|
<br />UNGER: Thank you.
<br />
<br />WONDRA: Just one last comment. As brought out earlier, sometimes you don’t realize that you
<br />got an issue with a situation until after some sort of public hearing has taken place. So, any time
<br />you can get public input, I think it’s to the benefit of everybody. Thank you.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Thank you. Councilperson David, Nicholas Rudd.
<br />
<br />DAVID: Aloha, Chair Unger and Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Maile
<br />David. I live in South Kona, and I’m here to make comment against the, in opposition to the
<br />proposed changes for the contested case, Rule 4.
<br />
<br />The testifiers before me basically expressed my sentiments, so I need, listening to the
<br />explanation of why we are considering this change seems to be convenience and the cost. I
<br />thought that might have been the reason when I first came. So for me, I don’t, because we are
<br />government, because we serve the people, I don’t believe two contested case hearings a year
<br />justify a change that will have huge impacts to a person’s right to participate in government. I
<br />think we’ve come a long way in expressing how government needs to be transparent and how
<br />government needs to receive every possible information they can. We sit before an agency, your
<br />Commission. The Council is no different. We put a lot of weight on people who come in to give
<br />us information. Not all useful sometimes, but, sometimes, there’s some information that we need
<br />to be educated about, and that’s why I really value the public’s right to testify in any
<br />governmental process. So, the cost of eliminating that right can have some really, really
<br />profound effects, and take us back to a place where I don’t believe I would like government to
<br />go. And, for me, what Councilmember Eoff has spoken about participating in government, I
<br />have been a participant and intervenor in two contested case hearings before I became a
<br />Councilmember, and one of them, very important, if, if we’re talking about Native rights, Native
<br />issues; had I not listened to the Planning Commission’s deliberations on a proposed development
<br />that would have impacted Keolonāhihi and Keakealaniwahine sacred complex, I would not have
<br />known that what was going on, and I was granted standing as a lineal descendant intervenor.
<br />
<br />So, to not inform or to not allow people to listen to your body, receive all the information that
<br />you possibly can take from the public, I think is a disservice, and I think the people have lots of
<br />information that we should acknowledge and receive. So I don’t have many, much more to say
<br />except I really believe that we should leave well enough alone and the rights of the public.
<br />Thank you.
<br />
<br />RUDD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission. Appreciate the opportunity. My
<br />name is Nicholas Rudd, and I live on Hoomama Street in Kailua-Kona, and I’m here as an
<br />individual. I am a retired California State construction inspector. I, too, have a problem with
<br />Rule 4 on the contested cases. And I, it’s my understanding that the public is notified of the
<br />application in the newspaper initially, and that then their objections and it becomes a contested
<br />case. And due to public testimony, my understanding of the role, the rule amendment is that the
<br />public are not notified again, not even in the newspapers, so that we can observe the continuing
<br />process. Generally, an environmental impact has to be provided regarding water, noise, traffic,
<br />22
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|