COM 0349.893 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Murashige, Laura From: msunnafr@d.umn.edu Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 9:30 AM To: Yagong, Dominic Cc: Ikeda, Donald; Yoshimoto, J; Higa, Stacy; Hoffmann, Pete; cohmayor@co.hawaii.hi.us~ cohinfo@co.hawaii.hi.us; counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us;Dacobson, Bo~a~o~jiBr~7ida; S>c~~ Pilago, K. Angel; Naeole, Emily; sunnafrank Subject: Re: Resolution 169-07 I have now received two e-mail responses to my comments about Resolution 169-07 from council members who voted to delay Resolution 169-07. 2 want to thank them both for taking the time to do that. However, their comments reflect either a misunderstanding of the position I was taking-in my e-mail (and the position of, I believe, the majority of Ka'u residents) or political spin. 1 will here assume the former and try to speak more clearly about my concerns with delaying 169-07. _ One council member wrote me that he supported the delay to give Mayor Kim time to work on negotiation. Another that this was a very emotional issue on both sides and therefore supported delay so a professional facilitator could be brought in to help with matters.. He also reported he was very concerned about proptecting the environment. Sounds reasonable until one examines that lanuage a bit. To be clear, it is apparent to me that anyone who favors further negotiation or facilitation would be quite open to approving a large development, perhaps one cut back somewhat from the present proposal and with less of a foot print on the environment--but one large enough to do irreversible damage to the local people, the culture and Punalu'u itself. And that is one of the reasons using terms like facilitation, mediation and negotiation produce such an emotional response in supporters of 169-07. They have seen this used on the islands before, many times this old story is told. Propose a huge development that you know has little chance--one in fact that is larger than you really expect to get approved. Then during "negotiation" you eventually get "reasonable" and settle for less (but likely what you had expected) and offer some "give back" to the community. Shazam. The development is approved and the people lose yet again. That is what most of us think is happening here, with Five council members to back the Mayor and the developer if these "negotiations" are "successful." Ans, yes, the environment is plenty important to me too. But it is also about a unique culture in the two plantation towns of Ka'u, a mixing of Hawaiian and cane immigrant ways from many lands that has produced a culture and ways of life as rich as the creole language of Hawaii, perhaps the most advanced creole ever in the world. The life style in this place and the locals who live it deserve better treatment than this. It is one thing to protect the unique environmental niche of the Punaluu waters, an important thing. But 2 think it at least as important to preserve the way of life in this place, a way of life that is fast fading on the islands. In fact, 2 believe it only really exists with in vitality any more in Pahala and Naalehu. No wonder this is an emotional issue. Of course it is emotional for the developer and supporters of development. For the developer it is about serious money and the possibility of losing out on more wealth creation. I am not saying all or anything but a very small percentage of supporters of the development are in it for the developer's money. Many are obviously concerned about jobs. And that is a legitimate concern that effects families and local life-style as well. Those who look at it that way are fighting for the right reasons. I, however, disagree that this development will be, in the long term, the answer to the economic problems for the locals in Ka'u. It is emotional for supporters of the Resolution, the clear majority in Ka'u, have the foresight to see what an approved development (even a scaled down one) will do once beyond the short-term, well-paying construction jobs. They realize that those will be replaced by low-end service jobs. They realize that the local children will grow up without access to houses that will be out of their price range for buying or renting, driven there by this development (just look at the cost of "affordable" units in the develo/p~ment-,,I-Iareyy~~o-(uj'-L~~-~~`:~Q~ Kef. To: Ref. Date. 3