Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> There have been three recent attempts to reach out to the citizens of <br /> Ka u to learn what type of future they desire. <br /> 1. County Council proposed through Resolution of 169-07 to <br /> negotiate with Sea Mountain Five to purchase one third of their <br /> total land holdings-that part that lies along the coastline and goes <br /> mauka about 2000 feet. County hearings on this proposal yielded <br /> many hours of public testimony. <br /> In relation to this action, the citizen consultation process for a <br /> Community Benefits Package with Sea Mountain Five was never <br /> completed. The tactics of disruption by the few created a fear <br /> among many people that inhibited attendance at meetings and free <br /> expression. The developer failed to follow through on the <br /> unfinished elements, and several public officials backed away from <br /> discussion as the polarization deepened. <br /> In addition, the implications of Resolution 169-07 were not clear to <br /> residents. Most people believe the county does not have the money <br /> for such a purchase, nor the capacity to manage the land if it were <br /> acquired. The majority of people we talked with are very clear in <br /> not wanting Ka u Preservation to manage the park and coastline, <br /> citing their divisive tactics, lack of capacity and lack of experience. <br /> 2. Mailed questionnaires were distributed through the four post <br /> offices of the Ka'u District by Council member Yagong to determine <br /> a preference for the proposed Sea Mountain development plan vs. <br /> favoring Resolution 169-07. <br /> At the time the mail survey was conducted, there had been no <br /> prior attempt to learn where people stood if they were to "take <br /> sides." This survey measured the side taking very well. However <br /> some residents felt it was a false choice because the options were <br /> not clear. Even so a 25% return on the survey is a high number <br /> and indeed gave an insight into the situation not seen before. <br /> 3. The County Council has received nearly 900 letters regarding the <br /> passage of Resolution 169-07. <br /> Regarding the nearly 900 letters received by County Council, most <br /> were reportedly in support of the purchase of 153 acres of Sea <br /> Mountain land. This is considered a good response by supporters <br /> of Resolution 169-07. The mediators found the same thing- <br /> almost everyone strongly favors saving the turtles, their habitat, <br /> and the whole coastline. No disagreement there. But from the <br /> fieldwork, there is a large majority which favors some modest <br /> 3 The Ka u Listening Project <br /> <br />