Laserfiche WebLink
DeVera, Ashley <br /> From: Millicent Cummings < <br /> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 8:51 AM <br /> To: Planning General Plan <br /> Subject: Testimony regarding the County of Hawai'i General Plan 2045 <br /> Attachments: Millicent's Testimony for the Planning Commission.pdf <br /> To: Hawai'i County Planning Department <br /> From: Millicent Cummings, Hilo Resident <br /> September 26, 2024 <br /> Whereas, <br /> Any official document, particularly a final draft like the County of Hawai'i General Plan 2045, 'Planning for a <br /> Sustainable Future' herein referred to as 'the plan', presented to its constituents for review with so many <br /> typos, undefined routes to achieve stated objectives and verifiably false assertions and vagaries will be <br /> therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> Any plan that intends on increasing taxations, fines, restrictions, limitations on freedoms to travel or any other <br /> Constitutionally protected rights will be therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> Any discussion of future planning and development for Moku 0 Keawe based on the nefarious and <br /> unconstitutional premises of Agenda 21, 30 or 45 or any related agendas being dictated to our County by the <br /> unelected officials of the World Economic Forum or the United Nations or any other such entity will be <br /> therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> The means by which the lofty ideals presented in the plan are undefined and essentially identical to plans <br /> throughout the United States with suspicious terms like on-site affordable and workforce units, cluster, <br /> stakeholder, buffer zones, change codes, smart cities, urban renewal, etc. rendering said means incapable of <br /> addressing our site specific needs through such a cookie cutter, one size fits all planning process and will be <br /> therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> Any document that is intended to "Incentivize the highest and best use of productive Agricultural Lands" <br /> without being painstakingly specific as to what that means and in whose best interest the Planning <br /> Commission is referring and will be therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> The plan is disingenuous when stating its intention to "Continuously engage residents and stakeholders in the <br /> decisionmaking process" when at no time were the "stakeholders" specified or the residents engaged in the <br /> process of forming such 'Climate Change' based plans and so will be therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> i <br />