HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0314.012 2020-2022 C
ill
From: 808slopez
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2021 9:39 AM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: 'heather.kimball @hawaiicounty.gov'; 'Aaron.Chung@hawaiicounty.gov';
'sue.leeloy@hawaiicounty.gov'; 'matt.kanealii-kleinfelder@hawaiicounty.gov';
rvillegas@hawaiicounty.gov'; 'Holeka.lnaba@hawaiicounty.gov';
'ash ley.kierkiewicz@hawaiicounty.gov'; 'tim.richards@hawaiicounty.gov';
'maile.david@hawaiicounty.gov'
Subject: Testimony, Planning Committee Bills 52 & 53
Hawaii County Council
Planning Committee
August 3, 2021
Honorable Council Members,
These 2 bills surround the petition by parties well remote from the State of Hawaii. These are designed to further their
interest to profit complete with a setup by our esteemed Director of Planning who has previously represented them in this
pursuit. He then, as Director, issues a positive recommendation being sure his minions are aware that he wants this to
succeed. He then issues a recusal due to potential conflict of interest. Looks, sounds,smells BAD!This action in itself is
demonstrably a deplorable conflict of interest and not invisible to those who are paying attention.
I began to connect dots and an ugly picture emerged. This in itself is not an indictment but maybe someone else sees what I
see. Consider Bills 52 and 53 being brought to council by request of our Mayor that asks to alter urban growth lines for a
certain parcel of agricultural lands. Bill 53, right on the heels before 52 is processed and submitted by the property owners,
requests you to change the A-1a zoning to RS-22 on this same parcel,thus clearing the way for multi-unit development on this
land. That the Director supports this then recuses himself, in itself a sham. The change in urban growth lines hasn't yet been
passed by council (or has it?) and before the ink dries the rezoning request is in the mix. The smell is comparable to walking by
the dumpsters at the harbor washdown area.
My issue is not so much with the intended action provide concerns of historical, public and other factors are considered. It is
the way this is being done and the long history our leaders have in continually believing the "intentions" of the petitioner to
care for the 'aina and mitigate impact to the citizens. If we've learned nothing else from this continued hyperbole is that is it is
most often pilikia.
Consider a different tactic if you will doing the fiduciary responsibility of caring for our island and its people. HOLD THEIR FEET
TO THE FIRE!! Place strict safeguards and HIGH penalties when documented requirements are not met or, as is often the case,
the petitioner comes back nearly crying that economic or other self-serving issues cause them to request an exception or
unreasonable extension which may never happen. Additionally, reprimand Director Kern for his blatant disregard of fiduciary
responsibility. Case in point, look to the decades long promise to build the connector from Palamanui to Mamalahoa Hwy or
the years it took to get the Hokulia by-pass done and who had to eventually pay for it! Our history is loaded with examples of
developer assisted abuse.
Mahalo for listening.
Steve Lopez
Kailua Kona
Comm. No.
Ref. To;
1Ref. Bate AUGd3 2021