HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0820.002 2022-2024p CRCoG
COMkI , m
From: Robert Culbertson ^a <
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 8:59 PM r c C
To: Council Testimony 'u
Subject: Regarding the General Plan ,13 -4
The Incomprehensible comprehensive `draft' General Plan update.
Because I live 'off grid' and am challenged with electronic communications, back in September, I sought
out and found a 'hard copy' of the plan at my local library that I could more easily browse and take notes
from. Since then I have found differing statements and texts between the online version and the printed
`draft' version. Not so easily comparable!
Indeed, the online version is difficult to navigate, takes time to learn, doesn't have a traditional index, and
seems tangled up with jargon that only planning professionals can likely decode. Not user friendly!
I find the mind bending jargon largely predisposed to 'weasel words' such as: 'may'... (instead of shall),
`encourage'..., 'promote'...,' enhance'...,` consider requiring'...,'recognize the importance of..., etc., etc.,
rendering each dependent clause utterly useless - statements with little or no actionable effect.
I wonder, is the use of such mealy mouthed terms designed to give cover to the whims of present and
future decision makers, to ignore or override the sensibility of the texts, and ultimately defer to the
prerogatives of strong political wills - often under the influence of moneyed interests - or as it is
colloquially known, 'business as usual'?
Dubious Assumptions
I perceive the 'business as usual' formula being built upon illusions of stability and unrealistic expectations
of perpetual growth. Moreover, I would venture that capitalism's demand for endless growth
is incompatible with a livable human future; that the Industrial and Digital Revolutions have not only
changed our relationships to each other and created unrealistic material expectations; they have
fundamentally changed the way most people interact with the nonhuman world - for the worse. In
as much, "sustainable development" has become a modern oxymoron.
This plan purports to extend its vision and influence (a 'roadmap' is the often used analogy) all the way to
2045. Yet, most of the world's scientists tell us that by 2030 (only 5 years and 8 months away) we will
already have come to the point of no return, ushering in the worst impacts of human induced climate
catastrophes. Simple assumptions of incremental changes with policies being leisurely hashed out in
open committees according to this 'roadmap', are wholly inadequate to the coming realities of 2030, let
alone 2045. Is anyone aware of the'Climate Clock"?
comnr" N . . L
Ref. TO. G LP
Ref. Date MAY - 1 2024
On an island in the middle of the Pacific, the substantive impacts to our way of life are entirely reasonable
to question more thoroughly. Therefore, in what way might this General Plan do justice to such existential
considerations?
Is a discussion of "De -growth" even admissible?
In light of cataclysmic 'cl !mate change', we should be planning for a major down -powering of all human
societies, a changeover of institutions and certainly, economic bases. And on this island, we should
begin to recognize as an alternative (or'default') economic construct, the values and skills within a
`subsistence economy - which even today has some devoted practitioners desperately trying to Fang on
to, despite the superimposed 'mainland' acculturation championed in this General Plan.
And how about a'carrying capacity' discussion? If not now, when?
The lively discussions around 'over -tourism' are just a foreshadowing of the gathering discontent around
the idolism of growth for growth's sake.
I'd best stop now because it is likely that my views will land beyond the scope of acceptable
considerations.
But can we not do better?
Sincerely,
R A Culbertson
Honokaa