MIN RDC 2011-05-12.tif - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

couple of different rationales for why, and just have our logic kind of laid out for each of those things. There is logic for doing Puna, there is a logic for doing North Kona. Those are the fastest growing regions and there is a certain accommodation for that growth and for starting there. There are a variety of ways, and until we see what the up communities of interest, or existing communities, to me, I am maintaining some community cohesion in this process; so the numbers are important, but I think I am very interested in how it affects communities. IÓm open to---I would expect us to have four or five different choices to start with and use the numbers. This is all just basically planning; start with a bunch of alternatives and then analyze them and think about them. CHR. SIRACUSA: Thank you. Mike. MR. MIDDLESWORTH: I would just point out that given the notion of representation for the faster growing areas, if we divide 185,000 by nine, we get 20,500 people roughly, which mean that we could be above or below that for any given district by say 800 or 900 people and still fall within the 10% number. So when we consider districts, like Jeff says, North Kohala and Puna are the two fastest growing. MR. MELROSE: North Kona. MR. MIDDLESWORTH: I mean North Kona, not North Kohala. They would be the districts you would think about having fewer people in the district as opposed to more. So that enters into it too. CHR. SIRACUSA: Okay, now itÓs my turn. I have been thinking about this also. When we were reading the Supreme Court transcript of the decision and there was some discussion there about the fracturing of Puna, and how that happened there becaus is so sparsely populated. So, I started pulling up the maps from the County Data Book and the County web site. I was trying to get a feel for---I pulled out the 2000 Census tract maps, I pulled out the Council District plan map from the 2001 Reapportionment, I pulled out the zone maps, and then I pulled out the Federal government map showing Federal lands on the Big Island. When I compared all these maps together--and I wish that I had had it sort of like in the form of a overlay so that all of them would be the same size and I could overlay and see where things lined up--but it struck me that between Volcano and Upper Puna, and Pahala and the rest of Ka, there is the National Park. The National Park, as far as I know--and I really would like Elections to get me some data on this--does anybody live within the boundaries of HawaiÒi Volcano National Park? Do we have any permanent residents at Kilauea Military Camp? Because, if there are no people living there, then Ka and Upper Puna are not contiguous and therefore do not meet that criteria. Furthermore, we know that Pahala and Volcano are not communities of interest. Bearing that in mind, I had two possible scenarios. One would be that we start at the National Park boundary with Ka and start working our way clockwise, up the coast, up the leeward coast. And then also start from Volcano and work our way counter-clockwise and see what kind of numbers we can generate and how those two pan out from there. One of the things that would happen was that of course we wouldnÓt have this problem of a whole chunk of Upper Puna being attached to Ka. Because if Ka gets tied in with South Kona, they are more of a community of 34