08-03-2010, 05:15 AM
J Yoshimoto and the Low Art of No Compromise.
We’ve all heard the old axiom that politics is the art of compromise. That in order to get something you want to have to be willing to give up something. Since the days of the Roman Forum. Such subtleties are lost on the current council majority. They will likely prevail - but at a cost it seems. A very small number of amendments are contentious. Maybe 5%.
So Monday was a Big Day for the Puna Community Development Plan. After nearly two years of delay (primarily due to our then newly elected Mayor Billy Kenoi failing to nominate an Action Committee for the PCDP as required by law) the amendment process finally hit center stage at the council Planning Committee in the form of J Yoshimoto’s Bill 194.
Bill 194 contains the collected wisdom and intent of former Planning Director Chris Yuen, Council members Yoshimoto and Naeole-Beason and the back room influence of Shipman Ltd. - the largest landowner in Puna.
(I don’t really want to paint Shipman really badly. we actually agree on a lot of issues. Just not how to achieve them.)
Bill 194 contains 83 amendments. These amendments fall basically into three groups.
1. Amendments proposed by Councilwoman Emily Naeole-Beason have simple and basic practicality.
2. Amendments to simply correct typos and Hawaiian spelling are no brainers and could have and should have sailed through long ago except that.....
3. There are the amendments proposed by past Planning Director Chris Yuen. There are only 2 or three of these in contention maybe 4.
On December 18th last year, while everyone is thinking of Christmas, J Yoshimoto submited Bill 194 to the agenda. This time with 83 bits and pieces glued together as one large lumpy hunk. Emily’s amendments, typos, spelling changes and Yuen/Shipman’s stuff all attached at the hip.
I couldn’t figure out the wisdom of that moment except in the sense that if everything could be rammed though at once as a single package then Shipman’s interests would slide through on the back of Emily’s amendments and typo corrections.
I feel bad for Emily in this. If her personal amendments, all of them, were submitted to council on their own they would have nothing but near unanimous support. Support from the Action Committee, support from other council members and support from community groups such as Friends of Puna’s Future (of which I am president).
But someone convinced her, unwisely in my opinion, that her goals were tied to Shipman’s goals. That someone apparently was, is and continues to be Council Chairman J Yoshimoto.
So yesterday J’s Bill 194 had it’s moment. Shipman packed the audience with a couple rows of testimony in support. J, Emily, Onishi, Enriques, Ikeda all looked quite happy and in control.
But there was a pesky problem or two.
The Planning Commission had failed to support Bill 194 using phrases like “something stinks”. More importantly the PCDP Action Committee had submitted written testimony which, while supportive of the large mass - 95%, expressed clear qualms about four substantial changes to the plan. What they are almost doesn’t matter at this point but they tend, in the eyes of the Action Committee, to weaken the PCDP.
This created a dilemma. A dilemma only J Yoshimoto could solve. Could he? Would he?
The smart and simple thing. The thing that would exemplify the “art of compromise” would have been to allow the many parts of the bill to be separated in workable groups. Typos & Spelling, Emily’s amendments and the amendments everyone agrees upon and the few, perhaps four, that caused the community concerns. Would J compromise a bit and let 79 amendments flow forward and allow four to gain further community input?
J Yoshimoto could solve this. Could he? Would he?
He would not.
Failing to offer that simple compromise meant that the good stuff had to be passed along with the questionable stuff. A bundle. A package. Take it or leave it. No compromise.
Now the council has the votes to pass it all. It clearly has the intention to do so. It will in fact very likely happen. But not quite yet.
Brenda Ford made a motion for a public hearing in Puna in August. You could see the eyes narrow and a chill enter the room.
Ford and Yagong spoke to the issue of the questionable amendments. They spoke to the sense that something not of the community was being forced. They spoke of the “C” being missing from the PCDP, the Puna Community Development Plan. Not the Puna Special Interest Development Plan.
The call for a public hearing was cause for anger, venting, veiled insinuation and lots of frustration on the parts of Emily Naeole-Beason and Guy Enriques. Yoshimoto basically kept rather calm and quiet. Onishi looked like he wasn’t quite sure what to think. Ikeda never says much. Kelly Greenwell had left. Hoffman watched from Waimea.
Emily is not happy with a public hearing in Puna. She says she has other things to do. Like campaign. She says that a hearing will be very contentious. Lots of anger. She is angry so I guess she is right. It will ultimately be her show.
I don’t know if she will read this but I would like to say that I know of no one that is personally opposed to her amendments. It is not about her. No one is trying to undercut her. No one is trying to make her look bad. All that is happening is that the Shipman amendments need to be fully discussed and understood by the public.
Emily’s problem is that she has allowed her interests to become attached to Shipman’s. J Yoshimoto is the one who bound them tightly together. This was not done to help Emily. It was done to help Shipman.
It was done with the low art of no compromise. Its really too bad. 79 of the amendments could have sailed through. That’s 95%. 95% is an A.
The date and location of the public Hearing is yet to be announced. My guess is it will be in Keaau - Shipman territory. It will be this August. It will only be messy if Emily insists on it. I probably won’t be there. I’m likely going to be mainland with my wife and kids. Lucky me.
