|
holes; and we did it. So, that is my only reason for doing that, and expressing how it
<br />should be done, how it should be done, and why, if we are going to continue to say if it's
<br />good there in Waimea, good there in Waikoloa, good there in Puna, then these people who
<br />expressed to me, maybe they didn't come out here vocally and sit out here to say it, then I
<br />think it's important for me to at least express their concerns to the rest of you and why I
<br />think it should have stayed where it is. Thank you.
<br />CHR. SIRACUSA: Thank you, Patrick, for expressing your manao. Does anyone else
<br />want to say something?
<br />MR. MELROSE: I just want to revisit that issue of the high growth areas that Mike
<br />raised. In the Ordinance, Section 2(b) it says, "...if practicable " - -and practicable is not
<br />preferable, it's practical - - "... documented high growth areas shall be drawn to receive the
<br />most negative council district deviation percentages in the Final Plan." So, I think that is
<br />what the guidance is by law, for us to follow. As it relates to the two Kona districts that
<br />are growing fast, both of those were at the low end of the deviation. Hilo, which is
<br />growing, but not growing fast, has quite high deviations, partly because this pressure to
<br />hold it in, but I think that this Puna district, which we know, by far, and claimed by
<br />everybody that came in and talked to us about Puna, is the fastest growing district in the
<br />State. We have the right to use our discretion in this circumstance, by the term, "if
<br />practicable," but if practicable isn't practical, I think we ought to be- - -This still is a piece
<br />of the law, and we need to be mindful of it and we ought to be careful about that this
<br />district is not going to be well represented ten years from now on a one person, one vote
<br />principal, and that is just the way it's going to be. I hear Puna, but I'm not really going to
<br />fight for the end piece of this. I think we should keep those numbers reasonably limited.
<br />I'm just going to go off of the Ordinance as the basis for that conversation.
<br />CHR. SIRACUSA: Okay. Needless to say, I am in strong disagreement with you, and we
<br />can agree to disagree.
<br />MS. POINDEXTER: I want to agree with what Patrick and what Mike was saying about
<br />that whole piece of Kea` au being kept in Hilo. From what I have heard, I'm in agreement
<br />with them. I could argue, I could argue for the people of Lakeland who were calling me,
<br />that didn't show up too, and were saying Waimea was Waimea for generations; Waikoloa
<br />is a development years down the road, but yet Waikoloa got their voice heard, and now
<br />they cut Waimea off, you know, part of it. So, we could make that argument, we could
<br />keep on going forever with this. So I think that little portion of Kea` au, which has voiced
<br />that they are okay with being in Hilo, and stay in Hilo, we should honor that. It is not
<br />going to make a difference for the Puna people. It is not that big, so it's not a big
<br />disruption. The reason why I let go of the Waimea issue is because it would drastically
<br />change a lot of places. Like Linda, who had to give up being boisterous on Volcano, we
<br />all gave up. Waimea gave up a big portion, and they are going to struggle another ten
<br />years. They struggled for ten years already they said, without representation. They are
<br />going to struggle another ten years, unless they have a leader in that area; so that is 20
<br />years. Then you have Volcano, who gave it up, and who is going to now have to handle it
<br />21
<br />
|