2006-08-25 TPLANNING DIR. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

really -. You are concentrating, I don’t want to call them trouble-, you know, some might be troublemakers, some might be, you know, whatever. But you are concentrating them in an area. And given the current situation, and I think that these treatment facilities, to some, they have a bad name because they are not controlling these individuals. I think enough people can attest to, you know, times when people, kids run away. We heard about that in Keaau Ag Lots, that kind of thing. I guess my point is what needs to be done is the, I would like to see, number one, public hearings for any type of thing. If the use permit route is the way to go, that would make a lot more sense to me than changing the definition of family. And I would like to see these treatment facilities, I know it’s going to cost more but I think the treatment facilities need to figure out a way that they will be a benefit and an asset to the community. And if they can be an asset to the community, the communities will bring them in and will want them in their community. But that is not the case at this point in time, you know. If the treatment facilities can become, you know become wanted in the communities then they won’t have a problem as a public hearing. But I feel that the public needs, and I think this is a good example, the public needs to have a say in what is happening here.So I think this is the wrong route to go. I think the right route is something like a special permit type of situation that will give the public the ability to have a say with what happens in their community. And they would change the treatment facilities so that they will become an asset to the community. In a way, if I can make a question of it is, is there a way, Chris, to, you know -? That would be the way I would want to support it, if we have something that’s more of a special permit, that’s the route. YUEN:Let me explain -. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you. You may be seated. YUEN:You want to finish the testimony before we have this discussion because we can have -. MCCALL:I’m sorry. I thought we did have the testimony. ALAMEDA:Actually, we have one more testifier. MCCALL:Okay, I’m sorry. ALAMEDA:Sir? WALKER:Just on the subject of changing the definition of family, it just seems so far from normality when, in our case, the family has 18-aged sons all with history of behavioral disorders, drug abuse and criminal activity to described that in the same, with the same word as what we would think of as being a healthy growing up environment or want for a neighbor. It’s two different things compared to some of the mental health adult sorts of things that we’ve heard about. I’d like to contrast that and make sure that there’s a distinction made. Thanks. ALAMEDA:All right. Thank you, and you may be seated. One more testifier. Richard Thurman? Thank you for waiting patiently. Richard, could you please raise your right EXHIBIT D 20