Laserfiche WebLink
Waikea sits at extremely low elevation, is already experiencing king tides, and is identified in <br />climate models as a high-risk inundation zone within the next several decades. <br />The bill encourages long-term redevelopment investments — hotels, commercial spaces, new <br />infrastructure — in an area that may not remain viable. It is fiscally irresponsible and <br />environmentally dangerous to push new development into a shoreline zone that: <br />will flood regularly, <br />may become partially submerged, <br />requires retreat and adaptation strategies, not new capital investment, and <br />will burden taxpayers with future mitigation, repair, and disaster costs. <br />We should not repeat the mistakes of developing in areas we already know will not withstand <br />future conditions. <br />3. This bill expands tourism at a moment when Hawaii needs to reduce dependency on it <br />Extractive tourism has already: <br />strained local housing markets, <br />stressed infrastructure designed for residents, <br />compromised cultural sites, <br />contributed to waste and water overuse, and <br />replaced local economies with visitor-centered ones. <br />Hilo is not Waikk, nor should it become a diluted version of it. <br />Visitors are welcome, but not at the cost of local quality of life, cultural integrity, or ecological <br />health. True revitalization should come through: <br />community-led planning, <br />restoration of natural systems, <br />diversification of our economic base, and <br />strengthening local ownership and control. <br />This bill does none of that. <br />4. The bill reduces local authority at a time when we need more local accountability, not less <br />Hilo residents have repeatedly expressed their desire for: <br /> <br />