Laserfiche WebLink
MR. CADINHA: I 'm saying that five, four. . . <br /> MR. TRULSON: Yes, I understand that. . . . I don ' t <br /> see where that is overloaded. I don ' t see where that makes <br /> any difference. <br /> MR. CADINHA: It makes a difference in that <br /> four is an adequate buffer to allow for demographic and <br /> population changes within a period of time. Two is not. Two <br /> is very definitive and any demographic and population changes <br /> don ' t make any,.matter, don ' t make any difference with the five <br /> and two. On the five and four they can. That is all I 'm saying. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman , may I? I want to <br /> speak in favor of five and four. I am not in favor of five and <br /> two. Basically, my reasons for not for five and two, I would <br /> rather wave five and four, is ( 1 ) Akira said one of the issues <br /> that he considers, whether it is significant or not is another <br /> thing, but it is a thing that should be considered, whether we <br /> can sell it .to the public. Since our present council makeup is <br /> nine, i don ' t think there is any problem about selling nine. <br /> If you are going to sell seven , I think it is a responsibility <br /> or task that we have to convince that seven is a good number. <br /> I feel that there is no real advantage of seven over the nine. <br /> I know that they say maybe seven is a more district type <br /> representation with more district ratio as opposed to at-large. <br /> But here again I am kind of concerned about people being able <br /> to participate and vote, how much say they have in - their <br /> representatives. One of the things that I mentioned was that <br /> if you have a five and four at-large, any one voter would at <br /> least be able to vote or have his say in a majority of the <br /> council makeup. Each person would be voting for at least five. <br /> District 2 people under the present districting will be voting <br /> for six. Also what I somewhat proposed was a residence • <br /> requirement. The reason I say this is just attempting to be <br /> realistic. That under the present system° we have six residence <br /> requirements, three at-large. The three at-large is from Hilo. <br /> If we make four at-large, does that mean it is going to come <br /> all _from. .Hilo? Harlan says if we make it two at-large, does it <br /> mean that it all is going to come . from •Hilo? This is why I feel <br /> that whether it be West, you know, East and West or whether it <br /> be North or South , some type of residency requirement I think <br /> should be seriously considered. In that way, I think we can <br /> definitely consider the two representation. The testimony that <br /> has been given to this commission I know has placed a lot of <br /> emphasis on district representation. But also I think what we <br /> should also be aware -of is the district representation that has <br /> been proposed in the testimony before this commission--if I can <br /> recall--has been mostly nine,: Aline district members. We've had <br /> five districts, four at-large. There mayhave been someone <br /> speaking in behalf of seven. There has been the issue raised <br /> of keeping it at seven for fiscal purposes. That seven can do <br /> just as much good as nine. But again I think we are talking <br /> about representation and if you give the electorate more say in <br /> the representatives, the council members here, I think that is <br /> what we should do. And this is why I feel that seven member <br /> makeup is really something that we really should not consider. <br /> I think we should maintain the number nine, status quo, and work <br /> from' there. <br /> -40- <br />