MIN CHC 2010-03-12.tif - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

best interest of the people of our island." Our County government, lately, has taken on three roles; administrative, such as determining how many police to hire, or where roads should go, how to process garbage, etc. This is an appropriate level of authority and responsibility for them to play. Telling us what things we can do and cannot do, restricting our rights more so every year, taking our money in taxes and fees. We, the people have delegated our elected officials the power to be administrators; but we have not delegated them the power to restrict our lives and take our money without our permission. The Consent of the Government Act will restore forever this authority and sovereignty of the people of the Big Island. The petition drive is going to start; and as we understand, we need about 20,000 votes to have this put on as a referendum to be voted on by the people. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak out of order on your present agenda items. That is all I have to say. Thank you. Aloha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have people in Waimea to testify? MS. HANANO: Yes, we have one person here in Waimea; she is Margaret Wille, and she is speaking on CA -12 and CA -15. MARGARET WILLE (At this time Margaret Wille came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. WILLE: This is Margaret Wille from Waimea, and I thank you all for your efforts. I just want to say that I hope as this goes forward, you will help to educate all of us and everyone in the County and help to understand the importance of the Charter itself as an umbrella law over our County, with government powers and government responsibilities and powers retained by the public. On CA -12, I just want to say that I agree with that, and support the change to substitute "registered voters," with "valid votes cast." It makes sense, and giving the Clerk additional time to check the sufficiency of the petition. Going to CA -15, the land fund; I support the 2% amount, but at the same time I hope that if there isn't the ability to garner the votes for 2 %, I encourage you to support putting in the land fund at 1 %. One point I want to make in terms of 2% and the arguments against it is that I see it as basically an effort to balance the environment versus the economy and how does one balance those different interests. But I think a more farsighted point of view is that it really isn't a conflict between environment and economy. The 2 %, the land funds, are used for purchasing land, purchasing trails, purchasing access; which I see as the real future of tourism here. This is the one segment of tourism, eco- tourism that is flourishing where it's promoted; whether it's hiking or biking or outdoor recreation. So I just want to say that I really think there is more consistency between those objectives and I would love it if you had the ability to go for the 2 %. Otherwise, I do support the 1 %. Whereas .05% was sort of a slap in the face of the electorate, at least 1% is M