Laserfiche WebLink
area and so that red line is within our property, within our boundary. So, and then the rest of it <br />for access, I couldn’t answer, I don’t have an answer for that… <br /> <br />GD: OK. My comment on this is just essentially to say that, you know, the County may own property <br />in many places that also necessitate public access, I don’t think that is uncommon and… <br /> <br />MK: Sure… <br /> <br />GD: ….probably by going against precedent you are going to upset certain members of the <br />community especially that are concerned with what our Commission does and so thank you <br />again for appearing today to address this but I think, you know, if you will in measures like this <br />then you’ll probably get some sort of backlash just probably better ways of addressing this than <br />blocking access to people because I think, like sure, there may be less of certain damage you’re <br />seeing but there’s a proportional amount to the community in other ways so, um, that’s <br />probably something that you should consider in your decision making in going forward <br />especially with public access and you know land access rights like this, you know, there’s broad <br />\[tape gap\] Hawaii constitution and County and other jurisdictional things that say specific public <br />land access so, um, I don’t know \[tape gap\] if you’re correct – like you should probably \[tape <br />gap\] counsel for those specific things, but my \[tape gap\] about how \[tape gap\] and disallow <br />access \[tape gap\] mitigate other factors that, you know, we… <br /> <br />MK: To go back to my earlier comment and then (unclear) at least consider the fact that (unclear) is <br />trying to work towards a solution that would, um, everyone’s – the hunters will \[tape gap\] and <br />as far that aren’t really used \[tape gap\] they won’t be able to hide, you know, and for the <br />hunters that go back there, I mean, they’ll be able to do that, it’s just that one additional step, <br />you know, the ability to go through there \[tape gap\] what they want, you know, as far as the <br />County’s concerned well it’s exactly what we’ve been saying, it’s just that we \[tape gap\] for the <br />\[tape gap\] any reason to go back there and I \[tape gap\] you know aren’t given an area where <br />they can hide. I think that makes us happy. We’re always going to be some level \[tape gap\] <br />continue to address that \[tape gap\] it’s just figure out a happy medium where everybody \[tape <br />gap\] get \[tape gap\] while you’re right that we want to be acknowledged that there is a set <br />amount of community that is having issues here – the hunters and what not – hunters and <br />gatherers – there’s also, you know, the community at large that utilize that station have some <br />expectations that they can come into a site that they put their moneys to that is, you know, able <br />to be kept nice. I don’t think the two are at odds with each other, I think we can both agree and <br />come to some middle ground, I really do. <br /> <br />DML: Chair Abraham? <br /> <br />AA: Yes, Diana. <br /> <br />DML: Yeah, I’m the attorney for DEM Solid Waste Division as well as covering GMAC and I am aware of <br />some discussions that have been held with DLNR about installing a pipe gate and I’m not exactly <br />sure, Mike, where that gate would go and if that’s on the County’s property or the DLNR’s <br />property but I have agreed to work on a memorandum of understanding with DLNR to get that <br />in place and plan to be working on that this week so, um, it’s helpful to have this information <br />because I’m not as clear on the dividing line and where DLNR’s property starts and the County’s <br />end. <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />