My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0349.176 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0349.176 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 7:13:09 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 5:47:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0349
Point
176
Author
Unknown
Communications - Referred To
FC
Comments
Presented: FC - 6/4/07 ā(Public Hearing)ā
Document Relationships
COM 0349.000 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2006-2008
RES 169 Draft 01 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Resolutions\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
Council Members and Guests: <br /> I live at Punalu'u mauka. I have lived at this residence for almost 10 years. I do not <br /> support this resolution because I first feel it is misleading. The resolution insinuates that <br /> the Mayor and the Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation <br /> Commission is recommending to purchase the whole area at Punalu'u, when they have <br /> recommended only a small portion of the coast line be purchased. <br /> My second point is I am not sure of the legality of this resolution in indicating that the <br /> over site of this area is recommended to be Kau Preservation. It seems the county is <br /> looking at purchasing as azea only to give it to a private group to run when to my <br /> knowledge this was not put out for a bid or even put out to see who else might be <br /> interested to overseeing this area. <br /> Third: I do not support this resolution because I feel it promotes the "welfare child <br /> syndrome". Instead of looking for ways that Kau can pay for itself and the services that <br /> we need, this resolution asks for more hand outs. Has the Council looked at what Sea <br /> Mountain V has to offer? There may be other offers out their that I don't know about. But <br /> as I understand it Sea Mountain V has proposed many things that would help Kau to <br /> stand on it's own two feet, while this resolution makes us rely even more on county, state <br /> and federal money. As I see it, the resolution would generate only a minimal number of <br /> <br /> jobs, does not address the problems ofinfra-structure and would provide access for only a <br /> few selected people to the beach area because of developing a "living classroom". Sea <br /> Mountain V has promised enhanced access to more beach area, protection for sacred <br /> areas, protection for endangered species at no cost to the tax payers and even has <br /> promised to help with the up keep of this area. I think the question is do we always want <br /> to be an expense to the tax payers or do we want to be independent and choose what is <br /> best for all of Kau? <br /> 3~'P⢠i7G <br /> Ref. Ta t <br /> Ref. Date Jl1N 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.