Another attempt to change the Plan

[Bob Orts]

Where does the current Council-Member stand on the Plan? Is she for or against any changes, delays, or other action to alter the plan or process?
[?] [?] [?]

[Rob Tucker]

Fact is Emily is the author(?) of a number of the pending amendments. To the best of our knowledge (and when I say "our" I mean anyone I know who worked on the PCDP) there was only one person that former Planning Director Yuen, Emily Naeole or J. Yoshimoto consulted with on amending the PCDP. That person was Bill Walter, CEO of Shipman Ltd., the largest landowner in Hawaii.

What we feel we are facing is a process where once the PCDP was passed in 2008 the largest landowner in the district was handed the luxury of a red pen to edit the plan to his liking.

That does not mean that I or many or all of us are opposed to all amendments. Not at all. But we have studied the previous 2008 amendments carefully and found them to generally weaken or disable whole sections of the PCDP.

Now at council the other day Emily made a little speech along the lines of "When the PCDP was passed in 2008 there was a lot of angry. People said "Pass it now, Amend it later". Well, now is later."

But, unless something changes the process will include review by the current Planning Director, the Action Committe and the Planning Commission. Public invited. It also means that whatever opinions are generated by the public, PD, AC or PC that the council can and ultimately may do whatever it wants. It will all be in the public eye in an election year too.

If you really want to know the position of our council member, rather than listen to me, call her up and ask (965-2712). Let us know what she says.

[Bob Orts]

Thanks Rob, I wasn't really looking for a statement from her office, but more about her words and actions.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around the "people" as in this way, and the "people" as in that way. A measure is who they elected. If a certain person was duly elected by the majority of voters and that person's position is for "this way" and not "that way", maybe the people who want "that way" are actually the minority.

I wonder if the PCDP was really the voice of the "people" or just the voice of a smaller minority?

[JerryCarr]

I was at the meeting where Emily got to hear the public indignation over the proposed amendments. She dealt with it in a somewhat more gracious way than I have seen her deal with other opposition, but she clearly did not listen to the citizens' input. (Tiffany Edwards-Hunt was still on Emily's team at the time and may have exerted some positive influence on her attitude that night.)

At the same meeting Bill Walter got up and spoke in support of some of the proposed amendments like he was just another ordinary citizen. IMHO he was utterly disingenuous because he never stated that he was the CEO of Shipman. I suppose he may have thought everybody should know who he was, but that just takes his attitude from disingenuity to arrogance, either of which is unbecoming.

The bottom line is this: The "usual suspects" are mortified at the prospect of Puna establishing a blueprint for sustainable, environmentally sound development independent of Hilo. The developers, real estate magnates, certain trade unions, Hilo commercial interests, and more than a few politicians have a vested interest in the status quo.

The proposed amendments are more than just "housekeeping." Some of them have the potential to derail key elements of the citizen formulated plan.

[Rob Tucker]

Well Bob, it will always be in the eye of the beholder I guess. By the Planning Department's count over 1,1,00 people in Puna participated in the CDP. 1,100 would be a minority of the population. All ethnic groups were involved. No one who wanted to participate was excluded.

I would suggest that 1,100 people is a good level of involvement however, Friends of Puna's Future (FoPF) has submitted language for one amendment to the PCDP itself. That amendment would require an opportunity for more participation by having the residents of each proposed village center review and comment on the village center proposals. FoPF feels that the local residents deserve this, that this amendment meets the purpose of every line of the PCDP mission statement and that more people will be extremely interested in their own neighborhood than district wide issues.

So at this time there are two sources of amendments:

One amendment from FoPF to expand citizen participation. Eighty-three amendments from J. Yoshimoto to rewrite the CDP in whole.

As I say. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

[james weatherford]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Orts

If a certain person was duly elected by the majority of voters and that person's position is for "this way" and not "that way", maybe the people who want "that way" are actually the minority.

---

Bob,

Please note Rob's numbers re people who participated in PCDP.

Moreover, based on my direct experience and discussions with other people, what has happened is that many among the majority who voted for the incumbent in 2008 and 2006 (note, this includes me in both General Elections) feel they have been betrayed. So, being elected by a majority does not mean that a majority supports the deeds of the incumbent.

James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[Blakeyboy1]

I had some time to read through the amendments today and did not find it totally discouraging but I do completely agree with James Weatherford's comments several posts back. There were some interesting word changes (some seeming pointless) but largely they seemed to change from active to passive.


-Blake
http://www.theboysgreatescape.blogspot.com/