2006-09-07 TPD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

true: an operator may apply for a special use permit to allow an increase to any number of clients and, I suspect, that when this has occurred it is more often than not been approved. Clearly, the present process works. To grate the teeth of an old saw, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If you increase the number to eight, how long will it be before some operator files suit to increase the number to ten, twelve, fourteen, or some even greater number arguing that eight is now “onerous?” As a harbinger of things to come, an operator has already threatened a suit against the Homeowners’ Association if the owners persist in opposing the siting of a drug treatment group home in their development. In fact, that threat was made at the very first meeting of the operator and the owners. My recommendation is similar, is simple: operators who wish to place more than five unrelated residents in a house should use the process now available to them. This would allow neighborhood residents to have their views respected and integrated into the decision-making process on a case-by-case basis. Nobody is asking for a veto power, only to not be stereotyped as some wild-eye people pushing the disabled back into the snake pits. While we might like the definition of the family to be restricted to people related by blood, marriage, adoption or “hanai,” we recognize that the “horse left the barn a long time ago.” However, we can ask that the local government prevent the neighborhoods from becoming stables with consequent negative effects on the quality of life. Let me be clear: We want to work with you and the Planning Department to support operators who are truly interested in client improvement and who forego aggressive autonomy as a siting strategy while at the same time weeding out those whose motivation is primarily pecuniary, something the Department of Health seems either unable or unwilling to accomplish. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion on this proposal. I hope you will now send it back to the Planning Department with a clear and unequivocal denial. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Landis. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, Mr. Landis, you may be seated. Mr. Hayashi, would you please give me that timer? Just so I can kind of be aware of our time. I’m just trying to calculate the minutes. If we go five minutes times 34, we’ll be out of -. You had the privilege because you were the first to sign up so -. Okay. Mr. Kozohara, go ahead. KOZOHARA:Yes, I’d like to approach this, of course, I’m against the amendment. And, first of all, wife and I grew up in, well, it was Kurtistown and Olaa before, now it’s known as Keaau; and we grew up in a very plantation camp atmosphere. This is in the 40’s and 50’s. And I think the major unifying thing about these camps where that we were all related. They had three generations in many of the homes, and these were families. We had lots of trust, it was very safe to live in the neighborhood. And, of course, we graduated from Hilo High School, and on to work on Oahu, spent about 45 years away and retired back here, again, looking for some sense of stability and safety, which I think it’s important. Because we’re retired and, but I guess the intrusion of increasing unrelated families to eight per unit, it’s a little scary for us. I think, first of all, you’re looking at ohana units that, I haven’t measured it, but being from a real estate lending background about 20 years living on Oahu, the units look like they are about 1,000 to 1,200 square feet; and to have over eight people I think that’s almost getting into encouraging a ghetto-like atmosphere in the community. I think it’s a, I don’t think we want that. And, also, looking at the Keaau Ag Lots, it’s one of the larger subdivisions or largest subdivision in East Hawai`i and it has the most ohana units. So you’re looking at further, I think, people coming in, EXHIBIT D 6