HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0663.016 2002-2004 Property rights should be honoured and protected, not trampled
upon.
There are several reasons why the condemnation of this
property should not be allowed.
1. The land has been described as a vacant lot. This is absolutly
not the case. the improvements done to date were designed to meet
County of Hawall standards for a parking lot. The location of
driveways, slope, grading,location and spacing of concrete curbing,
were all done as part of an approved plan. Both engineering and
planning (Hawaii County) signed off on the plan and proper grading
permits were issued.
The landscape design was not random. The ammount and girth
of trees planted are part of a county requirement for parking areas.
The boundary between the "fot" and the adjacent Housing required a
buffer, so a row of podocarpus was planted. Chosen for the versitility
of shaping, a solid hedge will satisfy this requirement.
2. The procedure of filing suit aganst the land owner as part of
the process requires the deposit of funds (taxpayer money). Where
will this money come from? The bond issue is only an appropriation)
3.The land is currently listed for sale. The suit will prevent the
Owner from being allowed to accept an offer on the land even if the
offer is above the maximum ammount that the bond allows for
acquisition. This is a violation of owners rights and could place Hawaii
County (taxpayers) in a position of liability that is not acceptable.
It would be prudent to get an opinion from outside council as to
the possible cost to taxpayers of a lawsuit. (It would be a conflict of
interest to have our own lawyers render such an opinion). This should
also take into consideration other financial losses and personal harm
done to the owners should the courts rule in favor of the owners.
The property is an income producing commercial development.
What is your position Councilman Safarik as to how the future loss of
revenue will be addressed as a fair consideration to the current land
owners.
4.Councilman Safarik's third draft seperates one lot from the rest
of the parcel. This is actually a subdivision of land by anon-owner!!
RK:EiVt~
(From Scott A. Gouker) 6 3
1tme..__.______~,{ 81' Comm. No.
oaro-______._-o'
~1~ Ref. To: ~~ess~f
Gou^tY CO1^v~ + Ref. Uate
According to the Planning Department only after proper filing of
documents (often followed by hearings etc.)
can a subdivision be approved. This is a Department of Planning
issue, NOT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY
COUNCIL!!!!
5.There is no plan. Who will design? Who will engineer? Who
will build? and most importantly WHO will maintain the as yet
undescribed "Resource Park"? What funds have been allocated in our
budget for future maintence costs?
The county of Hawaii does not have a good record as steward of
the lands and facilities that they(we) presently own. You need only go
directly across the street from the "lot" to our community center to see
a building in dire need of maintence and in a very embarrasing state of
disrepair. For the record I want the County Council to know that this
in no way is the fault of our community center director. Ken Nagasawa
has submitted numerous requests for repairs that are NOT being
properly taken care of.
The community center has both public restrooms and parking!
6.By contrast, The Maliick family have an excellent record as
stewards of their lands. their farms are beautifully kept, produce a
variety of crops and employ a number of people in divirsified
agriculture. They have not (like a few people and groups}purchased
land zoned ag. and then tried to re-zone for development.
7. There is a huge shortage of commercial property in Pahoa.
This action would in fact hurt the town by taking away this potential for
more small businesses to build (or rent) in this prime downtown
location.
8.The County should first get a new(within six weeks) appraisal
from an independant licensed company. The assessment used for tax
purposes does not take into account any improvements.
9.There are two other issues with the land that have not been
addressed by Councilman Safarik.
First, The historic turnaround. A DLNR requirement for an
inventory survey was conducted, plans for protection and excavation
submitted and approved. Another plan for long term is still in process.
Why hasen't this been brought to the attention of the other
Councilmen so that they could make a proper decision?
Second, there are encroachments on the land that are not so
much a problem for private land owners, but would require additional
cost to taxpayers to resolve if this was to become public property.
What is Councilman Safarik's plan for dealing with this? This plan
should be in writing and available for review by the public(prior to any
further action).
This action should not be approved. There are serious concerns
that should be properly addressed. Questions need to be answered.
BEFORE this moves to the courts.