We’ve all heard the old axiom that politics is the art of compromise. That in order to get something you want to have to be willing to give up something. Since the days of the Roman Forum. Such subtleties are lost on the current council majority. They will likely prevail - but at a cost it seems. A very small number of amendments are contentious. Maybe 5%.
So Monday was a Big Day for the Puna Community Development Plan. After nearly two years of delay (primarily due to our then newly elected Mayor Billy Kenoi failing to nominate an Action Committee for the PCDP as required by law) the amendment process finally hit center stage at the council Planning Committee in the form of J Yoshimoto’s Bill 194.
Bill 194 contains the collected wisdom and intent of former Planning Director Chris Yuen, Council members Yoshimoto and Naeole-Beason and the back room influence of Shipman Ltd. - the largest landowner in Puna.
(I don’t really want to paint Shipman really badly. we actually agree on a lot of issues. Just not how to achieve them.)
Bill 194 contains 83 amendments. These amendments fall basically into three groups.
1. Amendments proposed by Councilwoman Emily Naeole-Beason have simple and basic practicality.
2. Amendments to simply correct typos and Hawaiian spelling are no brainers and could have and should have sailed through long ago except that.....
3. There are the amendments proposed by past Planning Director Chris Yuen. There are only 2 or three of these in contention maybe 4.
On December 18th last year, while everyone is thinking of Christmas, J Yoshimoto submited Bill 194 to the agenda. This time with 83 bits and pieces glued together as one large lumpy hunk. Emily’s amendments, typos, spelling changes and Yuen/Shipman’s stuff all attached at the hip.
I couldn’t figure out the wisdom of that moment except in the sense that if everything could be rammed though at once as a single package then Shipman’s interests would slide through on the back of Emily’s amendments and typo corrections.
I feel bad for Emily in this. If her personal amendments, all of them, were submitted to council on their own they would have nothing but near unanimous support. Support from the Action Committee, support from other council members and support from community groups such as Friends of Puna’s Future (of which I am president).
But someone convinced her, unwisely in my opinion, that her goals were tied to Shipman’s goals. That someone apparently was, is and continues to be Council Chairman J Yoshimoto.
So yesterday J’s Bill 194 had it’s moment. Shipman packed the audience with a couple rows of testimony in support. J, Emily, Onishi, Enriques, Ikeda all looked quite happy and in control.
But there was a pesky problem or two.
The Planning Commission had failed to support Bill 194 using phrases like “something stinks”. More importantly the PCDP Action Committee had submitted written testimony which, while supportive of the large mass - 95%, expressed clear qualms about four substantial changes to the plan. What they are almost doesn’t matter at this point but they tend, in the eyes of the Action Committee, to weaken the PCDP.
This created a dilemma. A dilemma only J Yoshimoto could solve. Could he? Would he?
The smart and simple thing. The thing that would exemplify the “art of compromise” would have been to allow the many parts of the bill to be separated in workable groups. Typos & Spelling, Emily’s amendments and the amendments everyone agrees upon and the few, perhaps four, that caused the community concerns. Would J compromise a bit and let 79 amendments flow forward and allow four to gain further community input?
J Yoshimoto could solve this. Could he? Would he?
He would not.
Failing to offer that simple compromise meant that the good stuff had to be passed along with the questionable stuff. A bundle. A package. Take it or leave it. No compromise.
Now the council has the votes to pass it all. It clearly has the intention to do so. It will in fact very likely happen. But not quite yet.
Brenda Ford made a motion for a public hearing in Puna in August. You could see the eyes narrow and a chill enter the room.
Ford and Yagong spoke to the issue of the questionable amendments. They spoke to the sense that something not of the community was being forced. They spoke of the “C” being missing from the PCDP, the Puna Community Development Plan. Not the Puna Special Interest Development Plan.
The call for a public hearing was cause for anger, venting, veiled insinuation and lots of frustration on the parts of Emily Naeole-Beason and Guy Enriques. Yoshimoto basically kept rather calm and quiet. Onishi looked like he wasn’t quite sure what to think. Ikeda never says much. Kelly Greenwell had left. Hoffman watched from Waimea.
Emily is not happy with a public hearing in Puna. She says she has other things to do. Like campaign. She says that a hearing will be very contentious. Lots of anger. She is angry so I guess she is right. It will ultimately be her show.
I don’t know if she will read this but I would like to say that I know of no one that is personally opposed to her amendments. It is not about her. No one is trying to undercut her. No one is trying to make her look bad. All that is happening is that the Shipman amendments need to be fully discussed and understood by the public.
Emily’s problem is that she has allowed her interests to become attached to Shipman’s. J Yoshimoto is the one who bound them tightly together. This was not done to help Emily. It was done to help Shipman.
It was done with the low art of no compromise. Its really too bad. 79 of the amendments could have sailed through. That’s 95%. 95% is an A.
The date and location of the public Hearing is yet to be announced. My guess is it will be in Keaau - Shipman territory. It will be this August. It will only be messy if Emily insists on it. I probably won’t be there. I’m likely going to be mainland with my wife and kids. Lucky me.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator