|
because there’s no one principle that you can apply for developers or a single individual. And
<br />that is, you know, the issue of integrity. If you say, okay, that’s the way it’s supposed to be, then
<br />you seal it with your signature and you stamp it, and it’s an ordinance, it becomes law.
<br />Therefore, everything that is on that book is something that both parties must adhere to. Yeah?
<br />But when we, I wouldn’t use the word arbitrarily, but when we think of trying to downzone a
<br />property of this magnitude then it becomes a real serious matter; and this is where I have strong
<br />reservations about, you know, supporting this initiative. Because in me I know it’s wrong. You
<br />know, by law it’s wrong. And it’s morally wrong when you put individuals through the whole
<br />process of meeting requirements and paying, you know, paying water commitments and all of
<br />that and then you say to them, hey, look, we’re going to take, we’re going to take your zoning
<br />away therefore you will not be able to develop it as was decided, you know. And that’s where I
<br />have a problem, too, Mr. Chairman.
<br />WATANABE: Thank you. We haven’t heard from you, Mr. Rho.
<br />RHO: I just wanted to say a few things. One is I agree time has passed, and we
<br />have a requirement or at least a timeline requirement for these projects. And during my short
<br />time on the Commission my recollection, and I have repeated senior moments nowadays, is that
<br />we always or have allowed these time extensions because we generally feel that the developer or
<br />the private individual with that 15,000 square feet lot or that 10,000 square feet lot with a home
<br />on it, etc., etc. is entitled, should be able to, we should give them the benefit of the doubt, etc.,
<br />etc. So in general my general feeling is that the Commission will bend over backwards to protect
<br />the individual’s rights. I don’t have any problem with that. I think that’s the way to be.
<br />But there is or there must be a reason for these timelines. And I think I know why the timelines
<br />are there. So when it comes to some of these issues that have come up I have a very difficult
<br />time allowing or saying, okay, I can go with extending the timeline.
<br />Times have changed, the developer in this case knew what the timeline was. I think the
<br />community should have objected to this change, this SMA and whatever, whenever it came up.
<br />But we didn’t have foresight then, and maybe now as a community we have more foresight,
<br />more information, more knowledge, etc. So I’m sympathetic to the developer; but at the same
<br />time the community good with this Director’s proposed change I think overwhelms the
<br />developer’s need to keep the zoning. We just basically did the same thing in different ways,
<br />different wording, to the Kona Scenic, and I remember that’s Kona Scenic, Kona Scenic that
<br />Highway Bypass thing. We promised that community that, nobody denied that we didn’t
<br />promise them, that we wouldn’t run the road through their property. But today we, because of
<br />circumstances and for me personally because of greater community good, I voted in favor of
<br />reneging on that commitment to that small community, 100 homes, to run the highway or run
<br />that roadway. Hopefully it will be safe because it’s only up hill and it’s only temporary. So, you
<br />know, I don’t buy this thing where once it’s done, once it’s voted upon, it has to stay that way
<br />because that person or that group is entitled to it. Times change, attitudes change, the needs
<br />change.
<br />So my last little comment – If we had this kind of foresight a long time ago, and I mean a long
<br />time ago, we wouldn’t have Alii Drive, makai Alii Drive, looking like it is today. I don’t care
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />19
<br />
<br />
|