Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0663.007 2002-2004 ,v Sa f'~ 1 Y 1{. 4< !t •l0° MOS.?S~ F2EPF2ESENTATIVES STATE OF HAWAII STATE CAPITOL HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 $Li.tlY Lb Testimony on Resolution 203-04 ,Zm,~_ ~i_-.~•.-B~~Y-_-~ State Representative Helene Hate tare--~-- n pp„nal July 7, 2004 ty(~v~2c" Honorable Members of the Public Works and Intergovernmental Relations Committee: I am here today because I felt it would be helpful for the Council members to have some background on this issue since I have been involved since the idea was first discussed on the Main Street Board. In the 1990's one of Pahoa's main problems was the wide spread use of alcohol and heroin and the empty syringes and broken liquor bottles which littered the parking area. AmFac owned the property but the public had co-opted the front portion for parking. The back portion of the lot was jungle and a hideout for drug users. As Puna's council person at the time, I often met with the Main Street board and subsequently became a director. I introduced an Ordinance that added this parcel to the places prohibited to consume liquor, which allowed the police to enter this private property and make arrests, which they had not been allowed to do before. Mayor Yamashiro did not approve, but allowed the Bill to become law without his signature because AmFac raised no objections. Pahoa Main Street obtained a grant from the State and hired Millie Kim to do a business plan to justify acquiring the property and making improvements. Jon Olson and I went to Honolulu and lobbied our State Representative Bob Herkes and Senator Andy Levin, and they were able to get an appropriation of $150,000, which was at that time AmFac's asking price to acquire the property, with the agreement that it would be given to the county who would then make Comm. No. Ref. To: Pra~6ated W ft Ref, Dare ~~,.,r.~-- -z- an agreement with Pahoa Main Street to oversee the property. Unfortunately, the Mayor would not accept the property because it was feared that the gulch contained hazardous waste which could put the County in a dangerous liability position and be a great expense to clean up. So the money just sat in the state. Through the efforts of your present Councilman, Gary Safarik, a new parcel of 56+ acres was determined to be available for this amount of money and Governor Cayetano released the money and the new administration accepted it. By that time the parking lot parcel had been bought by a private person, who acquired it for her friends who were operating a Farmer's Market. I was at meeting with all these parties at which they all agreed that it was through the generosity of the buyer that the property was acquired and the purpose was to improve the Farmer's Market and expand the parking area and beautify the tot, all which the new owner did with private money. The managers of the Market never paid any rent, although they charged their vendors. When the owner took out a liability insurance policy and registered the name, there developed serious disagreements among the former friends and bitter feuds have developed in the community. Today the area is much improved and parking is free, although the owner has teased it to an adjoining business. In my experience as a former member and Chairman and Executive Officer of the Board of Supervisors and as a Council member, the County always tried to buy or exchange property and if that were not possible only exercised our power of eminent domain when the owners agreed to a "friendly condemnation "because we respected private property rights as being a fundamental American privilege. Unfortunately, this owner is understandably upset having been threatened many times with "condemnation" in a very unfriendly manner. In addition, property values are rising rapidly even in Puna and with the improvements and the rising market there is a serious disagreement as to "fair market value". Also I question the "public purpose" which has to be proved to exercise this -3- power. In its present condition the parking is free and there is still a Farmer's Market. I urge the Council to reassess their position and get answers to other questions, such as: 1. if the county takes over, does it have the additional money for more improvements? (At one point I am aware that parking meters were suggested to finance the debt and improvements). 2. How does the county propose to pay back the bond issue? 3. What will be the "true" cost, including interest on the bond? 4. What will be the annual maintenance costs? 5. Isn't the money better spent developing the already acquired 56+ acres behind the swimming pool? 6. Also I understand that the county is negotiating for state land on the highway for police and fire facilities. This is a better place for these services and in the 19 acres enough room for other projects. 7. Is it wise to turn private land into public, lose the property tax revenue and assume additional liability? 8. Since the owner is willing to challenge this condemnation, how much time and expense wilt be involved in a contested condemnation? Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.