HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0595.069 2020-2022 mi TY 01 r '>
From: test <mvpvv@hawaii.rr.com> COUNTY OF HAWAI;
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2022 10:27 AM 1011 7 Atl .4
5 6V
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Inaba, Holeka
Subject: Planning Committee, Hawaii county Council, Bills 112 (C595:C959.1) 113 (C596; 596.1), 115
(C601:C601 .1). FEB. 8 MEETING.
Please accept and submit the below as written testimony testimony to the County Council Planning Committee,Councilperson
Kierkewitz presiding, as to the three agenda items.
Fifrst,l object to the three minute limitation per agenda item for public testimony,with no questions to the applicant or the Planning
Department allowed. Compare this to the applicant's and its representatives" unlimited time to present subjective arguments and
respond to questions of Committee members and the Department. Is the Committee really interested in the public's input,orjust to
get that out of the way? Since there are three agenda items, it is assumed that each public testifier has nine(9)minutes to
comment on the three agenda items. Please confirm.
The applicants-developers promised and delivered open space,for the enjoyment of its project's residents and Hawaii's residents
generally,and for the quality of their development, in part in exchange for millions and millions of dollars of zoning and other
permits and added value. In their massive Waikaloa makai project. It represented it could have much financial success if the County
would give them that,and this was true. Now they want to break that promise for their own profit and greed,to the detriment of
the development and its residents,and at the expense of the County and its residents,with three time share condo projects in
substitution of the open space! No objective audit is presented to justify this request as to the massive development generally or
the private golf courses specifically. It is likely that the developer-applicants are trying to cash in on the real estate boom, not by
developing the time shares, but by separately selling the three projects for ever increasing profits to other would be developers,who
would likely come back before you for further delays and benefits, despite the Leeward Planning Commission's attempt at a
"sunset". The County and its residents would get nothing and would lose valuable open space. The applicant's would again show
that it"owns"the blinded Council and can disregard the public in pursuit of it's own profit.
The cheap housing promised is not needed public affordable housing, but merely for the benefit of the developers for housing their
own "new plantation"employees.
What kind of fools make such a one sided deal?And with no objective showing of any kind of need for more profit for, (or the
degree of golf course use and income by residents and guests compared to the past and prognostication and overall success of the
entire project), Who is being promoted and represented? The County's residents or private developers?
Will the developer applicant allow for and present an independent audit of the entire project and how profits from the shares figure
in before any approvals? Will the applicants agree to a SUNSET date for themselves as the three projects and/or a prohibition of
entire project sales and a new application by buyers in the event of a sale-?
(GUESSING AT INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS NOW WILL NOT ACOMODATE FUTURE UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS. Look at the
massive gridlocked traffic jam in Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Henry Street on Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Lako Street to
Kamehameha III Road that's developed since 2005.Will the applicant agree to replace the open space? Will the applicant agree to
actually build affordable housing for those eligible for it? WILL THE APPLICANT AGREE TO A TRAFFIC STUDY NOW(THERE WILL BE
THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES RESULTING FROM WEEK LONG TIME SHARES)ON STREETS WITHIN THE WAIKALOA MAKAI DEVELOPMENT
AND QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGWAY and to traffic improvements to accommodate the same? Will the applicant agree to a portion
of each time share's purchase price going to the County to help pay for the problems and shortcomings caused?
These three proposals are not well thought out and deserve rejection,or at least deferral until honest and complete information and
representations are presented and fully understood. Or are the applicants trying to strategically get approvals before the County
wakes up. Who does the Mayor. Planning Director, Leeward Planning Commission,and County Council represent? Can any of them
just say"NO" -at least until all facts and opinion are honestly disclosed and known? Theses three proposed projects, intended
solely for the developer's profit at the expense of the County and its people, must be rejected, or at least deferred until there are
honest and complete revelations that the Council can deal with without being naive, misled or"owned".
Comm.No. '
1 Ref.To:
Ref.Dote