hunterbishop.com

Yes, the "Developers, the construction industry, labor unions, the Chamber of Commerce and Puna's largest private landowner, W.H. Shipman Co." may have a problem with the PCDP.

Whatever.

The message to anyone who tries to derail it:

you have never encountered the sort of problems you're gonna see

I got an email from Tiffany Edwards Hunt assuring me that Councilwoman Naeole supports adopting the Puna CDP as law. (Tiffany is very good about responding to constituents, by the way.) That is reassuring, but if powerful economic interests are lining up against it, we could still lose. All the special interests Hunter sees lining up against the CDP are being worse than disingenuous if they say it is bad for Puna when what it really does is curtail some of their damaging practices. The fact that many, if not most, of these parties are based outside Puna adds to my disgust. Am I being too harsh when I think they are telling us, "Just be good boys and girls and let us do what we have been doing all along in your community, despite the obviously destructive effects?"

Apparently it is time to lobby other Councilpersons and mayoral wannabees to assure that Puna gets to determine its own future path. Ms. Naeole's support is very important, but we probably need more. We should also encourage her not to waver under what may be formidable pressure.

There are powerful people out there who would like Puna to remain a bedroom community for Hilo and a market for Hilo-based businesses. The continuation of such a situation will result in more traffic, more expensive gasoline use, more pollution, more pin to pin bulldozing, no economic opportunity, and outside control or our quality life. What a deal!

Hilo sucks. They control everything. Dare not vote for wolves in sheep's clothing. Woooooooooooooooooooo Wooooooooooooooo Billy... The Kalapana Wolf in sheep's clothing. All he would do is favor the status quo and Hilo business' control on everything Puna. After all, isn't it the Hilo business and old boy Japanese network that Billy counts as his greatest supporters? Even if he does not say it directly, watch his actions. The best person to stand by the Puna CDP is Angel Pilago. He is the only guy who will stand up to the special interests who has ruled this Hilo-centric oligarchy for years on end. E'nuff already.

Shipman has been a part of Puna way longer than most of the residents who now live in Puna so I feel that their input is just as important. It doesn't mean that I favor their shopping center but I sure would like to hear what they have to say about the CDP.
What I have learned from being involved in the working groups for the Kona CDP is that it already has at least ONE LARGE FLAW but unfortunately sometimes we gotta let it play itself out and let the flaw hit us in the face before we see it.

Reading the posts, it becomes clear that we need to clarify Shipman's position on the CDP. Our oposition has been to those parts of the document - primarily inserted by the Honolulu consultant - that would result in Puna remaining a bedroom community to Hilo.

By most estimates Puna will surpass S. Hilo in population by 2015 and yet Puna remains dependant on Hilo for commercial, government and other services. We remain dependant on Hilo and West Hawaii for jobs. This is a primary cause of the worsening congestion experienced throughout the district. It is a primary cause for the increased financial stress on those in our community who can least afford it. It is damaging the families of those who have been resident in Puna for three, four and more generations. If this continues paving all of the open space in Puna will not solve the traffic problems we will have.

The solutions that the working groups came up with were fairly simple - allow urban growth near (and confined to) the current villages. Let it be demand driven. Let us (Puna) create the services and jobs that will allow Puna to stand on its own feet. We can and will do this in a way that conforms to this district's norms. Our business park is a good example of what can be done - compare it to Hilo's industrial area or Kona's industrial area and you will see that Puna has done much better.

The final draft document put constraints in place that may not work and that were not put there by Puna residents. Building places for our needed services is not lineal - setting an arbitrary number without working through the economics is not effective planning. You need enough space to make the numbers work. Not enough and nothing gets built (and so we continue to depend on Hilo) - too much and the builder may go bankrupt. The working group had an understanding of this and did not attempt to put such numbers in place, it set areas that worked. (Note: the document also suggested major development in HPP. Shipman does not have a problem with this - this is a decision for HPP to make). If we set aside enough areas in the right places we can retain our agricultural and rural nature - and yet provide space for needed services and jobs. This is our thrust and what we have seen in need of change.

