|
But notwithstanding that, what the Applicant is proposing, based upon his overall, you
<br />know, financial, the feasibility of the project, is willing to contribute a million dollars
<br />which would represent about 33 percent of the cost for the $3 million roadway
<br />improvements. And this would represent maybe 6 times, or 600 percent of its fair share,
<br />or possibly 18 times if you look at the full 3,000 lots in that area, you know, represent
<br />about 18 times more than its so-called like fair share.
<br />The question then is really like, is it fair to have this one developer or one person, one lot
<br />owner, be responsible for 100 percent of the roadway improvement cost? And my sense
<br />of fairness tells me that itÓs not fair.
<br />To use, getting back again to the party, you know, the party example I cited earlier, itÓs
<br />like, you know, asking someone to be responsible, you know, when
<br />and itÓs asking like someone to say like, okay, we have a potluck but you, you bring
<br />everything and everybody else does not bring. I think that everyone should share in the
<br />responsibilities and obligations. You know, all the beneficiaries should share and assume
<br />some measure of responsibilities and obligations in whatever they in turn reap.
<br />Notwithstanding the so-called fairness or the equity issue, the Applicant is still willing, as
<br />I noted earlier, to provide much more than its share. And with that, IÓll just kind of open
<br />up myself to questions. But more than that, you know, again, because the contested case
<br />request has been made, weÓd like to reserve more substantive jud
<br />FUJIKAWA:Okay, thank you. Any questions, Commissioners to the
<br />ApplicantÓs representative? Go ahead, Commissioner Graham?
<br />GRAHAM:Sidney, I was talking to Norman a little earlier and he s
<br />when the original request went through in Ó92, there was a regular community meeting
<br />out there and all these things were all agreed to. I was just wondering if you have made,
<br />in the recent time frame discussions with those in the community, to see if, in fact, the
<br />somewhat reduced set of road improvements youÓre proposing are something that the
<br />community feels that is a benefit they want to get and they would go for that?
<br />FUKE:Yes, IÓve had a number of meetings with the Ainaloa Community
<br />Association. The meeting prior to the initial issuance of the permit was conducted, you
<br />know, largely with the Ainaloa Community Association. So that, again, was continued. I
<br />had met with the Board in October, November, and then December.
<br />of the Board today who will be presenting, I guess, the BoardÓs position at this time.
<br />GRAHAM:Thank you.
<br />FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? If not, we do have four
<br />people signed up. The representative, please step back for a minute. We have four
<br />people signed up to testify and the gentleman who came up, is your name Jack Russell?
<br />FULKS:Ole -.
<br />6
<br />
<br />
|