HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0183.067 2020-2022 P/Cowcil
C40W 185
-24
From: Kristi Van Pernis
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 10:52 PM
To: aaron.chun@hawaiicounty.gov; Villegas, Rebecca; Council Testimony; David, Maile;
Kierkiewicz, Ashley; matt.kanealiikleinfeld@hawaiicounty.gov; Richards, Tim; Lee Loy, Sue;
Kimball, Heather
Subject: My Turn- Politics as I see it COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY OF HANA11I
RECEIVED
i BY
!dj�
Date AUG 1 6 2021
From.: Kristi Van Pernis
Date: August 15, 2021 at 7:53:13 PM
RE: My turn -Politics as I see it
I have thought long and hard about whether to send this letter but finally decided I must. Copies will
go to both newspapers as well.
Aloha, I am here to shed some light for the record regarding politics on this island and what happened
on Aug 3rd as I watched several Planning Commission members discuss and sometimes lie about
Mark Van Pernis. I am not referring to County Council members, I am referring to testimony by
certain past and present commissioners and the mayor.
So let's discuss politics in Hawaii and let's tell the whole truth. If I sound a
uncharitable, I guarantee you I am nothing compared to how petty and mean many have
been in targeting Mark, a decent man with a speech disability who the mayor chose to
smear time and again, often with baseless hearsay.
So the truth... Those that testified against Mark; Nancy Carr Smith, Michael Vitousek
and Keith Unger were in full force that day. What many people don't know was that
Keith Unger was part of McCandless ranch and McCandless Ranch lost a lawsuit to
Mark for a portion of land that they disputed (ripped off) from an Hawaiian family.
Mark got that land back for that family and Keith has hated Mark every since. (Mark
and Keith have only sat in one commission meeting together, yet Keith is allowed
constantly to testify against Mark).
Nancy Carr Smith who was a holdover commissioner has constantly brought up stuff
from the past, totally ignoring Mark's reasonable behavior on probation. IMO, she
seemed to relish putting Mr. Van Pernis down at any opportunity and she is a broker,
married to a man that represents Lanihau properties so does she really represent the
people? Normally I would never say this but since she enjoyed being so petty, I'll let
her know that many people at a certain private school refused to be on committees with
her because she was a bully and not a team player; and Barbara DeFranco "in peace"
will do whatever Nancy Carr Smith tells her to do. Comm. No. 100
Ref, To: Plu4ti l
z Ref. Date—AUG 1 8 2021
Mike Vitousek, the planning chair, works for Hokulia...he is the Manager of land and
C�
development for 1250 Oceanside LLC Hokulia; how is that not a conflict?
Normally I don't have a problem with conflicts such as these, I trust people to separate
their job from commission duties and do the right thing, but no more. Vitousek talks out
of both sides of his mouth. He knows there was a probation period for Mark, yet he did
illegal things. There was never supposed to be a vote on the planning commission about
whether Mark was to be on it, yet Vitosek put it on there to sandbag him and then
brought it up in front of the council to use it against him.
ZI)
No matter how he dresses it up, he seemed to dislike Mark's questions and suggestions.
"To hell with the impact, let's get on with the meeting", seems to be Vitousek's MO.
During one discussion in front of the council about whether Mark should be on
probation, Vitousik testified that Mark had a conflict of interest because he voted on the
Palamanul bypass Road which was approved as part of an infrastructure requirement by
the planning department in 2005! Vitousik opined heavily that this was a matter for the
ethics board, because he said Mark lived near-by, therefore Vitousik's testimony cast
aspersions and doubt on Mark. (Note, Mark had no conflict of interest and lives far
away from where a by-pass road would go. Furthermore, the bypass Road is GREAT
for West Hawaii and the island.) The matter was referred to the ethics committee which
promptly threw it out, nevertheless the damage was done, it made Mark took bad. It also
cost Mark time and aggravation to appear in front of the ethics committee (which he
gracefully handled). IMO, this was an action done by Vitousek to make Mark look
bad.. and why would Vitousik even think this would be a conflict, who is coaching
Vitousek?
In another discussion Vitousek said "that Mark made one of the applicants cry"; this
was another attempt to smear Mark. The applicant, a woman and her husband, were
represented previously and promised for 2 years straight by none other than our current
Planning Director, Zendo Kern, that she could run a commercial operation on her A,
zoned coffee farm located on a substandard 10 to 12 foot road. The applicant was also
an attorney, with a reputation for"fake crying" accordinc, to many who testified against
her operation. Mark made the motion to not allow a commercial operation because of
the substandard road and the location of the property. He also stated that the
commission had to represent West Hawaii (not just the applicant) as well as the
residents who lived there who had testified against it, the motion was seconded and
carried.