The other part of the document that we had concerns with is the repeated statements that government should seek to own and lease out agricultural land. We believe that this would impede the growth of agriculture throughout the region. Why? Farmers can be hit by poor markets or high costs (i.e. sugar cane earlier, mac nuts now), by bad weather, by disease to crops or to the farmer himself/herself. We have learned to deal with this by working with the farmer understanding that the farmer must first be successful or nothing else really works. Governments are simply not capable of adapting to changes the way that private owners are. Look at the complexity and red tape you deal with each time you "touch" the government. Imagine what it would take for a farmer to get the government to reduce or waive rent, as Shipman does, because of factors that are beyond the farmer's control. It simply would not happen.

As to land available for start up farming - we have new start up farmers on our lands every year. We make every effort to help them be successful. We review their plans, we find land that will work for them, we look to UHH for help and technical assistance when that is appropriate. We work with farmers doing things that governments really cannot do because of the structure of governments and government constraints.

Our initial review of the amendments suggested by the Planning Department and by Ms. Naeole indicates that the problems above are by and large corrected. Their input was, from the start, a part of the defined process and can give us a document that will work even better. Should Puna be so caught up in a draft document that it rejects - out of hand and without review - suggested changes that may very well enhance the final result? We should be open to consider improvements whereever they may come from.

No one expects a perfect document now or ever. The question is what changes can and should be made to make this document one that will propel us into a place where we can stand on our own two feet?

Keliipio, the Shipmans certainly have the right to express their opinion. I just hope that their interests don't end up outweighing those of the majority of citizens. Just what is the big flaw that we may get hit in the face with? Please clue us in so that we can be prepared for it. Thanks.

Shipman, Inc., just the same as any business in Puna, definitely needs to have input and there has been ample opportunity within the CDP process for that.

The amount of time any person or company or other organization has or has not existed is really not germane to how much influence is appropriate in a grassroots endeavor like CDP.

I wrote a long response and then the power went out at the end and I lost it all. I don't want to try to recover it again. Suffice it to say, I was sorry that Hunter wasn't there to cover this event. The developers sure were. Emily came out with 21 last minute amendments which will delay the entire passage process instead of allowing the PCDP to pass and THEN amend the ordinance like any other. Pls review the tapes of the hearing if you want a real eye opener. I strongly urge Hunter to make all the proposed amendments available on this blog so that everyone has the tools needed to testify at the next meeting (yes, it was tabled at about 7 pm) on July 30 in Hilo. Mark your calendars and attend.
Please. There is hanky-panky going on that we must be alert for: Corp Counsel Amy Self made an erroneous statement (that the Planning Commission had not voted on Chris Yuen's amendments) and an erroneous conclusion based on it (that therefore those amendments will have to got back to the Steering Committee for review, then on to the Planning Commission again, before going up to Council's Planning Committee and then to full Council). Talk about a delaying tactic. Chris Yuen was present and did not correct her until Bob Jacobson questioned the accuracy of her statement. At that point she looked surprised and looked to Chris. Since it was already public record and he was on the spot he had no choice but to correct her and do the damage control. Still, this gives you some idea of the forces arrayed against us
IF YOU CARE FOR PUNA, BE THERE AND KEEP ALERT

Rene.

All these amendments serve the simple purpose to obscure the issue. If there is no PCDP the amendments will mean nothing. If there is a PCDP then it can be amended later and the amendments may have meaning.

Do not let the rafts of amendments confuse you. They may well be intended to do just precisely that. Press our council to pass the PCDP as it is written and look to amend it later.

Chatting here will not be effective. You need to contact our council and do this more than once. This message needs to be delivered throughout this effort day by day and week by week.

Examining the amendments will not be effective. I have been told in the past by a state official that the way to deal with Puna is to get everyone arguing and then ignore them.
Do we really need to begin an ill inspired debate on the merits of a raft of amendments now? Let that wait till the PCDP is passed.

