HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0560.008 2002-2004 To: Hawaii County Council
From: Emmeline de Pillis on behalf of concerned neighbors including Jim Anderson, Joseph Lopez, Sandy
Anderson, Roailand Lopez, Jeremy Agag, Cheryl Reis, Leticia Agag, Walty Wilson, Melchor Agag, Francis
Woo, Amy Mahealani Jones, Oiwi Parker Jones
Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2004
Subject: Opposition to Western United Life Assurance Co. University Terrace rezoning
As a Hilo resident, I appreciate the opportunity to share my concems about the proposed University
Terrace development. The flooding issue, with the associated liability to Hawaii County taxpayers, is a
compelling enough reason to slow down and proceed thoughtfully with this rezoning. If the safety and
liability concems related to flooding can be resolved, we as a county still have a responsibility to monitor
the development that takes place on this parcel.
Don't fewer zoning restrictions make the aarcel more attractive to potential buyers?
While less restricted zoning may allow WULA Co. to unload the parcel more easily, the County's primary
responsibility is to the County residents, not to outside land speculators. In addition, the small business
owners and potential residents who are the ultimate customers gain more benefit from carefully planned,
strictly enforced zoning. Well-planned developments are desirable. A consistently enforced plan can lead
to a thriving, functional development with useful services for the community and a net economic benefit
for the County. Unfortunately, the predictable result of vague planning and weak enforcement will be a
sprawling, half-developed, half-boarded-up, intermittently flooded eyesore hospitable to the kinds of
activities that will require the attention of our already heavily burdened public services. Such an outcome
will be a net drain on County resources.
We can have beneficial development in East Hawaii:
Thanks to decades of revitalization efforts across the United States, we now have a very good idea of what
works. The following appear to be essential to the success of a mixed-use, high density development:
• Major employers within easy walking distance of housing. (This is probably the most important
predictor of success for amixed-use development).
• A solid master plan that includes meaningful enforcement, preferably by city or county ordinance
rather than by homeowner's association.
1. A master plan must include major tenant commitments before construction begins.
2. Planning and enforcement prevents inappropriate tenants or architectural eyesores.
3. Planning and enforcement allows small lot size /high density housing to function well,
rather than sliding into slum status.
• The supply of commercial and residential rental units available at any given time must be managed
carefully to achieve affordability, and at the same time avoid a downward price spiral with
attendant landlord neglect due to oversupply.
• High density mixed use developments are usually in downtowns, not suburban greenfield
developments. Suburbs do not possess the history and cachet that makes downtown spaces
attractive to tenants. Preservation societies have shown little interest in revitalizing run-down
suburbs. Once underway, deterioration accelerates, and area residents must live with the
consequences. Suburban development draws business away from downtowns.
Comm. No. S~Do
Ref. To: ~Of°
Ref. Uate 2~~4
An example
The city of Claremont, CA, is an attractive, thriving foothill town with strict, and strictly enforced
ordinances. Clazemont's carefully redeveloped downtown Village area attracts resident and tourist dollars.
The neighboring cities to the east and west, Upland and Pomona, do not enjoy Clazemont's reputation.
Even though they allow the "adult" businesses, liquor stores, nighttime entertainment and tattoo parlors
that Clazemont shuns, Claremont's business districts aze neaz full occupancy, its schools aze better' and its
overall reputation is more desirable. Pomona's notorious gang activity thrives in Madison Park,Z a public
pazk adjacent to I~ladison Elementary School' and an example of what can happen when a space is made
accessible without sufficient oversight.
Crime per 1,000 residents
tom.
~3
eo - ~ -
~ ~ ~
60 -
~ f
40 ~
~0
20
10
0
Pomono Ctromont Uplond
9.1 violent 2.6 violent 5.7 violent
50.6 total 27.9 total 42.9 total
~ htto://star cde.ca Gov/star2003
~ LA Tlmes April 23 ~ ii , i i., i i i i i ~ n i i _ _ .
_ , u. i .
htt ://www.ci. omona.ca.us/cit _de art
' p p y p ments/community_services/parks/pdf/madison.pdf
° data from www losaueelesalmanaccom and www.mbuw-socal.orn United Way 1999 report