Laserfiche WebLink
The councilmen who represent Dona have voted "No." But six of their <br /> colleagues, who are not affected as much by Dona traffic, have seen fit to <br /> override their concerns and those of the citizens of Dona. This does not seem <br /> right to me. Surely the people who live in an area, and those who represent <br /> them, should get some serious consideration in a matter of this magnitude. <br /> In my letter, I asked two questions which I have not heard any Councilperson <br /> address. I will repeat them here. <br /> First, why do you take the time to have public testimony on an issue, when the <br /> wishes of the vast majority of those testifying are dismissed, ignored, or <br /> overridden? What is the point of public testimony, if the virtually unanimous <br /> wishes of Kona residents, expressed forcefully and continually over a several <br /> month period, are utterly ignored? <br /> Second, what possible grounds could you now find to reject any rezoning request, <br /> as long as the developer agrees to some ameliorations in the form of parks, roads, <br /> and mid-priced housing? Logically, all of Puna, Ka'u, I-Iamakua, and rural Milo <br /> are now open for as many developments as there are builders willing to put up a <br /> few hundred units wherever they can find the space. If you approve Clifto's, <br /> how can you say no to anyone else? <br /> By the time a concurrency ordinance is in place, it will be too late. We will be <br /> indistinguishable from Maui or Oahu, despite the protestations of Councilpeople <br /> <br /> that they do not want that result. <br /> I urge you in the strongest possible terms to uphold Mayor Kim's veto. <br /> d rl ~ ~7~1+~ <br /> ~3~-~3~3 <br /> <br />