We could use some more people power with Friends of Puna's Future (FoPF) by the way. Anyone interested in joining us? Give a call: 965-1555

...OK, folks, you've been told...
One of the points I made in my testimony yesterday was that we had been coached from the outset of PCDP that, beyond documents and plans and an ordinance, a very important goal was community cohesion, networking, capacity building -- that goal has been achieved and the 'Johnny-come-lately crowd had better take notice..
I SECOND RENE'S CALL TO ACTION ...
STEP UP, SPEAK UP, AND NEVER, EVER, GIVE UP!

Aloha Kimo,

Thank you for that insight. Dialogue is always good.
With your indulgence (and Bishop’s) please allow me to respond to the second part of your concerns that focus principally on agriculture. I shall do so in the context of having been the convener for, and principal author of the report by, the Puna Community Development Agricultural Working Group. This report is available at the PCDP website.
About your concerns regarding “repeated statements that government should seek to own and lease out agricultural land.”
If you will please, take my word as your neighbor whose family is now making significant investment in Puna agricultural land, there is no need for alarm.
Simply put, any government agency being a major owner of agricultural land is not what the Agriculture Working Group proposed, and, to my view, not what is proposed in the final PCDP report. The idea would be more accurately viewed as government, as a last-resort facilitator of land remaining in farming rather than being irreversibly lost to farming.
While it may be the case that Shipman is working with start-up farmers – and thanks! – Puna District is a lot bigger than Shipman -- a lot bigger.
There were concerns expressed from the small group meetings right on through workshops and the deliberations of the Agriculture Working Group regarding opportunities for new and beginning farmers. Some obstacles identified were training, start-up capital and availability of affordable and usable land.
A ‘community land trust’ is one-way this emerges in the final PCDP report. Although that is not exactly what the Agriculture Working Group wrote, can it serve as a place for us all to find common ground and cooperate?
Perhaps government – local, state, federal – would be one corporate partner, along with private for- and not-for-profit partners?
For example, land that the County takes for unpaid taxes was one category that was flagged.
Furthermore, as I tried unsuccessfully to convince the Steering Committee, it is already the case with the County’s ‘Open Space’ legislation that agricultural land can be purchased by the County.
So, you see, I understand and have made the same arguments you are making.
We, as a community, just need to come together and do it now.
OK?

Aloha nui loa

Keliipio, you make a reasonable point about Shipman's input being important to the Puna CDP process.

However, I think you would be similarly shocked as I when Bill Walters testified before the Planning Commission at Shipman Gym in May that he had been denied participation in the Puna CDP process. And this was SWORN testimony he gave to the Planning Commission in front of members of the Puna Steering Committee and others from the general Puna public who had heard and witnessed his participation at various CDP meetings.

He also brought other developers to back him up before the Planning Commission, one of them a Mr. Arakawa from Waipahu, Oahu, to tell the Planning Commission that the Puna CDP was not representative of what the public in Puna wanted.

(How Mr. Arakawa knows what the people of Puna want is beyond me. I told him personally that his family's Waipahu store had the worst parking and store layout imaginable when I lived there in 1970-1973 and subsequent planning and development of that crowded Oahu community is even worse now than it was in the 1970s! You know where I mean, all that development around Waikele Shopping Center in Waipahu. Why does he care about Puna's CDP...oh yeah, unbridled development, IMO.)

I saw and heard Bill Walters taking part in Puna CDP meetings and discussions several times. True, he was not a Puna CDP Steering Committee REPRESENTATIVE but then neither were most of the citizens who took part in the formulation of the Puna CDP!

The people who did take part in the process knew that the final plan had to be a result of compromise, not consensus. It seems to me that Bill Walters and Shipman could not find it within themselves to compromise; it was to be the Shipman way or not at all.

