Laserfiche WebLink
Appeared in West Hawaii Today in <br />Harry Kim's 2nd term (2004) prior to the <br />vote taken by the public on the 2% <br />Commentary <br />By Harry Kim <br />I would like to thank West Hawai 7 Today for the opportunity to tell you why this <br />administration does not support mandating 2% of property taxes to be set aside each and <br />every year for the sole purpose of buying property. <br />First of all, the non-support of this initiative measure does not mean that the issue of <br />preserving our precious open space is not important. It only means that we differ on how <br />to achieve this. It means that the County's core responsibilities of working to meet the <br />needs of public safety, transportation, recreation, solid waste and wastewater should be <br />the highest priority in how the property tax revenues are spent. Acquiring land for open <br />space should be an annual budget consideration along with other needs, not the highest <br />priority that comes "off the top" of our revenues before any other expenses are met. <br />What your County government has now for the protection of public access and open <br />space through the purchase of lands is a good system. It was adopted by the County <br />Council in 2005, and it requires that at least $250,000 be set aside each year in an Open <br />Space fund for the purpose of acquiring special lands. It allows for flexibility so that in <br />good times, more can be allocated for this purpose but that in times of hardship, money is <br />to be spent on needed services and not for the sole purpose of buying property. It does <br />not need to be replaced by this 2% proposal. The system has been and will continue to <br />accomplish the work of protecting special lands. It is fiscally flexible, commits to <br />protecting special lands and stresses the pursuit of state, federal and private funds to <br />accomplish its goals. The proof of the strength of what is in place now is by looking at <br />the properties acquired over the past few years. This includes the coastal land of <br />Kohanaiki, land adjacent to Keakealaniwahine, Honis, Pohoiki, Hakalau, Lehia, <br />Honu'apo and others. This was done with resources of federal, state, county and private <br />funds. The responsibility of protecting lands should not be so heavily burdened on the <br />limited county property taxes but on all sources of funds. <br />It has been presented that Maui and Kaua`i are models for the "2% solution" that is <br />proposed. This is misleading because neither of them sets aside 2% of taxes; Kaua`i sets <br />aside Y2% and Maui sets aside 1%. Over the last few years, Hawai`i County has acquired <br />more property for public protection than the counties of Maui and Kaua`i combined. The <br />present system does the job better and need not be changed. <br />Please know that this 2% proposal to buy property would be the only item in the county's <br />budget that requires a fixed percent of revenue regardless of other needs or priorities. <br />This is a large amount of money for this purpose. The mandatory 2% set-aside for <br />property purchased would be more than the County now spends annually on its bus <br />system, and more than on civil defense, elderly nutrition and coordinated services for the <br />elderly combined. I would be much more open to a mandatory "rainy day" fund for hard <br />times or for emergencies such as the past earthquake has shown. <br />Comm. No. 3.1.44 <br />