COM 0349.010 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Re: Res. 169-07 Thank you for this opportunity to testify to the Finance Committee. I ask the Committee to oppose this Resolution and believe that this opinion is in line with that of the majority of Ka'u residents. There are several reasons for this opinion: 1. The sugaz plantation closed in 1996 with the loss of several hundred jobs in Ka'u. Neither County, State or Federal government has done anything effective to replace this large employer. We now have the tragedy of losing our youth or giving them a choice of commuting to Kona or Hilo. Some workers get up at Sam and return after dark, takirng the bus to jobs in, Kona. What kind of family life do they have? While a resort is not an ideal employer, many Ka'u residents do commute to such jobs on the Kona coast and the availability of resort jobs locally would save them the long drive and wasted daily time and 2. Although some politicians who never visit Ka'u may believe that Punalu'u is pristine and unspoiled, the truth is that Sea Mountain is a wreck that badly needs investment to repair damaged infrastructure and buildings. Will the county have funds to fix all the problems? Does the Committee have an estimate from the present owners of the cost to fix all the problems? How about the golf course, that needs serious investment AND loses money? Will that become a muni golf course according to Councilman Jacobson's plan, or will it revert to "unspoiled" i.e. abandoned status? 3. Committing county funds to buy Punalu'u Beach Park when the Sea Mountain Five have promised to donate it does not make economic sense. Losing potential property taxes does not make economic sense. Having an ongoing need to support an enlarged Punalu u Park from public funds, managed by an already stretched Packs & Recreation department or perhaps by local amateurs also seems a bad idea. Also, I am not aware of the details of the agreement between the present owners and Sea Mountain Five, but an attempt by the county to breach this agreement could result in an expensive lawsuit. Investing the County's funds available for land purchase in Punalu'u, when a seemingly good developer is willing to invest there, seems a poor choice. 4. Mayor Kim is trying to find a solution to Punalu'u that will be acceptable to a broad section of the community. Purchase of part of the land by the County would certainly be divisive. 5. Putting more priority on a county purchase of Pohue Bay, a nicer beach and close to the largest population center in Ka' u, would make much more sense and would be broadly supported. Development of any kind here is otherwise unlikely and a beach once available to the public would be restored. If both Kawa and Pohue were easily reachable, this would take some of the present and future stress away from the black sand beach. 6. The anti-development noise you are hearing from Ka'u Preservation is coming mostly from recent transplants . from the mainland vvho have suffered from excessive development in California and elsewhere. They have been active in getting signatures from mainland people still living in over-developed areas. I saw the quality of life deteriorate from excess development in Carlsbad, San Clemente and San Diego so understand this point of view, but Ka'u is a depressed area that needs jobs. For too long preserving land has been given priority over .helping the people. 7. The CTAHR Center on the Family published a document "Ka u Area Community Profile". They summarized their findings in a "Protection Index" that measured child, family and community strengths. On this scale ,they rated the most favorable districts in Hawaii state with scores up to a little over +1. Wai'anae, Leilehua and Farrington got scores around -1. Ka u was scored at -2!! Ka'u really needs help, with county funds supplementing developers' investments not chasing them away. . ~ ~~~•I~ y ~ _T: ,v„ , ..r.