2024-11-04 Christopher Barham Testimony - GP 2045

Home

Pg. 78 Table 18: Land Use Opportunities Infrastructure:: last sentence “County departments can provide.....” Regulations: Red: “Collaborate across State and County agencies to.....” (Need more public input and ideas); “The most direct role the County plays..,..property tax policy.” (Need much more research on property tax rates, regulations, policies & scrutinized by the public who are affected by paying property taxes. This should be the most glaring concern so that we do not leave tax burden for future generations who may lose their properties to taxes paid to the government). Funding & Financing: “Partner with the State and other counties to create a capacity building plan.....stakeholders.” (Remove) Market Conditions: “Seek to acquire land for affordable housing developments....” Add: without violating people’s right to own property or take this out. Revise it. This is government overreach! Land Use Compatibility: “Demonstrate smart growth developments.” (Remove) Public Engagement: “Encourage affordable housing projects to meet the needs of neighborhoods (YIMBY) without further regulations and fines.” (What is YIMBY?) and next line “Apply strategies to....” “stakeholder”. Who are these stakeholders? What do they have stake in? Pg. 79 4.1.2 Land Use Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Item 9.7 - Red: “Encourage” change to Mandate developers Item 9.8 - Red: “Route selection for .....” that entire sentence. (This is a high priority revision as it pertains directly to 5G dangers. Here is where the people/public need to have direct input/approval/changes. Item 9.a - Red: “Develop a process for County.....” this is crucial for public scrutiny & opportunity for the public to get transparency. Transparency can only be realized if we, the public include ourselves into all governmental processes. If not, we will not get transparency, period! Pg 80 Land Use Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions - continued Item 9.e - “Conduct a review and re-evaluation....” entire sentence to be revised. Item 10.3 “Proposed discretionary permits for large developments.....Ka’u Districts” -Not clear needs revision. Item 10.b “Amend.......allow CPDs to be applied to all zoning districts...” - Why amend the Zoning Code? We need to compare current Zoning Codes to what they propose to amend to see if the people or the developers have the advantage. What are CPDs? Item 10.c - Red: “Collaborate with the State Office of Planning.....Native Hawaiian customary and traditional..” Need to revise to ensure that Hawaiian cultural experts, NOT the State government or its agencies have any input for preserving, protecting, educating, safeguarding, sharing, marketing, ..every aspect of utilizing our native Hawaiian (kanaka maoli) heritage of language, practices, traditions, religion & more belong exclusively to the kanaka maoli elders, experts, kupuna, kahuna, healers NEVER the government or its agencies...NEVER!!! Pg 81 continue Item 11.4 “Concurrency reviews should incorporate..... (Remove)” entire sentence absolutely NO!