HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0047.020 2020-2022 P nu
`I1 917
Comm.'i7
x
From: tawn
'i
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 8:40 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Testimony - Bill 217
Testimony In Opposition to Bill 217
For more than a millennium people have been walking in and out of Waipio Valley. To put an end to that in 2021 there must
be an exceptionally good reason. In fact, no such reason exists.
Section 1 of Bill 217 states that the reason which is being proposed for the existence of this Bill is one of safety. I spoke with
the officer at the top of Waipio Road about this issue on Saturday, Dec. 19. He stated that since he has been serving that
position since 2007 he has not heard of a death or serious injury to a pedestrian on the road and he has not heard of an auto
accident resulting from pedestrian interference. Last week, I wrote to the County Office of Public Works asking the same
question. Are they aware of any serious injuries to pedestrians on Waipio Road or accidents resultant from pedestrian
interference with vehicular traffic. I have not yet received a reply.
Clearly, pedestrian foot traffic is not creating a safety hazard on Waipio Road. Everyone knows that the problem creating the
hazard is the volume of vehicular traffic, Why is this masquerade taking place that assigns a safety hazard to the pedestrians? It
is clearly because the residents and farmers of Waipio wish to limit access which might result in property trespass and might be
felt as nuisance. And, more importantly, because vehicular traffic by drivers inexperienced in the abundant hazards of this road
has increased steadily to the point that something should be done. But to begin by prohibiting foot traffic is counter intuitive and
likely to be counterproductive.
I have walked and driven into Waipio on many occasions. My experience is probably similar to that of most people on that
road. When I drive in, I have a sense of being an intruder, of bringing a ton of steel up and down, that i am foreign to this place_
When I walk in, I feel more like I am part of the Valley, I am quiet and peaceful. I see that in the people I pass walking up and
down - a sense of respect- an attitude of quiet experience. These are people who, if they knew that the residents and workers in
Waipio did not want them past a certain point in the valley, they would respect that wish. A simple sign stating that request would
be adequate for way over 90% of the hikers I'm sure. But to prevent the hikers from access to the beach or even rounding the
bend 100 yards into the valley to behold the splendor of Hi'ilawe, this is not pono.
The problem is not the pedestrians. The assurance that we will solve the vehicular problem later is hollow. The issue of
pedestrian access to the Valley must be addressed in the context of a comprehensive solution which should focus on the real
problem which is vehicular access. Bill 217 must be denied or tabled to be addressed in the context of the Bill that may come
later addressing vehicular access. If there is consensus among the workers and residents of Waipio that a sign would be placed
requesting that pedestrians not access beyond a certain point, perhaps a point past where Hiilawe could be viewed, then let that
happen. But it should happen as a 'request'. The force of`ordinance' must be reserved for the context of the greater solution to
the problem of vehicular traffic and the whole context of restricting access to Waipio.
Tawn Keeney MD 36 years General Practice in Honokaa
Retired 7 years
Owner (since 1991) and current manager of the Honokaa People's Theatre s
Comm. No. U I
OVI
Ref.To: YJ OUNA I
1 Ref, Date—DEC 2 3 22