Posts: 2,980
Threads: 177
Joined: Aug 2006
I agree with Bob that there are two problems and both must be addressed. There is an immediate problem with the tour bus unloading people on the pond (and then, the people unloading around the pond). And there is a long range problem with the cesspools that surround the pond.
You certainly can't blame a guy for trying to make a buck, but the pond simply cannot sustain a busload of visitors. It's nothing personal, but one tour operator's gain is the public's loss.
On one visit to the pond, there was a surprising large group of people floating above, and a very large group of turtles swimming below. I was observing some turtles from about 50 feet away, when a woman cried out, "There's another one! He's right next to you, behind a rock!". She loudly thrashed her way over toward me, and toward the turtle I hadn't seen, underwater camera in hand. She got within just a couple of feet from him before he went sailing off. I reflected on how much things had changed, just in the short space of time that I have been coming to Puna.
Sadly, all of these hotponds are becoming burdened. Staph and bacteria everywhere. Some real health issues.
I say roll the rocks back until we have a plan. In the meantime, we can access the pond by walking from the gate. Or give the pond a rest.
As for the cesspools, I like the idea of them being phased out on sale of the property. In HPP, no cesspools are permitted makai of Fifth Street....more than half a mile away from the ocean. And you cannot swim in the ocean off of HPP (at least not for long). Why the difference?
The residents are understandably miffed by the busloads of people who love nature so much they could just squeeze it to death. Some people simply do not have a reverence for the pond. They scream, they thrash, they yell, they leave fetid calling cards.
But the properties near the pond also contribute foul stuff in a slower and more insidious way.
I suppose an omnibus solution would be to permit only Europeans to visit the pond. Europeans don't trash their own natural treasures (or those of others). But an Yves and Marie only rule is unlikely to pass legal muster.
In the meantime, 1) Ask the tour company politely to cease and desist (I'm not going to wait for you: Tour company -- cease and desist!, 2) Block the road, and 3) Contact our representative-creatures about zoning away the cesspools.
Our, perhaps Pele has something else in mind.
Posts: 341
Threads: 64
Joined: Oct 2007
quote:
As for the cesspools, I like the idea of them being phased out on sale of the property. In HPP, no cesspools are permitted makai of Fifth Street....more than half a mile away from the ocean. And you cannot swim in the ocean off of HPP (at least not for long). Why the difference?
The phase out method is very viable - it works. The Russian River Area in N.CA. is a good example. If everyone has to upgrade upon transfer of property it has negative impact on property values.
Why can't you swim in the ocean off HPP?
Joey "O"
Posts: 315
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2003
I have been renting a vacation rental in Beachlots every year for the past 5 years. I had hiked to Champagne Pond before renting there. We used to spend each morning of the vacation by getting up and walking over to the pond and swimming with 30-50 turtles. Last year there were some mornings when you could only find one or two. Very sad. Even in Waiopae (sp?) there are not half as many fish as I swam with on my first visit over 10 yrs ago.
Forget Champagne Pond on weekends. As mentioned, there are groups camping right on the edge of the pond throwing trash into it and chasing turtles around. OK, maybe they are not intentionally throwing the trash but they are not being careful about putting it up where it will not blow around.
I am pretty mixed on how I feel about the gate at Beachlots. Aren't the roads paid for by the residents? If so, I think it is OK to keep others off the road as long as there is easy shoreline access. If they are county maintained then there shouldn't be a gate.
About two years ago I stayed there and someone vandalized the guardshack with a lot of anti-haole/gate stuff. Just wanted to mention that that does nothing for your cause.
I am shocked that they are allowed to have cesspools. Kind of freaks me out thinking about the possible seepage into the pond behind the house we rent.
Atlanta/Pahoa
Atlanta/Pahoa
quote:
Why can't you swim in the ocean off HPP?
No reef protection, rough water?
People have even died standing on the cliffs above the ocean there, hit by rogue waves, a couple died this year.
I was struck by this comment from Glen"
quote:
The residents are understandably miffed by the busloads of people who love nature so much they could just squeeze it to death. Some people simply do not have a reverence for the pond. They scream, they thrash, they yell, they leave fetid calling cards.
the last time I swam there, the people renting vacation houses near the back were just like that. Kids screaming and thrashing, mom's yacking and not supervising. It was not peaceful, and I haven't had a yen to swim there since.
