Laserfiche WebLink
Point Four: We do not think the alternative presented is viable or unique. We think <br /> the claim that a unique outdoor classroom will be lost is false. With Ocean Futures and <br /> the trends in the travel industry outdoor education will be highlighted in our project. Our <br /> protection and active management of the resources will make the opportunities for <br /> outdoor education more accessible to more people. We think we will provide neazly <br /> everything promised in the alternative plan on a lazger and more realistic scale. Our plan <br /> is viable because it operates within a larger economic framework with a necessary critical <br /> mass of people and jobs to sustain these efforts at education and preservation. We too <br /> recognize the value of the environment and have a love and desire to protect it for both <br /> economic and personal reasons. <br /> The alternative presented requires funding from many disparate sources, which aze not <br /> guazanteed. It will require more public funds to implement and maintain. It too requires <br /> a shoreline management permit and conservation district use permit and we do not know <br /> <br /> what conditions will be imposed for it. As far as we know there is no economic <br /> <br /> modeUbusiness plan. Kau Preservation has no track record for managing such a resource. <br /> <br /> In conclusion: We ask the council to reject Resolution 169-07 <br /> <br />