CHC 1979-04-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

all agree on this, do not like the system Matayoshi and Yamashiro have submitted to the Charter Commission as a recom- mendation. I would also like to remind you that we feel that Kona has approximately 23,000 to 25 ,000 people living in the tules, the coffeelands , in subdivisions, all over the place. No matter where you go you are going to find people and we intend to get them all registered to vote and we intend to have some say as to if you really insist on people at-large, we insist that we will decide who gets at-large. Because we are so determined and I believe that the housewives and women of Kona are going to work very hard to see that Kona is well represented. I ,feel that, right now, the decisions that we have with the apportionment give Hilo the upper hand until 1982. Number 2 on the first page is that the four-year term be staggered and set up on the same basis as that as the Con Con did for the senate. The reason we prefer the staggered system is because it allows for continuity. As you will recall , the last council had a tremendous turnover and it has taken almost 2% years just to get functioning because everyone has to learn the ropes at the same time. Now, if you really feel like cleaning out the council , you can do it very 2 years, half of them at a time. But it allows for continuity so you do not have the tremendous problems that we have had in the last several years. We do not agree with 2 year: terms. I know that Maui and Kauai have 2 year terms but they're very frustrated and I have talked with some of their councilmen and they, personally, don 't like it. It is very expensive. You must think also of the energy involved. Driving around the island every two years. . . let me tell you, it ' s very hard and it ' s very expensive. If you have your staggered terms and in fact if you'd like to add recall you could do that. You do have impeachment allowed in your County Charter as it is right now so if anybody were really bad you could get rid of them. So I don 't think there is any worry about four-year terms. It doesn ' t concern me as much as reap- portionment with none at-large. On the third point, the property tax on any piece of property must not exceed 1% of its assessed value. We are talking about using the real 100% assessed value. To use the 60% which is now used by the tax department is trying to make people believe something that really isn ' t so. Why not be honest about it and say, all right your value ,of your land is worth $40,000, you are being assessed, whatever it is, $17 per whatever, or less, since it is going to be on 100%. At least the people will understand that tax notice that comes around, because, personally, I don 't understand my own. I look at it, I call the tax department. I feel that it is not really fair to the people. So, we are talking about a property tax on the assessed value of the property not to increase more than 2% per year. - 4 -