HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0400.146 2002-2004 Thank you for taking my testimony.
I wrote to the six Councilmen who approved the Clifto's project, and that letter is
on the record. Let me take this opportunity to thank Mr. Elarianoff for his
thoughtful letter in response. While I do not agree with his position, I very much
appreciate his taking the time to write back.
I do not intend to discuss the merits of the Clifto's project now, except to point
out that everyone agrees that the Clifto's project will very much worsen an
already horrible traffic situation, unless the state gets the expansion of Queen's
Highway finished on or ahead of schedule. Anyone counting on any government
agency completing a project on time is taking a very foolish risk. The road I live
on was scheduled to be resurfaced before the end of 2003; we now hope that
some work may possibly begin before the end of this year. Anyone counting on
the County General Plan being completed in an expeditious fashion has now been
waiting more than four years. So to base a decision on the state's timely
completion of its project is, in my view, not wise.
I also understand the desire to codify concurrence of infrastructure
improvements in ordinance, rather than impose it case by case. But given the
glacial pace at which major legislative initiatives move, by the time a concurrency
ordinance is approved it will be moot, as Puna, Hamakua, and Ka'u join Kona and
Kohala in permanent gridlock.
But I think there is another sort of issue in play here. What is the role of an
elected official? Is it not to represent the needs and desires of the electorate?
This is supposed to be, in Lincoln's famous phrase, a government of the people,
by the people, and for the people. When the desires of the public have been made
known so vocally, so persistently, and over such a long period of time, what
justification is there for dismissing their concerns? The decision to approve
Clifto's is neither of, by, or for the people whom you are supposed to represent.
~~esta~. Rlo. ,
Rif. Tie
Rif. ~ 1 ~ ~
The councilmen who represent Dona have voted "No." But six of their
colleagues, who are not affected as much by Dona traffic, have seen fit to
override their concerns and those of the citizens of Dona. This does not seem
right to me. Surely the people who live in an area, and those who represent
them, should get some serious consideration in a matter of this magnitude.
In my letter, I asked two questions which I have not heard any Councilperson
address. I will repeat them here.
First, why do you take the time to have public testimony on an issue, when the
wishes of the vast majority of those testifying are dismissed, ignored, or
overridden? What is the point of public testimony, if the virtually unanimous
wishes of Kona residents, expressed forcefully and continually over a several
month period, are utterly ignored?
Second, what possible grounds could you now find to reject any rezoning request,
as long as the developer agrees to some ameliorations in the form of parks, roads,
and mid-priced housing? Logically, all of Puna, Ka'u, I-Iamakua, and rural Milo
are now open for as many developments as there are builders willing to put up a
few hundred units wherever they can find the space. If you approve Clifto's,
how can you say no to anyone else?
By the time a concurrency ordinance is in place, it will be too late. We will be
indistinguishable from Maui or Oahu, despite the protestations of Councilpeople
that they do not want that result.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to uphold Mayor Kim's veto.
d rl ~ ~7~1+~
~3~-~3~3