2017-01-19 Leeward Exh A (Bill 227 Draft 2 re Agricultural Tourism)

Home

PALMA-GLENNIE: Yes, I do. UNGER: Please state your name and your residence. PALMA-GLENNIE: My name is Janice Palma-Glennie and I live – would you like my address or just – I’m from Keauhou. UNGER: That’s fine. You may proceed. PALMA-GLENNIE: Okay. Thank you. Aloha, Commission members. As background, I’m a 40-year Hawai‘i resident with 30-plus years in agriculture-related business in Kona. I’ve gone from giving positive input for maybe five years on ag tourism legislation to feeling like there’s little hope that my representatives are really hearing people who have already suffered, and will continue to suffer more widely and deeply, if farmers and those not involved in potential ag tourism continue to be left out of weak legislation. Even Ms. Wille’s bill and part or mostly this draft is still extremely unprotective. The problems with so-called “ag tourism” that people like my neighbors and my ‘ohana have experienced are being ignored by this bill. We’ve lived through and fought fake ag tourism that’s noisy, has nothing to do with real farmers and has been allowed to continue by County and State agencies who have, except for we’re talking about some other things in the positive, from my best of knowledge, refused to come to our aid, even when lawsuits proves that those activities were illegal. This body has already heard those tales. But here I am again. “The visitor industry, or tourism, continues to grow as a major element in the economy of Hawai‘i County,” so states this bill – I had a little trouble understanding the document, so if I get something wrong, that isn’t because I didn’t try – and that is front and center. Yes, but this, but is the goal of ag tourism to protect farming or increase tourism? “The failure to define and regulate agricultural tourism in Hawai‘i County has already resulted in complaints from surrounding property owners and residents due to excessive noise and unsafe traffic conditions.” Indeed. But this bill does little and even less to protect surrounding property owners and the environment, especially since ironclad enforcement continues to be missing. “Eliminate the need for a site inspection prior to the issuance of final Plan Approval for a ‘major’ ag tourism operation.” And instead of providing a daily visitor count, minor ag tourism apparently allows 350 visitors per week; that’s 200 for one day and 150 the next or maybe 350 in one day. Or, because I did find this bill difficult to understand, is it 100 visitors per week but still lacking daily limits? Either way, the public has asked over and over again – I don’t know how many time for how many years – for a daily limit for minor ag at least and for no more than five days a week operation. This bill ignores those relentless requests. Six a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m. visitors and noise when it could still be dark? And the most nebulous and unenforceable of guidelines: “20 minutes after sunset.” Busses, jet-lagged tourists talking in 2 EXHIBIT A