2006-09-07 TPD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ALAMEDA:Thank you very much. Could you please state your name and address for the record, starting from my immediate left? LANDIS:Hello, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Landis. I live at 17-123 Palula Place in the Keaau Ag Lots. ALAMEDA:Could you just pass the mike down and get everybody on record for name and address? KOZOHARA:Hiroshi Kozohara at 17-329 Palaai Street, Keaau Ag Lots. ALAMEDA:Thank you. KENOI:Aloha, Mr. Chairman. Billy Kenoi. I reside in Hawaiian Paradise Park on Kaloli. ALAMEDA:Thank you. CARTER:Eric Carter, 17-209 Meaulu Street in the Keaau Ag Lots. ALAMEDA:Thank you. MIRANDA:Bernie Miranda, Mililani, Hawai`i, Oahu. ALAMEDA:Thank you. All right. Let’s start up with Mr. Landis. Again, let me just remind you, I believe we did get your letter and we did hear you at the last meeting in Kona, so if you could keep your testimony concise and to the point. LANDIS:Oh, gee. You ought to know better than that, I’m a college professor. No, but seriously I will try to keep it brief. I have a much longer statement. I’ll be glad to give it to you afterward ‘cause I approached this as a, the only way I know how to approach a situation like this as a social researcher of some 40 years of experience. And I went back through the literature to see how it is we get to this point where we have what has been called in the literature “aggressive autonomy” as a technique for citing these kinds of homes. And it’s a fascinating literature ‘cause it involves the Fair Housing Act, it involves a lot of things, a lot of acronyms like “nimby” and “news” and “slap,” “slapping,” “strategic lawsuits” to “against public participation.” I think you might find that kind of intriguing when you look at it. But I’m going to jump that history and go to the instant proposal that has been made, which I consider a very unwise proposal. Aside from the unnecessary verbiage which is included in the proposal, most of which isn’t really relevant, the Director’s argument boils down to four points, if I may. Number one, they are low impact. Impact level is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. But should a property have, for example, two houses that, for example, in the case of an ohana, we move from 10 under the current rules to now 16 plus. Without a definition of, and in my view that’s certainly not impact. But now, you’ve got something like 20 or more people going in and out of the property. Without a definition of impact, it’s hard to see how this argument can be EXHIBIT D 4