COM 0493.121 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Analysis lby dill ~~er, Puna, on the 2002 Hawaii General Plan Revision While the efforts put forward to revise the County of Hawaii General Plan are appreciated, there are a number of deficiencies related to Puna that need to be addressed and augmented before the document is accepted. , . _ i. ' ~ ~ ~ Taken from the document, the top three purposes in the General Plan are to: 1. "Guide the pattern of future development iri-this County-based on long-term goals," 2. "Identify the visions, values and priorities important to the people of the County" and 3. "Provide the framework for regulatory decisions, capital improvement priorities, acquisition strategies and other pertinent government programs within the County organization and coordinated with the State and Federal programs." With those words the General Plan set its own tasks but specific goals, priorities and strategies are not available for Puna. The document gives the information that Puna has the second largest population of the island's nine judicial districts and will be the largest by 2015. Despite this projected growth the Revision has no new plans for roadways and no specified increase in police and fire protection facilities, housing, recreation, adequate commercial and industrial zoning - to increase employment - or agriculture. While these subjects are discussed in the overall views of problem areas, there are no district-specific goals, priorities and strategies. Without those, by its own definition, the plan is a failure. It is not a plan on which county government or citizens can base our future. Highway engineers advise that 30 years would be required to turn the first shovel of dirt, even if there were total agreement today on alignment for a new highway to serve Puna! Yet, the general plan Revision merely continues the decade-old `proposed' category of a second highway paralleling the current Kea`au-Pahoa Highway 130. This example duplicates the deficiency of many plan elements. Without specificity in the General Plan -particularly on priority and strategies - a highway is impossible to start. Recently, in fiustration, Gary Safarik acquired Council approval of $250,000 for a plan of some sort to lay out the best alignment for a second highway. That should not be a project separate from the tasks assigned in forming this General Plan. A second corridor is an urgent element of planning for Puna, a primary duty of the County Planning Department which was not performed. On June 10 Hawai `i Tribune-Herald quoted county officials saying there is no money available for the study and it is "not a priority!" Meanwhile Pacific Business News of June 1~ (p. l6) reveals that the county has contracted with a Honolulu firm to provide specific highway planning from Kona airport to Honaunau for $80,000. Every day of delay on acting to build a highway that obviously is required by growth is an addition to the cost and time necessary to put the highway to use. The Revision language reads, "Explore the possibility of developing a mid-level roadway to be located makai of Highway 130..." That language really says, to all in Puna, "Continue to ignore the urgent need of a second corridor for the fastest growing district of the Island of Hawai`i." We've waited long enough. We need to begin work now. We need our County Council to assign this task to a joint county-state task force to find the best route, begin I / acquiring necessary land, seek funding and start building! hT®m.~ file No. z Ref. fio: _ .