That is why we're seeing the big developer guns now being leveled at the hard work and holistic picture of Puna's goals and vision for the future that was hammered out over several years by hundreds of Puna citizens that the final draft represents. All PC Chair Watanabe (the lone dissenting Planning Commission vote) and Shipman, etc. could focus on was the issue of zoning ... the CDP is a much more comprehensive plan than that one issue and I hope the members of the County Council can see that.

[An aside: Was Walters so upset by the Planning Commission's advancement of the Puna CDP to the County Council that he had those boulders placed (illegally, by Shipman's own admission) on Old Government Road at Kaloli Point to show who rules Puna??? Even comments Walters made in the CDP meetings he attended indicated the 19th century feudal mindset of the Shipman organization....Shipman representing the landed gentry and the people of Puna nothing more than serfs. It's time for that kind of thinking to end!]

Just a bit of background here: The federal government upheld a class-action suit filed on behalf of the lowest income communities on Hawaii Island in the state's development (in cooperation with Hawaii County's Dept. of Public Works and the Planning Dept.) of the Hawaii Long Range Land Tranportation Plan (HLRLTP).

The suit questioned the basic data and planning provided in the HLRLTP and said the plan diverted federal transportation funds to projects aimed at "the upscale, auto-dependent, sprawl development planned for the future by large landowner/developers," quoting Bonnie Goodell'a Equal Treatment Report which was part of the draft Puna Regional Circulation Plan of March 2005. link:
http://www.hawaii-county.com/info/puna/PunaRCP/Appendices_March2005/pdf

From my observations of this process since August 2006, the very same players are in place (with the exception of a new set of paid consultants) as are listed throughout that Equal Treatment Report and they are trying to create the very same outcome as the original HLRLTP while documenting public input to satisfy the feds.

And the state Dept. of Transportation is doing the same thing as they continue to stuff a 4-lane Hwy. 130 down the Puna public's throat despite overwhelming public input at hearing after hearing pleading for an alternate thoroughfare for lower Puna and safety improvements on Hwy. 130 rather than a wider, single speedway.

At the last (4/18) Transportation meeting in Keaau, the DOT asked for volunteers to serve on a Keaau-Pahoa Highway Advisory Committee. Applications were handed out and the commitment of time, etc. was explained to the standing-room-only audience. People were also encouraged to apply online, which I did.

I thought it was very interesting that now interested volunteers' opinions on Hwy. 130 are a matter of public record (through the Puna CDP process and all the DOT hearings) the DOT is compiling this advisory panel. They wouldn't even say how many people they wanted for the panel. Last month they extended the deadline for applicants. Apparently, they don't like the ones they got.


One of the big reasons it was so hard to get consistent citizen participation in the Puna CDP process was that so many of the long-time residents had been through similar surveys and studies in the past and watched as they were tabled with nothing happening. Lots of my friends considered me really naive and gullible to think that this time it was going to actually work! I guess they're right!

Signing off, Auntie Bella's haole

Emily Naeole has got to go!!!!!!!
She has turned against the people of Puna and all the people of Hawaii Island, she continues to side with the Hilo gang. She voted with them for the Mayor's Veto of the Budget. You lie, first you say you will vote to override the veto, then because your stuff is in, you change your mind and vote with Higa and the Hilo boys. She forgets about the rest of the island. She speaks of Aloha, and does not practice Aloha. Too bad Tiff Hunt has to work for her. Tiff you are on the wrong side. You are indirectly helping Higa, Ikeda and Yoshimoto keep the Hilo power alive. You are helping the forces that want to urbanize Hawaii Island. I thought you were an environmentalist and care about our land.

The Puna CDP is an important document and plan for Puna, by the people of Puna. Where did she get all the amendments from. I know she is not that well versed to write it up by herself.
She is wishy-washy and can't be trusted. She rather side with the Hilo gang then with the Council Members who are trying to be fair to all and let the peoples voice be heard. Emily too bad, you throw pens, you even disrespect other Council Members and call them names. Shame, very embarrassing and unprofessional.
No Aloha.

thanks fstapleton, you got it right.

