History of the making of Puna's subdivisions

[Rob Tucker]

Damon, No one cares if it was or wasn't Oprah.

[JWFITZ]

It may be useful to study the success of the various building moratoriums successfully applied in the San Juan Islands of Washington State and even the further moratoriums in the Canadian Gulf islands. These restrictions were put in place for the same reasons that they would be valid here in Hawaii--that the current infrastructure cannot support the development occurring. Statistics of traffic, water supply, sewage, police per ca pita, hospital beds per capitation were all applied. There is law on the books successfully applied, at least for a while, that was functional in achieving this end. Of course, well backed interests circumvented the process eventually, but at least the application of law was fair--ALL building was stopped. To attempt to discourage development by the splatter method of petty regulation and permit process only discourages single, small scale landowners, and is the first thing in the PCDP that is a massive mistake, and needs to change, pronto. As I read the plan as it exists, the only thing it will stop is the young couple with a kid from getting a home.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JWFITZ

As I read the plan as it exists, the only thing it will stop is the young couple with a kid from getting a home.

---

Can you elaborate? I read the entire thing and came to a different conclusion.

[Seeb]

A permanent building moratorium is a “ taking “ and must be compensated

[JWFITZ]

Ah, so glad someone actually asked!

Full disclosure. I build for a living, and have for the last decade or so. I have done the bulk of my building in the boom areas of the W. Coast of the US, during the real estate boom period. I specialize in boats, craftsman restorations and interior remodels. This colors my opinion. I am a pirate by nature, and have no apologies for that.

Here is the main difficulty: entry level housing. For a builder, once lot prices, permits, and fees, and regulation in general, which in the building trades in most areas are frankly pretty sketchy and fly by night--become too expensive--there is simply no financial incentive to build small, or as I might say, sensible sized homes. There is certainly NO incentive to build ecologically benign homes. The profit made by a builder is on a per foot basis, and if the per foot cost is run up by loads of hoops to jump through, delays, and the rest, the only way to compensate and stay in business is by building McMansions. Large homes, or more correctly, large cheaply shoddily built homes, are proportionately less expensive to construct and generate higher revenues for the builder. There is no way around it. Stock plans, blast the lot with a bulldozer--no creativity at all--gold plated crap bath fixtures and a couple of columns out front. It's the only way you can survive as a businessman. Of course this does not address quality builds, something so far as I can see, is more or less alien to the entire state. No offense, but damn, there are some crappy houses out there!

So one can see why regulation favors the large builder. You can have a single hired goon in an office who's job is to solely caress the needed parts of local favor who need caressing, and meanwhile the finance guy is doing the same--you can hire local help as you're the only one actually building, and pay them a miserable wage, as they've no other options for hire--it's really the best situation you can engineer for bad business. Meanwhile, the ownerbuilder languishes, deals with hoop after hoop after hoop, which is a full time job here too, and generally has less cushion with which to caress. Hey, I am not making the rules up here. This is simply a de facto statement of how the industry functions and it should not be too much of a surprise to anybody. In an environment like Hawaii, where nepotism is rampant--and maybe excusably so, maybe not--you cannot kid me for a moment to think that the favors that have been so far granted will not continue. If anything, the PCDP only greases the skids, as it's restrictionary for those who, well, get restricted. Which, so far, would be most of us, and we haven't figured it out yet.

But there are ways to change that, which is why I'm engaged in the conversation.

[Bob Orts]

I still don't understand. All I see when I read the PCDP is nothing but a General Plan. A general plan like the hundreds of thousands already in existence all over the US. About the only thing that makes the PCDP unique is that the people had such a large say in the process. Normally, they are developed in some government office by government workers, bureaucrats, and paid political consultants with the occasion public input. The PCDP seems to have been developed in reverse with the people having the big say. But beyond that, I saw nothing in it that resembles what you’re saying. I know that most people are so use to a GP that is nothing but a revision of a revision, of a revision, written decades ago, so this may be a shocker when they are there from the birth. The PCDP is just a blueprint for the general direction of the district.

