2024-09-25 PL-INT-2024-008721 GP 2045 Draft Comments - S. Fendt

Home

DeVera, Ashley From: Sean Fendt < Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 8:15 AM To: Planning General Plan Subject: Hawaii Big Island General Plan Testimony Aloha Planning Department. After reading the general plan proposal, final draft I am concerned. In general, the plan does not support a positive future for life on Hawaii Island. It works to actively disrupt my own efforts for an eco friendly Big Island business, recommends barriers to my future and quality of life, and such for my friends, neighbors and community. It has been pointed out and I agree that much of this plan parrots language from many mainland plans, and I agree little is new and specifically addresses the uniqueness of our life on a very isolated island. I do see token recognition of rural residents, and that many of us came here to be away from cities and urban life. But I find little of that in the proposed recommendations. The proposal lacks protection of individual liberty, and pursuit of happiness; essentials to life and culture. We should concentrate on equal opportunity and the right of citizens to choose their life style rather than forcing equity in outcome to those that do not want it- i.e. about 60% of the island population based on data in the proposal. We need to foster innovation and opportunity, promote new solutions to problems. For example there are several conflicts in the plan, and no proposed support for solutions. Granted that transportation is currently detrimental to our climate, but for those of us that have been doing our part to minimize our carbon footprint for years, the proposed plan offers punishment and cost. I.e. those of us that live off-grid will pay a severe penalty to electrify our vehicles, especially in rural areas where small electric sedans are mostly useless. The added cost to generate enough energy to charge an electric vehicle capable of transporting materials and supplies needed for a rural and/or agricultural life is not addressed in this plan left to be a bourdon on the population that is doing the most good. Also, I see two significant problems mentioned with only regulations proposed that would limit a great solution. Specifically waste water in rural areas (any area not connected to a sewer system), and dependency on propane (far more efficient for tank-less water heating and cook than generating renewable electricity sufficient for the task). However if there were recommendations for policies to support biogas generation from waste water we could in a very sustainable way address both issues together. These are only a few examples of innovation completely lacking in the proposal, and as written the policies recommended would create a barrier to such innovation. Additionally the plan puts unnecessary separation between rural living and agricultural production Small farms are among the most sustainable solutions going forward, and that is necessarily a merging of the tow activities. There are indeed distinctions, but the mixing of these uses must be allowed for. 1