Laserfiche WebLink
other that to say that the Applicant doesn't want to make a decision for the future <br /> residents. <br /> 6. The various cultural and archeological surveys, and the list of similar surveys in the <br /> area, is great information. This report is the most thorough set of surveys I've reviewed <br /> since following local development applications. However, I continue to believe that <br /> development on sites with significant archeological artifacts should be more <br /> significantly restricted. <br /> 7. The staff report includes language about the$170,000,000 dollar construction cost for <br /> this proposal. This is an interesting statistic but shouldn't be used as financial blackmail <br /> for the appointed and elected decision makers for this or any project. As speculative <br /> land developers, there is a sunk cost for all of the hired professionals and their work <br /> before any approval and/or ground breaking for such a project. Including the <br /> construction cost implies that a project like this should be approved because of its <br /> financial impact to the community. I argue that a project like this has more permanent, <br /> negative impacts to the larger Kona community than limited positive financial impacts <br /> for a few on the development team. Please don't include this information in future <br /> applications, whether this is for large or small projects. It's not subtle, fair or impartial. <br /> Thank you. <br /> Elizabeth Dunn <br />