09-07-2016, 01:26 PM
Is there an answer to KJ's question in there??? Translation anyone?
|
County offer?
|
09-07-2016, 03:54 PM
Why not offer relocation buyouts
AGAIN: if a "buyout" were reallly the desired effect, simply grant all the lots "near PGV" an upzone to ML and/or C. County can do this on their own authority with blanket SUP approvals, no need to get State LUC permission to move the Urban land-use boundary. should we take this low and outdated offer from the county of $137,000 Assuming C zoning gives you a nominal 3x value increase, you'd probably just upgrade to some nicer digs, probably with R zoning, piped water, etc.... I would.
09-07-2016, 04:50 PM
Aloha ahiahi, all. Gypsy, please do what is best for you and your ohana. Perhaps when you weigh both good and bad of your location, the list will enable you to make a sound decision. Wishing you the best.
Just an observation, this relocation criteria has changed since the initial intent (and, BTW, Yagong was actually the one who pushed the recent changes when he ran for Mayor, not Kenoi...from Yagong's mouth to my ear, so not rumor. He had his own agenda, FWIW.). The "value" is all relative. If the County continues to alter the conditions of the "buyout", there will never be a clear process for those who purchased property before, or after the geothermal plant was developed. For the relocation fund to be continually utilized for political gain is quite offensive, especially when the State is ulitimately responsible for any geothermal development. Where do the royalities go that the State collects? Are they helping to relocate residents who want out? Oh, and don't hold your breath on any health study results. Between the active volcano we live on, and the purported "poisoning" from the PGV plant, there is little to be gleaned from any "report". One side claims the Board of Health/EPA is in charge (State/Federal level), the other side claims everyone is "one the take", etc. So, we are no further ahead today than thirty (30) years ago. Meanwhile, "HELL-CO", the State allowed monopoly, continues to charge us all exorbitant fees for being a customer, with NOTHING going towards a "relocation fund" to speak of. SMH. County offer? How about offering us all a better plan for our keiki and mo'opuna, which includes safe geothermal development, sans the political hype, and "fracking" BS! SMH. JMO.
09-07-2016, 04:52 PM
quote: My property tax is not so bad, and there's a limitation measure that keeps it from going up more than 3%. And your kid brother is getting screwed at that rate - but I'll bet he loves the "up and coming" Whit with all those breweries. In normal parts of town, he'd be in a 4 bedroom place. But all that isn't going to keep us from moving to Big Island - need to be near family. ...we are everywhere...
...we are everywhere...
09-08-2016, 05:54 PM
I gave up reading this thread a little while ago, but something stuck in my head and a recent post resurrected that thought. My apologies if this was discussed earlier in the thread, please point me to the posts I missed if this is the case.
The very first post in this thread says, on 06/10/2016: "We just received a letter from a local realtor saying The county has offered to buy our house. This proposed buyout from the county is part of the geothermal relocation process. The letter or contract does not give us very much time to decide to accept or reject the offer(June 30th 2015). If we reject or simply do not reply by that date then we are automatically dropped from the relocation list with no other counter offers." I'm being kind and assuming Gypsy made a typo and meant June 30th 2016. On 09/07/2016, Gypsy states: "We are currently considering or exploring the other options while the county offer stands." Could someone explain the discrepancy in the dates? Edited to fix grammar and add bolding.
09-08-2016, 06:53 PM
I gave up reading this thread a little while ago, but something stuck in my head and a recent post resurrected that thought. My apologies if this was discussed earlier in the thread, please point me to the posts I missed them if this is the case.
The very first post in this thread says, on 06/10/2016: "We just received a letter from a local realtor saying The county has offered to buy our house. This proposed buyout from the county is part of the geothermal relocation process. The letter or contract does not give us very much time to decide to accept or reject the offer(June 30th 2015). If we reject or simply do not reply by that date then we are automatically dropped from the relocation list with no other counter offers." I'm assuming Gypsy made a typo and meant June 30th 2016. On 09/07/2016, Gypsy states: "We are currently considering or exploring the other options while the county offer stands." Could someone explain the discrepancy in the dates? A: Get a life TomK.
09-08-2016, 07:34 PM
quote: Gypsy is full of it.
09-09-2016, 12:26 AM
"I'm being kind and assuming Gypsy made a typo and meant June 30th 2016."
It was a mistake by Clark Realty, I sent an email and they confirmed that.
09-09-2016, 03:14 AM
Could someone explain the discrepancy in the dates?
Sometimes it's more important to complain about the problem than it is to fix the problem; other times, complaints are all you can afford. 
09-09-2016, 04:20 AM
other times, complaints are all you can afford.
Funding a dysfunctional county government: Your bi-annual real estate taxes Funding a dysfunctional state government: Income, excise, and other taxes. Complaining about what you get for your dollar: Priceless (and after paying those taxes, all you can afford) “We’ve got to be as clear-headed about human beings as possible, because we are still each other’s only hope,” James Baldwin to Margaret Mead in the book A Rap On Race
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)