Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0620.037 2002-2004 5/16/2004 9:35 AM FROM: Fax Kona Land 'Crust T0: 961-8912 PAGE: 002 OF 005 Hope for Hawaii and Our Quality of Life Richard H. Bennett PhD Executive Director, Kona Land Trust ViRually every day it happens. Each day the landscape and the feeling of our rural coastal community changes. There is a sense of loss and a sense that forces outside of our conVol dominate us. We are left feeling helpless, in despair, and, at times, just plain angry. Kona is changing and changing rapidly. Is this the plan? Did some entity actually lay out this future for us? I suspect no one actually planned or intended the outcomes and problems that confront us. Rather this County, like thousands of others, followed a path: an assumption. That assumption is that growth and development is always good; and will always pay its own way. Our recent experiences rock our soul with an uneasy torment and make it obvious this assumption no longer serves us. It is time for rethinking. Our roads aze over capacity. Traffic backs up for miles simply because there aze too many cars and tracks on the road. No one can really azgue this does not have a cost, both in real dollars and time, not to mention its effect on the Aloha Spirit. During my youth in Southern California in the 1950's, a new major freeway had two lanes running in each direction, and in a few yeazs it was jammed packed. Now two decades later it has six to eight lanes conning in each direction and guess what? It's jammed packed. The lesson is simple: more lanes did not solve the problem. Perhaps, we might actually say it made the problem worse simply because vastly more people pay this price and the collective spirit becomes even more indifferent and hostile. We need to update our roads and rethink this paradox. We aze all ocean lovers. However, we are loving it to death. The quality of our near shore waters in most locations does not meet the standards we have prescribed for a healthy Kona coastline. More and more homes, condos, and the like along the coast simply and inescapably means more human waste, more fertilizer, and more oil: things that put our valuable coast at increasing risk. The Kona Coast is what makes Kona a prized destination, the world over. In our blindness, will we repeat the mistake of so many coastal communities worldwide? Will we kill the "golden goose" as our oceans die and lose the magic? , Hawaii has a stated goal of protecting important natural resources. Our forests, native plant life and native animal species are at extreme risk. Too many of our species aze endangered and risk extinction in our lifetime. Hawaiian cultural sites are a very important paR the real Hawaii. Yet, they are destroyed and neglected by the deadly combination of ignorance and apathy. We need to find a better way and one that is pono -righteous. Comm. No. ~02O.3'i Ref. To; ~?~~adad f~- Ref. Uate ~~U4 5/16/2004 9:35 AM FAOM: Fax Kona Land Tvm[ r0: 961-8912 PAGE: 003 OF 005 Agricultural resources aze critical to many families and to the state. Living on an island, we have oddly become complacent to our need for fresh, nutritious foods when huge ships fersy goods from the mainland on a daily basis. The continuing decline in agricultural resource lands places all of us at the mercy of centralized agri-business as well as the vulnerabilities of ocean going transportation. Agricultural land values in Hawaii now exceed the value a farmer can afford to pay to produce food cos[ effectively. The Five Acre Agricultural subdivision is the force behind this dramatic escalation of Ag land costs. New subdivisions are typically five-acre home sites were true commercial agriculture does not occur. With notable exceptions, the scale at this level is too small to be economically viable. If our food security is a true objective for Hawaii, we must fmd a better way. Nevertheless, what is getting in our way? The obstacles aze the old unquestioned "truths" locked up in our assumptions. One such assumption is that growth and development pays its way: the tax revenues generated from a new development project will completely pay for the increased costs of government services that will be demanded by the development and the people it employs. An economic system in balance is where the revenues to government pay for the new and added costs created by that development. This new layer of cost is called the "mazginal cost." Such costs tend to be the most expensive for a unit of development as government has to pay market prices for labor, benefits, material, and transportation. The problem is that government does not and cannot legally charge the marginal costs of new development. It has to be "fair" and chazge the going assessment rate on all real estate new and old. Thus, we witness a huge gap between the new revenues created and the cost of services provided. This gap is so lazge and so pervasive that the National Fazmland Trust in its efforts to educate communities as to the real value of fazmland recently summarized 80 Community Cost of Services economic studies. In short, a1180 studies concluded that the . revenues provided by new developments did NOT cover the cos[ of the government services required by those developments. The deficit ranged from 10% and up. This simply means the local government had to take monies from the existing general fund and reduce spending on other programs. Looking at this from a current and simple perspective, there is a revenue pie from which government slices pieces for services ranging from roads to libraries. As new development occurs and that development does not pay for the marginal (not the average) cast ofthese services, the pieces of pie must be cut smaller and smaller to balance the budget. From a personal point of view, the value of services provided to each of us gets sliced slimmer too. We experience these services cuts in various ways: slower police and fue 5/16/2004 9:35 AM FROM: Fax Kona Lantl Tmst T0: 961-8912 PAGE: 004 OF 005 department response times, crowded and dirty beach parks, and perpetually busy phones at government offices. In effect, we are subsidizing development in a form of endured tax servitude. It is simply not fair. AI the state level and perhaps most tragically, the quality of K-to-12 education continues to deteriorate. This inextricably links the cost of development to education and future meaningful employment. To mortgage our children's future to subsidize development is nothing less than unconscionable. Hawaii County, along with thousands of others, struggle and become pazalyzed by this dilemma. Government approaches like restrictive zoning become political quagmires chazged with flamboyant rhetoric that pazalyzes and dulls response ability as the ship sinks. Finally, there is some light: some hope and some thinking out side of the box. On our neighbor islands of Kauai and Maui, the voters have seen the wisdom of using their money to protect the land and their quality of life, and do so with fairness and flexibility. This opportunity has come to the Big Island. The Tres[ for Public Lands instigated a discussion about using general revenue funds to protect lands and retire development rights: thus protecting the revenue pie from further cuts. The Permanent Land Protection Fund (Bi11270) would put the issue of funding land protection to the voters in November 2004. ]sill 270 proposes to set aside 1% of the county general fund for land purchase and protection. This equates to approximately $1.3 million annually. If this money were used only to acquire fee-simple land, the $1.3 million could be used up on just one purchase. A 2% set aside and a program that would purchase less costly conservation easements from willing sellers could go much fulther in protecting lands and county revenues. The ideal approach may well be a combination of both. A recent poll of county residents indicates that approximately 70% of the residents aze in favor of this approach to land use. It is fair and compensates the landowner. The relatively new Kona Land Trust, anon-profit Hawaii corporation, is in a unique place to assist both landowners and the County. As anon-profit, the land trust can receive and hold forever easements, and development rights. In some cases, the landowner may be eligible for Federal and State tax deductions. This approach may serve as a very effective leverage of the County funds, resulting in far Beater land protection. Is this aWin /Win solution? In my view, it is. There a hundreds of communities across the US that have shown this to be true. Finally, there is a better way; there is something we can do. We are no longer helpless. We have options when there appeared to be none. We can have control of our destiny 5/16/2004 9:35 AM FROM: Fax Kona Land T mat T0: 961-tl912 PAGE: 005 OF 005 . and protect equitably that which is deaz to us and sacred for Hawaii.l7tis proposal is worthy of your involvement and I am confident, with your support, we have our way.