|
<br />MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. Good morning, could you please raise your right hands? Do
<br />you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‛i County Planning
<br />Commission?
<br />
<br />HONG/FREITAS/LEE LOY: Yes.
<br />
<br />MIYASATO: Thank you. Do you have a presentation or a statement?
<br />
<br />HONG: Yes, good morning Mr. Chairman, Planning Director, and members of the Planning
<br />Commission. My name is Ted Hong. Sitting to my right is Harry Freitas, and to his right is Sue
<br />Lee Loy from my office. I’d like to briefly go over a few points this morning.
<br />
<br />I think what you have before you is a, a concrete example of an unintended consequence of the
<br />concurrency law. The intent was to divide the property into six parcels over six acres of—for his
<br />family, to live and conduct, or continue agricultural practices. But, under the concurrency law,
<br />what’s going to happen is the requirements gonna be that he has to put in a 50-foot right-of-way,
<br />curbs, gutters, sidewalks, fire hydrants, and connect to the County water supply, which when I
<br />talked to Kurt Inaba from the Water Department, said that even if my client, Harry Freitas, was
<br />actually Bill Gates in disguise and had all the money that Bill Gates had and could afford to
<br />connect to the County Water Supply or the County line along the highway, they would not let
<br />him do that.
<br />
<br />So, the suggestion that Jeff highlights that this is an option is really not an option, and is kind of
<br />ironic. The other alternative would be to build two 100,000-gallon tanks above my client’s
<br />property to service the property. And, why that it is an unintended consequence because what’s
<br />really going to happen, or the result of this, is despite the fact that this property is in a part of our
<br />Island which gets over 200 inches of water per year, for catchment purposes, you’re actually
<br />impeding, discouraging agriculture instead of promoting it. You’re actually encouraging large,
<br />wealthy property owners to buy up these lots so they can build their McMansions and exclude
<br />local families from doing agriculture. You as, as we all know, the dynamic is changing in terms
<br />of this Island where you have a lot of families because of their age, the parents pass away and
<br />they’re trying to give their property to their kids, and the kids try to subdivide it between the
<br />people and the property, they can’t do that because of this concurrency law. And, it is an
<br />intended consequence.
<br />
<br />So, what you have before you is a negative recommendation, and we understand that the
<br />Commission has to follow the law, and I’m not here suggesting that you shouldn’t follow the
<br />law. But, we only ask that in your recommendation to the County Council, you include a plea, a
<br />suggestion, that the Council revisit, redefine—or refine—the concurrency law, to meet the needs
<br />of local agriculture property owners who want to keep the property in ag and with their families.
<br />And, you see this unfortunately along the Hāmākua Coast, where you see non-resident people,
<br />who have a lot of money buying large properties and going to keep them that way for their
<br />private estates. That shouldn’t happen, and I don’t think anybody here wants that to happen in
<br />other parts of our Island. But, that again, is an unintended consequence. I think the purpose and
<br />intent of the concurrency law was a good one. It addressed these issues where you’d have these
<br />
<br />5
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
<br />
|