COM 0426.020 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Pagc 2 of 3 Take Holualoa Kona Coffee Co. as a case in point. All of that firm's 12 acres of coffee production is sold retail to people who visit the farm (both in the store and later over the Internet). If you were to extract all agtourism influence, the residual would be gross income unrelated to agtourism. If the production from those 12 acres were dumped on the wholesale market, the amount received would probably be less than 5% of the current gross. (Custom roasting would add a bit more revenue, but agtourism related revenue is still way in excess of 50%.) Dumping on the wholesale market is the approach of "old agriculture." We want to encourage the "new agriculture" where growers take responsibility for their marketing, where through the many avenues of direct marketing they become "price makers" rather than "price takers" of the old agriculture. Proposal d.6. is not only impossible to calculate accurately, its attempted implementation would be regressive. It can only have seriously negative consequences and should be deleted. If you can come up with a clearer idea of what you are trying to achieve, you will be able to write an effective regulation in its place. I cannot here itemize all of my other objections in detail, but I do want to mention one more: Section 25-2-75, Sub-section (3): agtourism facilities "shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total area." It is unrealistic, arbitrary and irrelevant to demand that agtourism facilities not exceed 1,000 square feet. That regulation would eliminate many of our finest Hawaii agtourism attractions, including the above mentioned Holualoa Kona Coffee Co., Monty Richard's Ranch and Greenwell Farm. Again, how will you even calculate which facilities are agtourism facilities. The store is clearly an agtourism facility, but what about a coffee parchment drying area nicer than would be required for non-agtourism related production? Perhaps you would add only that area to the 1,000 square foot limit that is necessary to accommodate visitors. But, really, how much is that? As you can see this arbitrary 1,000 square foot limitation is as much a quagmire as the above regulation limiting agtourism income to 50% of total gross income. Delete it or rewrite it to reflect a genuine need. I believe the intentions of the planning Commission and the County Council are good. While I can clearly see many of the proposal's problems, I do not know from where exactly these problems arise. I suspect the source of the problems may lie in the fact that the definitions of "agricultural tourism" and "agricultural activities" are fundamentally inaccurate and extremely limiting and rigid. I think if you were to articulate more realistic definitions, more appropriate zoning would emerge. This is an important topic for another day. But clearly, the Planning Commission has more homework to do. The economic and social benefits of good agtourism are easily demonstrated. Effective planning is critical to realizing the enormous potential of good agtourism. The County's citizens, especially those in the agricultural community, are looking to you for appropriate zoning regulations. Indeed the whole state is looking to you for guidance because the County of Hawaii's zoning regulation, being the first in the state, will inevitably become a model for the other counties. Sincerely, Dr. Kent Fleming Professor & Extension Economist 1 1 /10/?005