Laserfiche WebLink
it out. We can't figure out who benefits by taking away the people's 2% for parks and <br />for securing the land for the future. <br />MR. HIRT: Our final testifier here in Kona is Mr. Ben Dysart to make comment on the <br />2% Land Fund Compromise. <br />BEN DYSART <br />(At this time Ben Dysart came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) <br />MR. DYSART: Aloha. I also testified at the meeting in Kona a couple of weeks ago. I <br />would like to emphasize, well, there is one thing that no one seems to comment on and <br />that is, even though the revenue is way down, so is the 2% way down. It goes up and <br />down with the revenues. No body seems to care about that but I think it ought to be <br />noted. I feel that however the Land Fund is implemented the funds need to be collected <br />in a timely manner. The funds should immediately be placed in an interest bearing <br />account, and the account should be protected in the same way that the principle would be <br />protected. As an investment in the future of the island, the land should be acquired in an <br />economical fashion, open for matching funds, Federal funds and that kind of thing. <br />When they are obtained they should be use for land purchase, by normally accepted <br />methods. If that involves a bond issue, that is fine, but I think the bond issue should be <br />place in a separate fund and should be administered by someone who is responsible. The <br />people who are in favor of the 2% fund - -I'm not even going to comment on the 1/2% fund, <br />that is like $1 million dollars each year and you can't buy anything for $1 million - -which <br />is about $4 million a year, you can select property and over a period of time accumulate <br />enough to purchase the land. If you wait to accumulate $1 million at a time, it is going to <br />be forever. I have no concept of who dreamed up that 1/2% was going to be better than <br />2 %. That's about it. I think there should be someone in the administration who is <br />responsible to the people and that we can go to him anytime the question comes up and <br />ask what they have done with our money this year. That's about the long and the short of <br />it. Thank you for allowing me to testify. <br />MR. HIRT: Mr. Chair, that was our final testifier here in Kona. <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. First up here in Hilo, we have Cory Harden and <br />she is testifying on CA -15. <br />CORY HARDEN <br />(At this time Cory Harden, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) <br />MS. HARDEN: Arlene was doing pictures for me and I hope she is here to put a picture <br />on. I am going to start with talking about CA -7 and CA -12 and with thanking you folks <br />again for all the time you are putting in. For these two, I hope you will drop the <br />residence address requirement for petition signers. Several reasons; one is that some <br />streets are not named yet, so the Count cannot assign addresses. This is according to <br />Merle Iwasaki at the County Planning Department. That happened to me. My street is <br />privately owned by someone in Utah and it took years before he named it. Second reason <br />7 <br />