Laserfiche WebLink
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 <br /> 2045, `Planning for a Sustainable Future' herein referred to as 'the plan', presented to its <br /> constituents for review with so many typos, undefined routes to achieve stated <br /> objectives and verifiably false assertions and vagaries will be therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> Any plan that intends on increasing taxations, fines, restrictions, limitations on freedoms <br /> to travel or any other Constitutionally protected rights will be therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> Any discussion of future planning and development for Moku 0 Keawe based on the <br /> nefarious and unconstitutional premises of Agenda 21, 30 or 45 or any related agendas <br /> being dictated to our County by the unelected officials of the World Economic Forum or <br /> the United Nations or any other such entity will be therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> The means by which the lofty ideals presented in the plan are undefined and essentially <br /> identical to plans throughout the United States with suspicious terms like on-site <br /> affordable and workforce units, cluster, stakeholder, buffer zones, change codes, smart <br /> cities, urban renewal, etc. rendering said means incapable of addressing our site <br /> specific needs through such a cookie cutter, one size fits all planning process and will <br /> be therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> Any document that is intended to "Incentivize the highest and best use of productive <br /> Agricultural Lands" without being painstakingly specific as to what that means and in <br /> whose best interest the Planning Commission is referring and will be therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> The plan is disingenuous when stating its intention to "Continuously engage residents <br /> and stakeholders in the decisionmaking process" when at no time were the <br /> "stakeholders" specified or the residents engaged in the process of forming such <br /> `Climate Change' based plans and so will be therefore rejected. <br /> Whereas, <br /> The word homeowner is never mentioned while the word stakeholder is mentioned <br /> several dozen times leading your constituents to question the intentions behind the <br /> proposed overreaching transferences of Public Trust resources into undisclosed <br /> `Government and Non-government' agencies and so will be therefore rejected. <br /> 1 <br />