The applicant was unhappy with the outcome and filed an ethics complaint. Apparently
one of her neighbors worked for the court system years ago and because Mark was a
retired attorney, therefore her "logic" was that Mr. Van Pernis knew her neighbor.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. And commissioner Carr Smith was extremely
rude to Mark at that meeting, immediately jumping in and castigating him for say111(y
C� J castigating Z71
"we have to represent West Hawaii in this matter". Well Nancy, is that not true?
Who does the planning commission think they represent? Have they forgotten that they
are supposed to make recommendations based upon planning and infrastructure impact?
And how many on the commission actually go and inspect the properties that come up
for development or STVR's? Actions indicate that very few seem concerned about the
infrastructure impacts to seriously push for mitigation, therefore we sit in traffic that
endangers our lives daily.
2
And Zendo Kern who was a "developers consultant" before he became planning
director, seemed to despise Mark because Mark pointed out conflicts on properties
Zendo consulted on and signed off, and bingo, that was when Roth asked Mark to
resign. Mr_ Van Pernis did not point out Kern's conflicts in a mean or improper fashion.
He merely did it as a point of order and said "such conflicts should be on the agenda
and discussed" which raised a red flag for Kern who then admitted "he made a mistake"
and "accidentally" signed off on something he had previously consulted on—after he
became Planning Director. I would say it's very "charitable" of Kern to call it a
mistake.
Unfortunately these conflicts will continue, because both Kern and apparently Roth
want the right "yes" people for the planning commission boards, therefore in reality
they can satisfy past clients or possibly developer relationships that contributed to
Roth's campaigns while the only one that gets screwed is West Hawaii.
Yet,they all try and hide their agendas by criticizing Mark for being unreasonable, or
repetitive; contentious is their favorite word when in reality Mark was reasonable .
Vitousek appears to take his direction from Kern and Roth who are obviously pro
development (nothing wrong with that) except their form of development will come
without a thorough analysis of our infrastructure problems and without care for the
gentrification of this island.
At some point when you're sitting in traffic or when you find your kids cannot afford to
live here, maybe you'll understand why it wasn't such a bad idea for a contentious yet
hard-to-understand Mark Van Pernis to ask developers and the Planning Commission to
be accountable.
In my mind it's pretty nobel when someone dares to speak up to authority or challenge
the status quo or takes the time to study more contemporary ways of writing developer
agreements which should include definite sunset periods. Even when Mark wrote his
questions out for the commission, Carr Smith and DeFranco objected to them as being
too long or that he was getting favorable treatment.
The August 3rd meeting allowed commission testimony that brought up stuff from the
past, not the probation period. Mayor Roth spoke about the "the way we treat people in
public" while exhibiting the exact OPPOSITE behavior, both there and on civil beat. On
top of it, the Mayor lied and said Mr. Van Perris had an obligation to recuse himself on
the previously described past Palamanui vote. What the Mayor did not mention was that
ethics complaint was dismissed and that the ethics committee determined Mr. Van
Pernis had every right to vote on that particular issue. Yet Roth chose to lie about that to
assail Mark's character. And on Civil beat, the Mayor actually gave an interview about
Mark without knowing the facts and called him a jerk.
Mark would never mention to Civil Beat the Mayor's past ethics complaints without
knowing the details, nor would he ever call him a jerk. But I will. Interestingly, when I
checked on Attorney ratings by peers, Mark who has been retired for 3 years scored a
full point and a half higher than Mayor Roth_ Do you know why Mr. Roth?
That's because he has a land planning background and was one of the foremost quiet
title attorneys in this State.
Mr. Roth, I wish I could call you Honorable, but your actions speak volumes. I had high
hopes for you but I am appalled at how subjective you are and it appears your ties to
development lead you to "overlook"true planning, highlighted by two things: the fact
3
that you enjoyed kicking around a crusty watchdog who was trying to do some good for
the County and the fact that our charter states that our planning Director is supposed to
have Administrative Experience or a degree in planning and YOU IGNORED it!! Your
vast lack of knowledge of West Hawaii and your development ties without regard to our
infrastructure problems are why we need a East Hawaii and West Hawaii. God help this
island because you won't.
You may choose to classify my testimony however you want, many may think I am
writing this because I am Mark's wife but those who know me know, I am an astute
observer of politics. My opinions are mine based upon conclusions I have drawn from
listening to various testimony.
Kristi Van Pernis
Sent from my Whone
4