Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 2 <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> From: Lillian [Russellr004@hawaii.rr.com] <br /> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:49 PM <br /> To: Council Testimony; Ikeda, Donald; Isbell, Virginia; Holschuh, Fred; Hoffmann, Pete; Arakaki, <br /> James; Jacobson, Bob; Safarik, Gary; Pilago, K. Angel; Higa, Stacy <br /> Subject: Fw: No vote on 246 ~ - <br /> I also urge the Council to vote no on 246, 224, 225 and 251. I ehco Mr. Reimers sentiments. <br /> Lillian Fox <br /> Original Message <br /> From: GeoMike5Cc~att.net _i <br /> <br /> To: visbell@co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Cc: kapilagona.co.hawaii.hi.us ; counciltestimony(rDco.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 1:25 PM <br /> Subject: No vote on 246 <br /> Ms. Isbell: <br /> I urge you and the entire County Council to vote NO on Bill 246 to allow zoning changes to be <br /> forwarded with incomplete information. <br /> We now see a primary reason for numerous development problems in Kona. How can anyone make a <br /> reasonable determination on the viability of a project if important information is not addressed. While it <br /> might be easiest to assume good faith, it risks bringing forth too many burdens on the County at a later <br /> date. <br /> Interestingly, the Council has before it now two examples of promises without backup. There can be no <br /> better indication than these for why 246 must be defeated. <br /> The first is for a developer to be allowed to go ahead with a project that promises infrastructure <br /> development for the State University (Bills 224 and 225). The University seems to have little interest in <br /> that project, despite the offer of ammenities. <br /> The second is development promising space for a Salvation Army Post (Bi11251); here the Army knows <br /> little about the offer and does not have the resources to buy and build there! <br /> There is nothing wrong with requiring complete information with any application. Would an architect <br /> give a contractor incomplete plans? There should be no need for putting the County Council in a <br /> position to vote on good faith. Let all the facts, potential problems, and resolutions be known before a <br /> decision is made. It might be tempting to vote for a chicken in every pot, but first find out who is going <br /> to supply the chickens, who will provide the pots, and who will donate the energy needed to cook the <br /> birds, and, of relevance to this County, what landfill will take the garbage! <br /> The planning department has failed to show that streamlining the applicaiton process is workable or best <br /> for the citizens of Hawaii County. <br /> Please, vote NO on 246, 224, 225, and 251. <br /> Comn? No. <br /> Michael Reimer Ref. Tos ~ <br /> Kailua-Kona Rif. DaM. <br /> 5/15/2006 <br /> <br />