Posts: 450
Threads: 128
Joined: Jul 2007
Emily's response was not written by someone in the Council side of the County Hdqtrs, IMO. It wasn't RJ's voice either, and you, WAX, sound like another voice from the Executive Branch.
No one is trying to stop people from living in tents that are here and truly in a bind. People, as we all know, have been doing it for years with no problems from the county authorities (can't speak for DHHL). As I asked when I went before the council twice testifying on this bill, why was it just being done for Puna when neither Puna nor Kau have any homeless shelters whatsoever? I told the council that the bill seemed like they were just trying to get off the hook for NOT having any place for the homeless to go. Why don't they make some funds available to the subdivisions to find creative ways to help some of the homeless in our community? We could probably find ways to use some of the crumbling, foreclosed homes, FCS!
Imagine this ad in High Times magazine: Wonderful oceanview lot in Royal Gardens on the Big Island of Hawaii where you can live in a tent for up to three years!!! That's similar to some ads that ran in such magazines in the 60s, 70s and 80s, only offering other "irregular" practices as the offspring of our then-city fathers sold lots in the substandard Puna subdivisions (including the father of the local MJ-hanging judge!) Opening up Puna to the world at large "for tent-living in Paradise" would multiply beyond belief the social problems our subdivisions now have to deal with, WITH NO TAX DOLLARS to help them. And what do you think such people would start doing once they REALLY run out of resources after landing here?
Many of the cases we currently are having to deal with are destitute, often disabled (particularly mentally DA, since we have no places for them since the Reagan Administration!), some are families with numerous children and just a single female caregiver fending for themselves in a place they thought was Paradise, until it started raining! Have you seen that blonde lady with like 3 or 4 little towheads hanging onto her skirts, hitchhiking everywhere. Know where she was living? In MacKenzie Park! Don't know where she is these days.
County officials tell the subdivisions it is up to the subdivisions to enforce the rules; police can't because it is a civil complaint. Nanawale has 34 cases right now of illegal structures. So the community association has to take dues its members pay for road and property maintenance and running their facilities to pay for lawyers, over and over and over again. Because it's not just one letter, or two letters, or three letters....and that's not even getting to court yet.
In addition, there are not enough people at the county to investigate and enforce structure violation complaints already on the books! The county guy told me his office is already 4 to 5 YEARS in arrears.
Have you read the conditions in the bill? Anyone with the $$$ and savvy to meet the many conditions set in the tent bill could build a real structure! And in a lot less than 3 years! Tents like that pictured in Tiffany's blog on this issue would still be against Tent Bill 130!
Get out of your comfortable office, WAX, and start dealing with the real world. You're hiding behind Emily, who I give credit for being honest in the moment and at least learning on the job. Would that EVERYONE in our county leadership would do the same!
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Frankie, when the previous bill was introduced, nobody on the Council was really for it. The bill was essentially dead and had absolutely no chance of ever being passed. So, when the Council had a change of leadership and it was clear that some Council members stood in a minority, the votes were stacked in favor of the Huns at 3 absolutely against, 1 absolutely for, 3 don’t really want it but will vote for it just to mess with those who were absolutely against, and 2 maybe for or against. The bill may have passed simple because of the politics of the Council which would have had nothing to do with what's best for the people or county or what was or wasn't the will of the people. However, there was the possibility it would fail. If it failed, it would have been a blow to the Huns and the Councilperson who needed this bill to hopefully garner constituent support to fight off the impending recall.
So an agreement was made that a new Bill would be introduced by another council member who was originally against the bill in return for a provision to exclude all districts but Puna. With that done, it was just a matter of principals if enough council members would vote for it knowing their constituents were opposed. Odds are it was a coin toss even with the politics of the Council since it would be harder to keep it out of the other districts once passed. The Huns wanted their person to look good but there was still too much uncertainty,
So in steps the legal opinion that even if passed, it may not ever be implemented due to legal challenges. At this point you have all the elements to accomplish the objective, a Bill one Council member badly needed and a real possibility it will never be implemented. The next step is to make sure that everyone is onboard to pass it unanimously, but flawed to prevent it from ever going into effect. This is done by agreeing as a group to omit the provisions that may have helped service a legal challenge. Since they all knew about this, don’t you think someone would have mentioned it before the vote? Have you ever read Bills or resolutions by Council member Ford? She doesn’t make these types of mistakes.
Had the Bill passed 5 -4, it would be in line with what everyone was saying publicly and privately, but to have everyone who voted, say yes, that means something had to be in play on this Bill before it came up for a vote. The other Council members in the minority had to go along and vote yes or they risk the inclusion of the legal issues in the bill. Since the Bill was not supposed to ever get implemented, they didn’t have anything to gain by voting against it and risk the wrath of the Huns.
Posts: 450
Threads: 128
Joined: Jul 2007
Just FYI, I apparently was the only person to testify against the bill before the County Council. There were others who argued for the bill. fs
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
What I find amazing about this whole thing. It’s all pure rubbish to begin with.
2 years ago in the Hawaii Tribune, the building director was quoted as saying something along the following... “The council member is referencing a portion of the code pertaining to event tents, etc. We have no way of enforcing her proposed bill.”
