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

Home

INITIAL CONCEPTUAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN 1. The basic concept underlying the notion of General Plan is desirable. However this current Draft General Plan 2045 raises questions about practical application of that notion. It is found, in survey of the proposals here that the Draft General Plan is laden with contentious ideas which are likely to represent the thinking on one administration but may well be rejected by a subsequent administration, or, more importantly by the general public. If the General Plan is to be posited as a guideline or aspirational document that spans a period of 20+ years then contentious proposals, or proposals that have a shifting or limited source of support or are poorly understood by the public or the administration, should not be a part of the document. 2. Regardless of whether the apologists of placement of contentious proposals in the Draft General Plan attempt to justify this document as a `Living Document', they may also posit it as foundational to the development of ordinances and administrative rules that may subsequently arise. 3. Where there would be significant opposition, even if the document framers should feel themselves in a majority postion, the General Plan should be avoided as residence of that directive 4. If a General Plan directive may expect even modest opposition, then that proposal should be accompanied by a full explanation of the reasoning behind its position, as inclusion in the General Plan may become rationale for proposal as ordinance or administrative rule. 5. Does the State of Hawaii or the United States have a `General Plan' that it creates periodically. No, they have constitutions. However these `constitutions' are not given to contentious proposals which arise with the shifting of societal circumstance or environment. They are fundamental guidelines which are truly foundational and not subject to whim of administration. And it is from that document that legal applications arise. There is no intermediate `General Plan', formulated as aspiration by one administration after another, not subject to public debate and discussion 6. If a General Plan is posited by an administration as description of intention of where its aspirations lie, and especially if that Plan contains contentious or poorly understood proposals then that document should be retired at the conclusion of each administration rather than posited as a guidepost for a 20+ year period. 7. And if such a document is of such fundamental importance to construction of societal rules, then its evolution should take place by amendment of the underlying document rather than reconstruction of a new document which allows only incomplete or limited understanding of how that document has transformed from what has proceeded it. 8. If the document is reformulated as transformation rather than edited as transition from currently existing structure, then a full explanation of the rationale for each proposal should be available to the public. Even in the model of transition, an explanation of changes should be available to the public. 9. The above considerations conclude that: A) The General Plan should not contain proposals where agreement will be subject to significant contention. Rather, such proposals or directives must first be considered and endorsed in their individuality. B) A General Plan should have clarity of transition from its predecessor. C) The timeframe of application of the document should be shortened, perhaps as much as to the term of the administration which has generated the document. This shortened timeframe in itself will encourage transition rather than transformation.