Rene: The amendments certainly were not last minute.
It was the first time council members took up the
Puna CDP on Tuesday.
The amendment were well-thought, thoroughly discussed and carefully worded.
Councilwoman Emily put them forth in efforts to make the Puna
CDP even better than it is. Here are the proposed amendments. Decide
for yourself what you like and don't like. Thank you for your keen interest to our quality of life in Puna.
Tiffany











MEMORANDUM


TO: Angel Pilago, Council Planning Committee Chair
And Council Members

FROM: Emily I. Naeole, Council Member

DATE: July 1, 2008

RE: Proposed Puna Community Development Plan Amendments

Following are my proposed amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan:

A. The relocation of the Pāhoa and Kea`au Transfer Stations:

Page 3-15, Section 3.4.3: Public Safety and Sanitation Services
Delete Action Item “g” and accordingly renumber the remaining action items in this subsection.

Page 5-21, Section 5.3: Implementation Table
Delete Item “(G)” under Section 3.4.3 and accordingly renumber the remaining action items in this subsection.

Justification: Locations of existing transfer stations are satisfactory.

B. The proposed County Historic Preservation Commission:

Page 2-4, Section 2.1.3: Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources
Delete Action Item “a” and accordingly renumber the remaining action items in this subsection.


Page 5-18, Section 5.3: Implementation Table
Delete Item “(A)” under Section 2.1.3 and accordingly renumber the remaining action items in this subsection.

Justification: Ordinance 08-42 was adopted on April 11, 2008 and establishes a Hawai`i County Cultural Resources Commission that provides for the goals and objectives of this action item.

C. Low-interest loans on a sliding scale for housing repair and renovation:

Page 3-13, Section 3.3.3: Social Services and Housing
Delete Action Item “h” and accordingly renumber the remaining action items in this subsection.

Page 5-21, Section 5.3: Implementation Table
Delete Item “(H)” under Section 3.3.3 and accordingly renumber the remaining action items in this subsection.

Justification: Rather than low-interest loans, the county should provide tax credits or incentives for this purpose.

D. Wastewater treatment in Puna:

Page 3-15, Section 3.4.3: Public Safety and Sanitation Services
Add Action Item “j” to read:

“j. Support the funding of an Environmental Impact Statement to determine the feasibility of constructing a wastewater treatment facility to service Puna Makai.”

Page 3-15, Section 3.4.3: Public Safety and Sanitation Services
Add Action Item “k” to read:

“k. Provide tax credits to Kapoho residents who convert their existing cesspools into aerobic treatment systems.”

Page 5-21, Section 3.4.3: Implementation Table
Add Action Item “J” to read:

“(J) Prepare an EIS to determine the feasibility of a wastewater treatment facility in Puna Makai.”

Page 5-21, Section 3.4.3: Implementation Table
Add Action Item “(K)” to read:

“(k.) Provide tax credits to Kapoho residents who convert their existing cesspools into aerobic treatment systems.”

Justification: The County must address Puna wastewater issues.

E. Use of the existing Pāhoa Fire Station:

Page 3-17, Section 3.5.3.c: Parks and Recreation
Second bullet item regarding the Pāhoa Regional Park currently reads in part:

“Pāhoa Regional Park: (1) Convert the existing fire station into a senior center with certified kitchen for congregate meals program and activities/dining room.”

Amend Section 3.5.3.c (1) as follows:

“Pāhoa Regional Park: (1) Convert the existing fire station into a One Stop Community Center providing, but not limited to, a senior center with certified kitchen for congregate meals program and activities/dining room, and linkages, support and advocacy for affordable housing, employment, home bound access, child care, teen pregnancy, substance abuse and domestic violence intervention. ”

Justification: This combines the proposed language of the Puna steering committee and the social services working group for the best use of this centrally located building.

