COM 0208.122 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Pagc. I oft Robello, Alfred Prom: MBLANN [blann@verizon.net] i,,-:; ~l ; r Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 8:41 AM / To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi us _ i Cc: Harry Kim Subject: Bills 78 and 79 testimony Aloha Hawaii County Council, Sincere thanks to all for trying to reach an agreement on the very important issue of securing parklands to guarantee future generations some of the beauty and tranquility which we have been priviledged to enjoy on this land. I understand that a poll earlier sanctioned by the Mayor put public approval of using their tax dollars to do this at 70%, putting it somewhat ahead of love and motherhood. I may not understand the issue correctly, but believe that opposition to the earlier Bill 78, supported by a huge majority of taxpayers, was that some felt that county tax dollars should not be used to pay for parkland acquisitions. I understand that some of our representatives in both legislative and executive branches are willing to accept use of bond funds for this purpose. The earlier Bill 78 used tax dollars on a pay as you go basis to finance purchases. The new Bill 78 uses the same tax dollars, but guarantees that it will be at higher cost to the taxpayers. There will be the administrative cost of the bond float, the interest service on the bonds, including extra interest payments to cover arbitrage. So instead of paying cash for our parklands with tax dollars, we will borrow the funds, and pay them back with tax dollars at higher cost. The taxpayers lose; the banks gain at the expense of county taxpayers. I am having difficulty understanding that revised Bill 78+79 is a step forward rather than- in the other direction. It is not clear to me how the $ 250,000 will be used. It will buy half a buildable lot in W. Hi. The present proposal of deferring a bond float until a prioritized list is ready means a year delay in getting a float, preceded by a delay of several years as death by committee takes place in identifying and prioritizing these potential future parklands. The additional suggestion that council debate and approve each and every parcel puts a further delay in place. It also continues to bog the council down in further micromanagement of the minutae of a huge and diverse county. Choice parcels are likely to be sold and fully developed into golf courses and luxury housing a few years prior to final council action on the parcels identified, debated, deferred, then approved. Now to the more constructive side. Under present county organization the suggestion to pass each parcel before the council for approval is the appropriate and responsible course. It also means that the decision becomes one of politics rather than merit, need, and fairness. The block with the votes gets the parklands. As demographics are changing on the island, it is not clear where that might be- but independent of where the votes lie, fairness and need should decide. A different approach would be for council or a committee to divide the island into parkland cantons. A percentage of the funds might be voted to each canton based on population and existing parklands, taking care not to underfund lower population areas. The decision of aquisition might then be left solely to the citizens of each canton- easing the burden on county council, and assuring fairness to each canton. As our population increases, if government is not already suffering from a single centralized government of which we ask too much, it will in the future. Centralization toppled the USSR, and can hinder effective government in our large county. Perhaps ~ 0 we should define those issues which are countywide in nature. and make those the jurisdic~~m, No.__ U Ref. To: • u Raf. Uote 5/31 /2005