2008-04-18 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, politics I guess is relative. And we witness the effects of politics in Puna and all of those substandard subdivisions that were done way back when, and we are challenged today to deal with all of that. And from my view those are political acts. And so, I guess I agree with you, Commissioner Woodward, that there is politics involved in these things to some level; and I guess it’s just a matter of semantics or definition. The perspective expressed, just expressed by my Fellow Commissioner about the emphasis that we need to look at, I agree with that. I had a conversation with a friend of mine about our Commission matters. And before those substandard subdivisions, it was the politics of yes, right? Let somebody make some money, cut some land on paper, sell if off, and let the consequences be whatever the consequences are going to be. And the suggestion from my friend was, you know, this should really be the politics of no. When we have development proposals brought before us, they should be very seriously scrutinized. Developers need to, you know, meet the community standards and what is necessary to protect the aina and what we have because really we don’t – we are an island – we don’t have really anything else, we have no place to go. And actually with global warming and all that I don’t think we want to go anywhere; this is a good place to be, given all of that. But you know, it’s a -, I thought that was significant, and I thought about that. You know, it’s like we have to be very deliberate about these things; and that is going to be part of how I view my role in this process. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Granted in any rezoning ordinance, should any of the conditions not be met, it shall be reverted back to its original zoning; and of course any developer is aware of that. And there are rules and policies to which we must follow to enforce those conditions that are contained in the ordinance. As I indicated, the doctrine of fairness is uppermost in my mind of a private -, throughout my life in all my dealings. And I for one certainly sense that the doctrine of fairness has been breached. Granted the laws and the policies are there and they should be followed and they have been followed, and that’s why we are here at the point that we are. But during the whole process there is a point in time where the discretion, the discretion of powers and the discretion of those individuals who make the decision, comes in, and that is where the fairness doctrine comes in. What I’m saying is that not only this Commission, the Council and even other jurisdictions find that there are times when you feel that the doctrine of fairness has not been meting out to individuals. And that is only because of the judgment and the decisions of individuals; it’s not because the law is flawed. It is the ability of the individuals and the powers that may be that interpret those laws and enforce it that is the problem. It is individuals with discretionary powers in their performance of their duties make what I would refer to as unfair judgment and decisions. And that’s -, as I look at this issue, I certainly find that in it. And I think as we deliberate -, we’ve deliberated many times, as I stated, there were times that this Commission has often gone beyond their means and considered applications for extensions of times and has granted them. I found no fault in that. Those decisions were made based on the information that was given us and based on what we felt was fair for that individual or for that applicant. And that’s why the decision was made as it was. And you know, what I’m saying, again, is, with respect to this particular issue, I don’t see that it has happened. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. EXHIBIT A 19