F. County acquisition of agricultural lands:

Page 3-9, Section 3.2.2: Agriculture and Economic Development
Delete Objective Item “c” and accordingly renumber the remaining action items in this subsection.

Page 3-11, Section 3.2.3.o: Agriculture and Economic Development
Delete Action Item “o” and accordingly renumber the remaining action items in this subsection.

Page 5-20, Section 5.3: Implementation Table
Delete Item “(O)” under Section 3.2.3 and accordingly renumber the remaining action items in this subsection.

Justification: The business of agriculture is best left for the private sector. The County can encourage agricultural use of lands with tax incentives and special projects.

G. Protection of fallow agricultural lands:

Page 3-9, Section 3.2.2: Agriculture and Economic Development
Amend Objective Item “k” as follows:

“Protect quality agricultural lands, especially fallow agricultural lands, through purchase or lease by County, State or community land trust[s], and provide long term leases for community use [or with tax incentives for farmers.”

Justification: The business of agricultural is best left for the private sector. The County can encourage agricultural use of lands with tax incentives and special projects.

H. Establishment of HCC/UH-Hilo satellite campus in Puna:

Page 3-12, Section 3.3.2: Social Services and Housing
Add Objective Item as follows:

“(h) A Hawai`i Community College/UH-Hilo satellite campus is established in Puna.”

Page 3-13, Section 3.3.3: Social Services and Housing
Add Action Item as follows:

“(k) Encourage the State to pursue establishment of a Hawai`i
Community College/UH-Hilo satellite campus in Puna.”

Page 5-21, Implementation Table
Add Action Item “(K)” under Section 3.3.3 as follows:

“(K)” Encourage the State to pursue establishment of a Hawai`i Community College/UH-Hilo satellite campus in Puna.”

Justification: Satellite university and/or community college campuses in the Puna District will make the pursuit of higher education more convenient to rural residents, and lessen commute times for students, faculty and staff.

I. Maku`u as a Community Village Center

Page 3-5, Section 3.1.3.c: Land Use Pattern
The second bullet item to be amended as follows:

“Community Village Centers shall provide a more limited range of services in smaller existing urban settlements and in large subdivisions that are experiencing the greatest rates of build-out; namely at `Āinaloa, Kurtistown, Maku`u Homesteads, Mountain View, two or more locations in Hawaiian Paradise Park, and at Volcano; and”

Page 3-6
In Figure 3.2: Proposed Town and Village Center Locations, add a red dot, representing a Community Village Center, to the map in the location of the existing Maku`u Farmer’s Market.

Page 5-16
Add the following:

“Maku`u Community Village Center

The Maku`u as a Community Village Center includes the site of the Maku`u Farmer’s Market along with the existing and planned Hawaiian Homestead subdivisions makai of Highway 130.”

Justification: The community is already establishing this area as a village center by holding widely attended weekly farmers markets here. The Maku`u Farmer’s Association has plans for a community and cultural center, and a comprehensive health center similar to the one that exists in Waiānae on O`ahu.

J. Maku`u Farmers Market intersection with Highway 130

Page 4-11
In Figure 4-1: Proposed Transportation Corridor Improvements, denote the Maku`u Farmer’s Market intersection with Highway 130 with a red dot. The market entrance is on the makai side of the highway just south of the dot for `Āinaloa Boulevard.

Justification: These improvements are necessary for the area to be developed into a Community Village Center.

Ms. Stapleton

Just a quick response to a couple of your points for clarity. My testimony was in response to an earlier direct question made to Mr. Larry Brown. One of the Planning Commissioners had asked "why there was no Shipman representative on the Steering Committee." (We had pointed this out noting many groups not so represented including landowners of which we are one). Larry had not known the whole story. I completed it, in sworn testimony. In fact I did in the same testimony note our involvement in working groups.

As you note we did participate in working groups where I and many others had discussions, made compromises and such. The objection was to the part of the process where the Honolulu consultant had added significant changes to the documents that the working groups had carefully worked through. The consultants comments coming on June 21 were never discussed with the working groups but went directly to the steering committee alone. Had those comments not been inserted - we would actually have very few problems with the final result.

