|
if not millions, of dollars of increased value by rezoning their property in exchange for certain
<br />promises of infrastructure development. Those promises are routinely broken, and I suggest the
<br />County is a fool for allowing it to happen.
<br />
<br />The extensions that the Director, or whoever it may be at the time, gives often run ten, 20, 50
<br />years in some cases, with no public input and additional public input, public hearing. Now, the
<br />matter can be easily resolved – something I don’t think the Planning Department has given you.
<br />There is a rule that says if you don’t do what you – and by the way, this is discussion, and the
<br />Hilo attorney should not be so oriented towards developers to limit our testimony in discussion.
<br />This is, as your Chair has made clear, this is not a hearing on an application, so the three-minute
<br />rule does not apply and there is no, nothing in here that says anything about the three-minute
<br />rule. But the matter is easily resolved; there is a rule that says if you don’t comply with the
<br />conditions, which you get in exchange for the millions in value given, the Planning Director may
<br />rezone. That’s a problem, down-zone again. You up-zone for millions, you, down-zone is the
<br />Planning Director’s only recourse. He may do it. He never does it. Again, I’m not addressing
<br />Mr. Yee personally, but prior planning directors, they regularly extend. They don’t know Kona
<br />but they extend.
<br />
<br />Now, my suggestion is that you change your rule to say the zoning stays. The Planning Director
<br />doesn’t have to revert the zoning. The zoning is appropriate. The zoning stays. The conditions
<br />terminate and they reapply for new conditions based on what infrastructure and other needs there
<br />are then, five, ten, 20, 50 years later. Don’t leave it to the Planning Director, and have public
<br />input like you did on the last project. That’s the only rule change you need.
<br />
<br />And let me also suggest that you eliminate the Planning Director from giving the extensions.
<br />Whatever he says is necessary or whatever the Council decides is necessary, two years, five
<br />years, ten years, whatever, that that be in the ordinance, that there be no further extensions
<br />without the Council’s action, because the Planning Director goes five, ten, 15, 20 years, without
<br />any public input. So I would suggest that after the initial application of time that the matter
<br />expire. Thank you.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Thank you.
<br />
<br />OLSEN: My name is Greg Olsen. I live here in Kona up in Kona Vistas. What I’d like to talk
<br />about is something that I don’t think a lot of you – I haven’t heard anything about this, which has
<br />been a concern of mine – is when we do not make consequences to developers delaying,
<br />constantly asking for extensions and so forth, that that would drive up the eventual price of any
<br />of the properties developed therein. Condominiums are now no longer affordable to the majority
<br />of people. I’m finding – I’m a realtor here – I’m having difficulty getting people into properties,
<br />who are first-time home buyers, simply because it may have taken 20 or 30 years to develop a
<br />condominium project. And that’s partly because of these constant extensions; the longer we take
<br />to build something, the more expensive it ends up being. And that’s something I hope that you
<br />will take into consideration, that you put some sort of time constraint that is tied into the value of
<br />the initial sale of any property.
<br />
<br />11
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|