COM 0400.133 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

' ' ~ 2390 Kaiwiki Road Ct>,J~~ ~ j u ~ ~ ~i ~a ~ C ~ Hilo, HI 9Fi720 24 August 2004 Councilman Jimmy Arikaki County Council ~fC~L!~•~f i Dear Mr. Arikaki: I strongly urge you to vote to uphold Mayor Kim's veto of the Clifto development ordinance. I believe he has given the Council a chance to reverse a very serious error. In approving the project, the council majority overrode the objections of virtually everyone who testified, over a period of months The majority also rejected the position taken by the two Councilmen who represent the people of Kona. I find it hard to understand how you can be a representative of the people, and then so completely reject their desires in this matter. A request to change zoning should be approached very cautiously. Unless there is a clear benefit to the citizens of this island, zoning changes should be rejected. Zoning exists to protect the island and its people from rampant sprawl. The desire of a developer to build is not in itself a valid reason to change zoning rules. But the council majority acts as if it believes that the desire of a developer to build should be primary, and that zoning change requests must be granted unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In this case, there are strong reasons to reject the project. Not only do the people who live nearby oppose it virtually unanimously, but the demands on the infrastructure are simply insupportable. While the council majority said you supported the idea of waiting till the roadways were improved before allowing new projects, in fact you did not do this, but merely imposed a time line which may or may not see the highway widened before more than three-fourths of the project is occupied. Who will benefit from Morris's project? The people who live nearby, who ought to know, say loud and clear that they will not benefit. It isn't those of us who live in other parts of the island. It comes down to Cliff Morris, his fellow investors, and their purchasers. So it appears that you have put the interests of one very small group of people ahead of the needs of everyone else on the island. I do not denigrate or underestimate the mitigations that Cliff Morns agreed to, and I appreciate your desire to reward Mr. Morris for his cooperative attitude. But the fact that a developer agrees to mitigate the effects of his project is not a sufficient reason to go against the virtually unanimous wishes of the residents of the area, the desires of the two councilmen who represent the area, and the zoning laws as they stand. I think the council's actions in the Clifto case raise two very serious questions. What is the point of public input, if the virtually unanimous wishes of affected residents, expressed forcefully and continually over a several month period, are not followed? I thought public testimony was to help the council learn what the citizens wanted, and act accordingly. In view of your approving the development after such a powerful expression of public displeasure, it is clear that I was wrong. What is unclear is the reason for bothering to give testimony at all, since the public is apparently unable to influence council decisions. What grounds are there now for rejecting any development, as long as the developer agrees to put in infrastructure? I foresee an unending string of rezoning requests, from all over the island, all wanting several hundred new residential units, with commercial space, and all willing to add Corsner~. N®. ~ Ref. Toe ~ Ref. Uate