2024-10-30 Tawn Keeney MD Testimony GP 2045

Home

there without explanation and justification should lead again to rejection of the Draft Plan by the County Council. P. 149 “Remove barriers to reduce cost for new construction and rehabilitation of the current housing through changes to tax, zoning and building standard requirements.” Comment: It is stated above (p. 24 “About 90% of growth is through immigration.”) that 90% of growth till 2045 will be through immigration. Does it make sense to reduce taxation, which exists to benefit the general public, in order to accommodate immigration. Much of the cost of immigrant ownership of housing will be distributed among the current resident population (though some of the cost will be in purchase of offshore materials). Where is the advantage in reducing building costs for this immigrant population of homebuyers. Removal of barriers should only be for the ‘affordable housing’ component. P. 250 - “Adopt a County affordable housing program, similar to HRS 201H that encourages development, reduces cost and simplifies permitting.” Comment: HRS 201H is an undisguised blow to the intent of Regulation. The main purpose of planning and a Planning Department is to impose regulation. The County Council should have jurisdiction to weigh the advisability of waiving regulation in the appropriate circumstance regarding Affordable Housing development. In what way would a County 201H similar proposal provide opportunities that HRS 201H itself does not. This proposal appears to be counter to the idea of safeguards to the common good for the benefit of development, and should be abandoned. P. 212 - “A high quality of life for residents is maintained when a regenerative visitor industry balances the preservation of natural and cultural resources with responsible visitation.” General Comments: 1. The emphasis on Regenerative Tourism came as a result to the mounting criticism of the numbers of visitors and intrusion into the social fabric that the numbers of visitors was creating. The numbers of visitors is the basic problem - not that the visitors are disrespectful of the historic and current cultures. The catchphrase of ‘Regenerative Tourism’ is an effort to divert attention from the real problem of numbers. It is likely that for 90+ % of visitors there has been no change of plans or behavior from before the term ‘regenerative tourism’ was fabricated. There has been no diminishing of numbers of visitors. 2. By far, the most ‘negative effect of tourism’ is the associated Greenhouse Gas emissions from air transport of visitors. As we see more and more the social effects of rising temperatures such as climate migration, civil unrest and food shortages and the climate disasters such as fire, flood, hurricanes, sea level rise etc. the more clear it will be that leisure travel must be eliminated. Hawaii tourism, as leisure travel, is perhaps the worst offender on the planet, Hawaii being the most distant archipelago from any inhabited continental land mass. 3. In 2021 I presented a paper to the Honolulu Climate Change Commission indicating that Greenhouse Gas Emissions from air transport of Visitors to Hawaii accounted for 1-1/2x Hawaii’s total domestic GHG emissions. The Honolulu Commission requested that I present the paper to the State Climate Commission. Dr. Makena Coffman, UHERO researcher, presented a critique of the paper a year later