..

Judging from these awesome "development" "plans", I think "they" know exactly what they are doing.

[shockwave rider]

Geochem:
"I understand that a lot of people bought in Puna because the lots were/are cheaper. My response to that is: if they couldn't afford to purchase a more expensive home outside of a high lava flow hazard zone, can those same people any more afford to lose their home to a lava flow in the "less expensive" area?"

Those expensive properties in Hilo and Kona are also on live volcanoes, so they are also at risk. Take your pick, Kilauea, Mauna Loa or Hualalai, any of them is ripe for eruption and West side eruptions move much faster and give far less warning than our relatively slow moving Pu'u O'o. No one can really afford to lose their home to a natural disaster, but people regularly suffer from tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, just to name a few. Those possible natural disasters are not used as excuses for refusing services to populations living there, why should Pu'u O'o? Puna is not going to magically turn the clock back to pre-statehood status, land is zoned for people to live on it, lots have been platted and sold, and people do and will continue to live here, all the nostalgia in the world isn't going to change that, it is time to move forward and quit letting that nostalgia hold a large underserved population hostage.

[BillyB]

"... and he also says the PMAR is unnecessary." Where does he say this? (tape time counter)
"
“A Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest” The Boxer, by Paul Simon. Or perhaps: "A man hears what he want's to here and fantasizes the rest."

The agriculture in question has nothing to do with sugar cane and it is irrelevant to agriculture referred to. These are small farmers; why are they are expendable?