COM 0045.048 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

as plainly as possible and removing confusing ambiguity. Draft 3 will seek to address any worries that the document has no teeth by removing misconstrued language. It is important for us to remember that all the elements of the plan are important. In order to get a comprehensive picture of the future growth and development of our island and our objectives and policies, it is essential to review all the components together as a whole along with the map and not prioritize the importance of one element, Land Use, over the other to accommodate our preference in comprehension. We need to understand and emphasize the vast complexities and values of our Island. The reverting of the Important Agriculture Designation (IAL) lands back to current General Plan Designations has also caused fivstration among many. Bill 163, Draft 2 reverted IAL lands back to current Agriculture Designations pending the state action in implementing IAL. Draft 2, also specifically included viable coffee lands within the Agriculture Designation. Thorough historical information and legal opinions regarding this matter were discussed in eazlier letters, so I will not rehash it completely here now. However, I ask that the following be noted. The current General Plan utilizes the Extensive, Intensive and Orchazds Designations. The IAL Designation does not exist. Yet, currently 46% of our Island remains in the State Agriculture Class and 1,219,773 acres out of 2.5 million acres Island-wide are zoned by the County for such use (GP, D 1, pg. 341). In recent times, small farming enterprises have also increased due to new high value cash crops and diversification of the industry (GP, D1, pg. 30, 31). This is despite a 23% increase in our population (GP, Dl, pg. 15). This data cleazly demonstrate that agriculture activities continue to flourish in our County in absence of the IAL designation and with an increased population. The ideology of the Important Agriculture Land Designation is honorable. It intends to preserve prime soils and lands for future availability and utilization in farm and agriculture operations. The validity of intent is indisputable. However, if such a classification will at the same time prevent farmers from owning property because they are unable to acquire pazcels and if it does nothing to neither perpetuate nor identify viable agriculture activities not on prime land, then it may be a concept that warrants re- evaluation. It is my understanding many of the most productive agriculture activities on our Island do not rely on prime soils. Orchids, Papaya's, Coffee are just a few examples. It is unclear to me that this designation would do anything to assist these Ag industries. Knowing our limitation as an Island, we must clarify our intent. Is it to preserve only the land? Provide farmers with affordable opportunities to own lands on which to operate? Tangible support of the agricultural industry? Is it to find a comfortable achievable balance? Our intent should be clear and forthright. The final azea I wish to cover has been the irritation expressed over the elimination of policies, courses of action and the adoption of development plans by ordinance in Draft 2. Many individuals have referred to Bill 163, Draft 2 as a re-write of Draft 1. It is true some items were combined with others, moved, deleted or even rephrased. However, the 3