Laserfiche WebLink
I think the fact that you can leverage this money -- -There was an earlier testifier who <br />asked who benefits by not having the 2% thing in there. I'll tell you who benefits. It is <br />the government administrators, because if they can take this 2% and put it somewhere <br />else, it alleviates their duty to make the hard decisions and the cuts that need to be made <br />right now. So, clearly, government administrators benefit if you take away this 2% <br />provision. We haven't seen too many of the hard decisions made yet. Believe me, if any <br />of us were in their chairs, we would want to be able to have access to that money. But, <br />for the betterment of the community, it is allowing them off the hook of making the hard, <br />politically, sometimes unpopular decisions. So, I just hope you will keep that 2% in <br />there, and let the public decide how they want to go with it. <br />The last and final matter I wanted to testify on is the most important one to me. I <br />support, wholeheartedly, CA -26, Conservation of Natural and Cultural Resources. I am <br />going to refer to some documents quickly here; as quickly as I can. I thank everybody for <br />their patience. What I have in my hand, right here, all of these comments relate to natural <br />resources and cultural resources, and how presently, under our current system, these <br />process that have been set up by our fathers and our uncles that are in the Hawaii Revise <br />Statutes, and the Hawaii County Code; they are not being followed. <br />One quick example is on Reed's Bay Beach Park. What I show you is a map that left <br />every single tree on the property that enhanced the park with all native species. In fact, <br />this first proposal, before the politicians got involved, or whoever got involved, and said <br />to cut down every single tree on the property except for the coconut grove by the ice <br />pond; somehow it got transformed into this process of we need to do this. If we want to <br />be good teachers, we ask children once in a while to show us their work and we ask how <br />they came to that conclusion. Well, I closely this whole S.M.A. (Shoreline Management <br />Area) process. It's the first time I've been involved with the Planning Commission, and I <br />have to say that our Planning Commissioners are getting way too little information when <br />it comes to public resources. I know you probably can't pick this up, but what it came to <br />is this is the X on every single tree existing on that property. So somehow we went from <br />this landscape conceptual plan by the same landscape architect who clearly put forward a <br />design that not only cost way less to implement that respects the natural resources. By <br />the way, some people think that trees are no longer natural resources, they need to <br />Section 205A HRS; they also need to read Chapter 58, Exceptional Trees. Then we got <br />into quite a big plan that the community rejected. So what ended up happening was the <br />community ended up having to fight tooth and nail for every single tree on that property <br />that have long been considered of historic and cultural value. There are other issues <br />there. I've learned how this happens; how this process is deficient. <br />I guess in a nutshell what I would like to say is that if this Charter amendment is passed, <br />it does say to our administration, "Start following the rules that are on the books; start <br />following the laws; quit trying to get around these things, because for whatever purpose <br />you think it is easier for your particular plan. In 14 -61, it says that the lack of designation <br />as exceptional tree does not diminish the responsibility and authority of the planning <br />department and department of public works, building division to recommend trees to be <br />incorporated into a development plan. Chapter 58 has a purpose section that everyone <br />10 <br />