This means that the current code does not prohibit personal use tents on personal private property. It also means the county would like people to continue thinking it has a ban on tents even though legally they don’t. It is a clever way to avoid being taken to court for civil rights violations; they can always claim the code does not apply if anyone were to challenge it. That’s the bottom line and it’s precisely why the bill did not fly. Neither the county nor the people need the bill to scare people away from living in tents or to allow living in tents; respectively. It’s a lose inference ban and works perfectly for the county as is.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Section 301:
“(a) Permits Required. No person, firm, or corporation shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair,
convert, or demolish any building or structure in the County, or cause the same to be done, without first
obtaining a separate building permit for each building or structure from the building official; provided
that one permit may be obtained for a dwelling and its accessories, such as fence, retaining wall, pool,
storage and garage structures.
EXCEPTIONS: A permit is not required for:
(1) Work excepted under section 103.
(2) Temporary buildings, platforms, and fences used during construction or for use as props
for film, television or live plays and performances.”
…
The above already allows for any given building under subsection (2) to use during construction without a permit. It’s an arbitrary qualifier to the particular use of the building and type. Could be used for materials storage, site security equipment, tools storage, cafeteria, temporary housing, etc and is common in all building codes across the U.S.
The supposed “ban” on private tents on private property falls under TEMPORARY PERMITS and NOT where such a ban would be found properly under a construction material prohibitions sections. Thus any such inference of prohibition of materials is misplaced and out of line with regard to subsections intent.
“© Temporary Permit Required. No person, firm, or corporation shall erect any tent or mobile
structure which is to be used for commercial or religious purposes, such as rallies, festivals, amusements,
and sideshows, without first obtaining a temporary permit for the tent or structure from the building
official. To secure a permit, approval must also be obtained from the chief of the fire department. A
permit for a tent or mobile structure shall be limited to a period of not more than thirty consecutive days
and may be canceled for cause by the building official or the fire department at any time before expiration
of the time stated in the permit. Upon cancellation or upon the expiration of the time stated in the permit
the structure or structures shall be promptly removed. However, the permit may be renewed when
approved by the building official. No tent of canvas, plastic, or similar material shall be used for
residence purposes.”
Nothing in the above subsection is addressing private use of tents and or a mobile structure (which is to be used for commercial or religious purposes) in the intent of the subsection subject.
Any such ban pertaining to private use would have to be placed in its own subsection and clear within its intent.
The building department director was correct when he stated that the council member was addressing a particular portion of code pertaining to event tents. This is currently in the hands of the fire marshal and has nothing to do with the building department.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
The above already allows for any given building under subsection (2) to use during construction without a permit.
No it does Not. You omitted the rest:
(4) Temporary tents or other coverings used for private family parties or for camping on approved camp grounds.
Private land is not an "approved camp grounds". If using a tent on private land for residential purposes, it would not be exempt.
No tent of canvas, plastic, or similar material shall be used for
residence purposes.
There is no confusion over what that states. No amount of twisting the words gets a person around that phrase.
You also failed to provide the legal definitions for 'structures', 'building', and 'temporary'.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Bob...
Cite one single conviction or citation for some-one camping or erecting a tent on their own private land for personal use.
JUST ONE... please.
Infact... cite one anywhere within the United States.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Cite one conviction or citation in Hawaii, or for that matter anywhere in the U.S. for possession of an unregistered nuclear weapon. Just because no case exist doesn’t mean it's not illegal. Geez!
According tot he Planning Dept, the emphasis in enforcement is not to issue summons, citations, or complaints. The emphasis is to remedy the violation. In the majority of cases where complaints are received and inspectors go out, the offenders cease the violation (mostly claiming ignorance) and that is what the Planning Dept wants. If it's a question of illegal squatting, that's turned over to law enforcement as it's not within the enforcement powers of the Inspectors. (FYI, these are administrative violations not a court case unless the violator does not respond or ignores the violations, so it does not show up as a “tent violation” but a failure to obey an administrative determination)
You really need to understand how laws, regulations, and codes are structured. Looking at single phrases without examining the entire picture and associated regulations leads to wild goose chases. The key word in this issue is residence purposes. It's not illegal to camp out in a tent; otherwise you wouldn’t be able to have the girl scouts over for a backyard campout. Nowhere in what is being cited does that exemption mentioned, but it is mentioned in another section that has nothing to do with zoning, buildings, or tents, but it's there! Unless you read all the other sections and cross referenced them, you’re not getting the full picture of Hawaii’s regulations. So grab the codes and read all of it from A-Z as it pertains to this issue. As of right now, it is a violation to use a tent (note, some tents are permitted as buildings and structures so it’s not absolutely every tent) for unpermitted residential purposes
And frankly, who cares what goes on in rest of the US, this is Local Hawaii County Regulations! New York traffic rules don't apply to Hawaii County. Florida business license regulations don't apply to Hawaii County. Colorado land zoning has no bearing on Hawaii County zoning. Idaho's building permit regulations means nothing in Hawaii County. This is about Hawaii County regulations.
|
