2024-09-26 PL-INT-2024-008822 GP 2045 Draft Comments - T. Keeney

Home

P24 The number of transient accommodation rental units is beginning to trend higher than hotel units that once dominated the visitor accommodation industry. There is also a shift in the type of visitors away from the major resort areas, which may put stress on the environment of other areas. Comment: All efforts to limit the proliferation of STVRs should be supported. Visitor Accommodations Tax needs to be applied to all STVR rentals. Visitor Accommodations Tax needs to be dramatically increased. P. 26. Remove barriers to residential development in the appropriate districts to reduce development timelines, increase housing stock availability and increase affordability. Comment: Yes, this is one approach, assuming that one is trying to accelerate residential development. Perhaps one needs to start by making the case for accelerating residential development. This is not a `given'. It is a `given' that we need more housing for our heritage residents, but it seems that a preponderance of development housing actually goes to immigrants. The County, for probably excellent reasons, seems unable to solve this problem, and so, as much as we build, build, build... there are still the same number of heritage residents who seem to have to move to the mainland to find work and housing that are more practical. Consequently I don't think that the assumption should be made that we need to remove barriers to residential development. Second, how is it determined which are the appropriate `districts' for development. Changes in Urban Growth Boundaries must be clearly delineated for the public. One must respect expertise in determining where growth is appropriate, but the expression of the will of the public in and near those targeted areas is of importance to understand. It should be required that referendum or polling of residents in and near the targeted growth areas, or at least a `targeted' presentation to those residents would be made in the process of determining the desirability of growth in that area. After all, are we talking about the Planning Department's desire, or the desire of the residents of that area? Undoubtedly, the ultimate application will be a reflection of both. But a mailer to each post office box or address in the affected area, with a careful inquiry into the desires of the area residents, should be a part of the process. The General Plan Land Use Map should not be completed until such an inquiry with the public has been completed. P. 26. Review and update the Building and Zoning Codes to allow for more flexibility Comment: Please give examples of where more flexibility would be desirable. Please indicate the basic problem that is being approached by increasing flexibility, and explain how that flexibility will yield improvement in that problem. P. 26 Collaborate across State and County agencies to facilitate efficient and effective land use processes Comment: Collaboration is always desirable. Please describe what is currently the impediment to collaboration. P. 26. Advocate allowing for County initiated State Land Use Commission District Boundary Amendments to meet the preferred land use pattern. Comment: I will infer from this proposal that currently Land Use District Boundary Amendments are a function prescribed to the State. This makes sense since the natural tendency toward urban expansion meets interface with Lands subject to Department of Agriculture and DLNR oversight. I would be surprised if there is not capability of urban planners and the County to make their wishes known and advocate for those designs within