So, I guess I'll just be confused over the issue.

[Rob Tucker]

Jay, to a large degree the building environment your experience is based on - California coastal - is indeed an affordable housing nightmare. The primary basis for that is twofold.

The first is political. During the tenure of Ronald Reagan as governor the property taxes in California went so high that there was a tax revolt called Proposition 13. It rolled back real estate taxes in a major way. The result was that the counties were forced to raise their fees. So permits and planning efforts became, and still are, very, very, very expensive in Cal. The last house I did in Malibu had permit costs alone of $30,000. My house permit here was $325.

The second was disasters: The earthquakes in California were so expensive in repair that FEMA put forth a new criteria after the Northridge Earthquake. Instead of people surviving the earthquake events (which they did) the new requirement was for the buildings to do so (which they now do). The geologic and engineering requirements became so stringent that affordable housing in California became as extinct as the California Brown Bear. The good news is that your average pool side cabana in Cal will survive an 8.0. The bad news is it costs $250,000.

This island is slowly, slowly following the lead of the west coast as do most western states. The Big Island is not yet driven by the same forces that you experienced in SoCal. Geez, we are on the 1991 UBC. That's ancient. So you should not necessarily expect the same exact thing to occur here. This island has not had the devastating Ronald Reagan experience, earthquake or hurricane which would ratchet up the building standards. Yet. Until that time I believe we can expect things to advance at a rather leisurely pace. The PCDP is not the driving cost mechanism you suspect it to be and has no resemblance to the forces that trash affordable housing in California.

Punaweb moderator

[JWFITZ]

Then perhaps we can agree that with the same threats facing this island, and many of the same people from California and the West Coast in general moving here, with the same attitudes and same expectations--it's perhaps not that irrational to expect Puna to move in the same direction as the whole of the West Coast of the US, at some point, with a complete loss of affordable housing--unless policy is SPECIFICALLY written into the plan and code that deliberately encourages small, minimally impacting, ecologically benign, affordable development. So far to my mind that attitude doesn't exist within the plan, at least in a direct, forceful, and transparent enough manner. Perhaps this could be corrected, and as far as I can see would go a long long way to making the whole of the thing better.

Again, I agree wholly with the sentiment behind the process. I simply don't believe that the long term consequences will be that which is intended. Since we have a whole list of failed community plans up and down the West Coast to draw from to ask, "why didn't this work?" it's a little foolhardy to ignore the fact that by and large they have failed in their mission. This failure is certainly a possibility here, and we're playing games with some of the most precious land on earth, and due caution is warranted.

[Rob Tucker]

If you want to address the methods or manner of building I think you need to address the building codes not a planning document. The PCDP does discourage further substandard subdivision of land but with 40,000 empty substandard lots that seems to not be too threatening to your sense of affordability.

Hawaii moving in the regulatory direction of California is true - just very slowly. But probably inevitably.

Quite frankly the demand for grading and grubbing regulation in the PCDP is the direct result (in my opinion) of one thoughtless developer from San Diego who came here about three years ago and completely trashed his lots in Volcano and massively offended the locals.... all while flying his "I'm an environmentally friendly builder" flag.

Most regulations are a reaction to some excess.

I disagree with your description of failed community planning efforts in California. Some have failed. Many areas have been quite successful at their community planning. It's just that their sense of community planning doesn't match yours or mine necessarily. Which is why you and I are here and not there.

If the PCDP only succeeds in preventing commercial sprawl along our roadways and focuses businesses in proposed village centers then it will have been a success in my eyes.

Punaweb moderator

[Jen-ay]

I agree with you Daniel...
Keep Puna PUNA!
I have lived here for most of my life, and I didn't realize how incredibly lucky I was to be in such a beautiful place until fairly recently.
For those who have/are just moving in- please leave the mainland behind.
We LIKE it rural!