COM 0126.002 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~EC,C~~ _ 82-5811 Napoopoo Road Captain Cook, HI 96704 '37 JaN ?8 PPi to uary26, 1997 COUNi'r ~,^Lf COUNTY OF H. ;WAIT Mr. Joe Reynolds 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Reynolds: I am writing to you about the article in today's West Hawaii Today headlined "Developer cries poor over park, road projects". I am offended that the developer had the nerve to ask for these concessions, and am absolutely outraged that the Council committee supports the request. I appreciate and agree with Mr. Tyler's rationale for refusing to support this give-away, but it seems to me that there is a much better reason for our representatives on the County Council to reject it It is ethically, morally, and legally wrong! Let's apply a little common sense to this issue by putting it in the larger context of Hawaii Island's business and homeowner communities. Every business on this island continues to suffer the effects of an economic decline. Many businesses are locked into contracts and agreements signed during better economic times. The agreements and contracts may be killing these businesses today, and they would jump at the opportunity to bail out of these contracts and agreements if bailing were an option, but it is not. It is not an option because an agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract. Many, many homeowners and land owners on this island bought their property at prices greater than what they are worth today. Unfortunately for them, no one is willing to refund them the difference in price vs. present value, or to reduce the mortgage note to reflect the economic downturn. Again this is because an agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract. The situation for Hawaii Island businesses and homeowners is similar in one respect to White Hat Development Corp.: A11 of them made commitments based on the best information available at the time, and all of them thought at the time that they were making a good deal. Businesses and homeowners part company with White Hat, however, when our elected officials declare that a developer is a special case, and that protecting a developer's interests is more important than protecting their constituents' interests. What the Council committee said cannot be more ciear: "Everyone else can roll with the punches, but we'll make sure that developers (Bishop Estate, for heaven's sake!) realize the same RO] they projected in their business case - the taxpayers will make up the difference." One Last thing, regarding Ms. Leithead-Todd's assertion that her involvement as an elected official in this matter is not a conflict of interest I sincerely hope Chat her definition of conflict of interest is not the official one, because if it is we have even bigger problems in Hawaii County