2024-09-26 PL-INT-2024-008818 GP 2045 Draft Comments - M. Cummings

Home

Whereas, It is unconstitutional and a colossal misuse of tax payer's money to suggest "Retrofitting or relocating bridges and roads (As it) provides an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions by reducing miles traveled" without stating who exactly will be determining how many miles your constituents may travel which is an outrage and where they may travel thus betraying your oaths to uphold, protect, preserve and defend the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Hawai'i and so will be therefore rejected. Whereas, The plan intends to "Reduce the threat to life and property from natural hazards and disasters" without mentioning or working towards the prevention of non-natural disasters as well like the 300 plus fires that have resulted from military training at PTA and other deadly pollution, illegal water diversions contributing to the devastating Lahaina Fires and others, the high costs to our environment/food supply/residents/visitors by relentless human and environmental experimentation without consent here in the world's capital of endangered species like the recent introduction of yet another invasive species of Wolbachia Mosquitos, PGV's reckless drilling and other verifiably dangerous and detrimental experiments, the use of bioweapons, medical or otherwise and so many other non-natural disasters not mentioned here and will be therefore rejected. Whereas, For the Plan to "Require all County Departments to collaborate with the County Office of Sustainability, Climate, Equity, and Resilience (OSCER) as the lead agency to ensure the integration of the County's goals of sustainability, climate resilience, and equity into all county operations and planning initiatives" without a clear definition regarding OSCER's powers and authority, who will oversee that authority which your constituents have not yet granted approval for and what exactly do all these buzzwords mean in practical terms rendering the validity of this requirement null and void and will be therefore rejected. Whereas, The CPTED is an unwelcome aspect of proposed SMART CITIES that would surveil, curtail, control and record its inhabitants beyond lawful right or conscience as offshoots of Agenda 21/30/45 in concert with the dictates of non elected officials in both the World Economic Forum and the United Nations and will be therefore rejected. Whereas, The Plan's intention to "Increase the use of Smart Growth principles to focus development within designated urban centers" without a sound footing as to the possibly illegal and/or detrimental implication of such growth, based on the unscientific and highly debatable premise of the Climate Change narrative and related narratives is unacceptable and will be therefore rejected. 2