As to Kaloli - there is no relationship. We simply found it necessary to take steps to stop the increasing destruction to the land and the increasingly unsafe conditions caused by the rubbish being dumped there, the unfettered use of vehicles and of illegal and unsafe hunting. Inadvertantly a very few boulders were placed outside of our property and will be moved to our property.

The puzzling question remains....Why did Emily introduce 21 amendments knowing that this would derail the Puna CDP? She is our Puna representative who on numerous occasions expressed her gratitude and appreciation to "her puna people" for coming out and sharing their "mana'o". And when the people of Puna spoke in favor of passing the PCDP she pulled not one but 21 amendments out of her hat to kill it.

She had numerous opportunities during the PCDP process to influence changes but didn't. Why did she wait until this critical point? It was also made clear to Emily during the council meeting that the PCDP could be amended after approval by the County Council. It seems to me that she never intended the PCDP to pass.

I have come out on several occasions in support of the PCDP and asked people back on June 10 to talk Emily out of derailing the PCDP after the Planning Commission approved the plan.

Emily needs to withdraw her 21 amendments in the Planning Committee and get the PCDP passed. It will only get done if we can get her to change her position. "Pupukahi I Holomua" United we can move forward.

Puna Constituent,
Kale Gumapac

It is very difficult for me to believe that Bill Walter made a broad statement that he was denied participation in the Puna CDP. He was a member of the Land Use-Growth Management sub-working group for which I was the principal author of the final report. He also attended many of the larger Land Use working group's meetings. I can assure you that Bill was a consistent, valuable and active participant in the PCDP's discussions. He made important contributions, for instance, to the subgroup's understanding of the consequences of zoning changes and, partly in the context of Shipman's development plans, the role of focused residential and industrial development in preventing sprawl into our rural areas. We opted for a relatively simple final document that expressed the basic principles of land use growth management that we consensually agreed on. So it would be accurate to say that Bill, in concert with the subgroup and working group, gave significant input to the SC.

Now that Chris Yuen has his twenty pages of amendments and Emily Naeole has her surprise twenty plus amendments I guess we can expect another 30-40 amendments from various sources within and without Puna. The invitation seems to be there. I don't agree with every word written in the PCDP myself so maybe I oughtta try to see if there's a last minute opportunity to squeeze another couple dozen amendments in.... just to correct the grammar.

By the time we disassemble the PCDP and try to reassemble again it it will be sometime next year and instead of a hybrid vehicle we will have a gas guzzling SUV.

Fact is by layering the delays and squandering opportunities to press ahead the time factor causes delay after delay after delay. August? Back to Steering Committee. September? Back to the Planning Department. October? Back to the Planning Commission. November? Back where we started. Any new amendments to consider at that point in time? Possibly.

At the Planning Committee meeting we, the public, were annoyed enough that Chris Yuen only gave us a couple days notice of his proposed changes. Emily gave us less than that. Negative number. Oh by the way, just before we vote I thought I'd add twenty or so tiny little amendments....

So council members, you all have another month to dream up more rafts of amendments. Any takers?

This is a fact. If we have a PCDP it can and will be amended. If we have no PCDP the amendments are of no meaning.

Maybe we should have a lottery on who can guess the final total number of proposed amendments.

Question to Tiffany: Now that Emily Naeole has her proposed twenty + amendments will your office be scheduling public input on it? Where ? When? Or should we just show up at the next committee hearing thinking we know what's going on?

now I'M on the wrong side... I took this job
because I thought it was the right thing to do.
Please leave me out of the politics... My interest
is with public policy, writing, and taking care of my ohana
in a community minded way. Yes, loud and clear: my personal
politics is liberal minded and environmentally friendly.
But those are mine and I'm not the politician. I'll give a prize
to the person who can name all the other legislative assistants
in county government.
be well, "no inouye"