Point being, clueless visitors come and rent there as well as coming by bus. Your story about the woman pursuing the honu -- arghh, unbelievable.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Regarding cesspools - No phase out. If they are a negative contributing factor why are they getting a special break? If that's the case, I assume it's equally alright for the person who was peeing and pooping in the pond long before anyone had any concerns because their peeing and pooping started before some selected date in time. Sounds stupid when put that way but isn't that what's being said? I'm sure nobody is saying that they have a right to pollute and destroy a natural area because their pollution and destruction is grandfathered.
Posts: 2,980
Threads: 177
Joined: Aug 2006
Joey,
The ocean off of HPP is a great place to commit suicide. It is about a 29 foot drop to the waves, unless the wave comes up to greet you, which they sometimes do. There is no place to "haul out". Perhaps if you were on a boat out there, you could take a dip, but that there is some spooky water.
Posts: 341
Threads: 64
Joined: Oct 2007
quote:
Regarding cesspools - No phase out. If they are a negative contributing factor why are they getting a special break? If that's the case, I assume it's equally alright for the person who was peeing and pooping in the pond long before anyone had any concerns because their peeing and pooping started before some selected date in time. Sounds stupid when put that way but isn't that what's being said? I'm sure nobody is saying that they have a right to pollute and destroy a natural area because their pollution and destruction is grandfathered.
No! That is not what I meant.
The area I am speaking of has been dealing with cesspools for a very, very long time. If there is ANY indication of pollution from ANY type of waste diposal system - cesspool or septic - the property is condemmed/redflagged until the system is upgraded if a cesspool or repaired properly if septic. The county goes even beyond that if the failed system does not meet the CURRENT setback requirements and the property does not have adequate square footage for a proper leach field for CURRENT standards - the property is condemmed/redflagged. Yes - it would be better to force EVERYONE to comply at ONCE - instead of waiting for a failure or indication of under performance - but the lawsuits would stop the process cold. The government needs a verifiable reason - TESTS, ETC. - before they can condemn someones HOME leaving them with a worthless piece of S--T property.
Joey "O"
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
quote:
...
The area I am speaking of has been dealing with cesspools for a very, very long time. If there is ANY indication of pollution from ANY type of waste diposal system - cesspool or septic - the property is condemmed/redflagged until the system is upgraded if a cesspool or repaired properly if septic. The county goes even beyond that if the failed system does not meet the CURRENT setback requirements and the property does not have adequate square footage for a proper leach field for CURRENT standards - the property is condemmed/redflagged. Yes - it would be better to force EVERYONE to comply at ONCE - instead of waiting for a failure or indication of under performance - but the lawsuits would stop the process cold. The government needs a verifiable reason - TESTS, ETC. - before they can condemn someones HOME leaving them with a worthless piece of S--T property.
Joey "O"
Not only have I not seen someone's exisiting cesspool redtagged but currently the county gave a go-ahead that they allowed a variance on the setback in order to met the minimum buildable space and wastewater area.
So although I agree with your thought in theory, it isn't the practice. I truly believe that it starts with the closest to ocean the most often - i.e. cesspools, and move from there outward.
How can someone who is paying 1/2 mil or more for a property not be able to budget in another $6-8K for a septic or $10K for the aerobic system. If this was a $50K property, then maybe and it represented an increase of 20%, but really folks... a cost of 2% to be heading in the right direction?
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 145
Joined: Apr 2005
Berkeley CA, OK no laughing, has a solution for helping homeowners go solar, a 20 year plan that lives with the property even if it changes hands!!
It is a nifty idea and could be used for the potty problem fringing the Champagne ponds in Kapoho, or elsewhere. Where there is the will there is the way!
Condensed for PW.
Berkeley is set to become the first city in the nation to help thousands of its residents generate solar power without having to put money up front - attempting to surmount one of the biggest hurdles for people who don't have enough cash to go green.
The City Council will vote Nov. 6 on a plan for the city to finance the cost of solar panels for property owners who agree to pay it back with a 20-year assessment on their property. Over two decades, the taxes would be the same or less than what property owners would save on their electric bills, officials say.
A property owner would hire a city-approved solar installer, who would determine the best solar system for the property, depending on energy use. Most residential solar panel systems in the city cost from $15,000 to $20,000.
The city would pay the contractor for the system and its installation, minus any applicable state and federal rebates, and would add an assessment to the property owner's tax bill to pay for the system.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...IT0DQO.DTL
mella l
Edited by - mella l on 10/31/2007 16:24:47
mella l
Art and Science
bytheSEA
|
