HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0820.004 2022-2024P CRCoc,
comm. 9W
From: Cory
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 10:58 PM
d
Subject: re. Comm 820 Gen Plan CRCOC May 1
r_y
CD
comments on Communication 820: General Plan
for County Communications, Reports, And Council Oversight Committee
_-
9 AM Wednesday, May 1, 2024, Kona chambers
"
from Cory Harden
First of all, a subtitle should be added; something like "Stewardship Plan for Hawai'i Island". That would help us focus on
sustainability and long-term goals.
As for the plan itself, it includes many worthwhile goals addressing climate change, sustainability, resilience, and a
regenerative economy, and reflects a tremendous amount of effort by staff.
But, unfortunately, the current draft can only be called embarrassing. It is far short of the quality needed for an official,
foundational document that people will rely on to guide decisions for years to come.
The problems started with the flawed rollout, so problematic that it denied the public its right to have input. At first the
only document available was the Konveio document, which did not allow "search" or "copy", making in-depth comments
next to impossible. Finally a more user-friendly PDF was posted, but for a while it was hard to find.
And only recently was there a comparison (the Policy Rationale) with the 2005 plan, 2019 draft plan, Community
Development Plans, and other documents. The comparison represents a lot of research, but unfortunately, it's done
backwards. It starts with the 2045 plan, using that as a base, and notes where it differs from the other plans. But instead,
it should start with the earlier plans as a base, then add notes showing how the 2045 plan differs. Then the public doesn't
have to look up the earlier plans to find out if they were quoted completely and correctly, and can see more than just
snippets that provide no context.
And there are more problems. The plan is incomplete. It refers to an appendix that is not yet written. Several notes refer
to information to be added later. The writing is awkward. Acronyms pop up with no explanation of their meaning. The
imperative and declarative voice alternate randomly. Syntax is sometimes garbled.
I heard there is a table of contents somewhere, but I can't find it. So if you want to find a table or chart or map, or wonder
whether more emphasis was placed on housing versus cultural concerns, you have to search through 200 pages for each
of your questions.
By contrast, the 2005 plan devotes 14 pages to an extensive table of contents. This is not only invaluable for finding
specific items, but it also provides something often missing in the digital age: context. What is the scope of the plan?
Which issues are emphasized, and which ones are not? How does the amount and quality of the data which the writers
relied on compare for each issue?
The plan has detailed maps that provide a wealth of information, but unfortunately that information is difficult to access.
It's also tricky to compare past maps and proposed maps on the computer, and I haven't found any explanation of why
changes were made.
Comm. No
Ref. To:
Ref. Dote Y - 1 2024
The 2005 plan is about 400 pages long. The 2045 plan is only half as long. This despite the fact that the island population
has grown 20% since 2005. That means more of everything --people, houses, roads, businesses, and pressure on social
services, fragile ecosystems, and the island's cultural heritage. This means the 2045 Plan needs depth and detail.
The plan does incorporate many positive ideas. But it also includes many that are disturbing. Major, harmful initiatives are
casually proposed with little justification: nuclear power; waste to energy; hydrogen use; carbon sequestration; mixed -use
land zones; and weakening of requirements for concurrency, cultural impact assessments, Planned Use Developments,
and Land Use Commission oversight. The environmental and cultural impacts of tourism and astronomy are inadequately
addressed. And the use of "NIMBY" (not in my backyard) shows lack of respect for legitimate citizen concerns.
The 2024 legislative session is wrapping up, and any new laws relevant to the General Plan will need consideration.
I'm glad to see that public workshops are planned after the Final Recommended Draft is released. I hope those workshops
will be structured to encourage community engagement.
I hope that the plan will be revised extensively so it can provide the guidance we need for years to come.