My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0067.025 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0067.025 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 3:25:27 PM
Creation date
5/8/2008 5:16:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0067
Point
025
Author
Alice Chuberko
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Presented: Council - 1/19/07
Document Relationships
BIL 345 Draft 01 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2004-2006
COM 0067.000 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Good afternoon. My name is Alice Chuberko. I debated long and hard about whether I should <br /> return today to speak today toward Bi11345. The last time I was here, it was my first time before <br /> the Hawaii County Council. When I left, I had the feeling I was a "bad person" for disagreeing <br /> with Bill 345. I feel there were misperceptions of those testifying and Chase setting in your seats. <br /> <br /> Reflecting back, I believe there are some issues Thai need to be cleared up and shared today. One <br /> is, those testifying against the bill did not say "not in my back yard". There is already a law that <br /> allows for specie[ treatnent facilities in our neighborhoods. The concern was to address whether <br /> the definition of family be changed from 5 unrelated. people to 8 unrelated people. I felt another <br /> issue was that it was mainly coming from residents of the Keaau Ag Lots and we were just being <br /> cry babies about it, There is a good reason why there were so many of us. It's because out of alt <br /> the subdivisions, we are probably the most informed because of our hands on experience with <br /> such a facility. There are probably many subdivisions in the areas you represent who are not <br /> even aware of what's going on with the Bill. If they had the experience like we have had in the <br /> Ag lots, they would probably be here too. I also felt we had to defir~ ourselves as locals. Isn't <br /> being a Fsard working, tax paying, tow the line individual enough? <br /> Now, once again i say no to Bill 345. Special treatment facilities are defined as a facility which <br /> provides a therapeutic residential program for care, diagnoses, and treatment or rehabilitation <br /> services for socially or emotionally distressed persons, mentally ill persons, persons suffering <br /> from substance abuse, and developmentally disabled persons. Again, we have these facilities in <br /> our neighborhoods. The question is why do we want to increase the number from 5 to 8? Those <br /> testifying for the increase said the increase was not due to economical reasons. IYs due to a need <br /> for more beds. If that's so, then let's add more facilities. Let's not increase the density of a <br /> home or a neighborhood. Let's not increase the odds of negative things happening -stress of <br /> infrastructure, nuiaways, crime, etc. Also, if I had a child who needed help, and I had a choice <br /> of puttiag diem in a program with a 5 to I ratio or an 8 to I ratio, I would pink the 5 to 1. I'm <br /> pretty sure you would too. That's evident in schools with teacher/child ratios, hospitals with <br /> nurse/patient ratios. It's a fact of life. We feel the lower ratio provides the best care. There was <br /> also something being said about 8 people because Honolulu and Maui counties do it. It's a <br /> national number used by providers. I feel pretty sure it was a max not a minimum and I believe <br /> that was also somehow tied into the Fair Housing Act. Corporation Counsel used the words <br /> "possible" and "maybe" it could lead to the Hawaii County being sued. Amore definitive letter <br /> was to be written Has itT And if indeed that argument is being used, then Bi11345 as being <br /> presented today Is not going to prevem it. And for that very reason, you'd have to vote against it. <br /> The bill also does not have a cap on it. It would be shortsighted of us not to think there could be <br /> more than two homes on a tat. What would the impact be with three homes or with four homes? <br /> Another thing, after attending a community meeting and listening to everyone's comments, so <br /> much centered on "lack of information". Neighbors just warned to know: What kind of facility <br /> is moving in? What kind of supervision is being given? What can I expect from these <br /> neighbors? Is there going to be an impact on my neighborhood? If speaking directly to <br /> supervisors doesn't help when there are problems, who do I call? So my question to you is <br /> what's provided to inform and keep informed the neighbors? <br /> For the reasons I have stated, I encourage you vote no on Bill 345. <br /> Alice Chuberko „ i• <br /> 17-510 Ipuaiwaha Stzeet (p1 <br /> Keaau, Ili 95749 Comm. No. <br /> 982-8908 Ref. To:~f ~a~ <br /> Ref. Uate IAh ~ 9 - <br /> January 19, 2007 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.