COM 0042.042 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Testimony on General Plan Revision, January 4, 2004 By Bill Eger Mr. Chairman and members of the Hawaii County Council. Those who have discussed this testimony with me join in wishing you a happy and successful New Year. We expect a difficult season in 2005 with continuing fiscal problems, the gathering challenges of population growth in most sections of our island and the worsening of prospects for cazeer employment opportunities. Those are the wishes that make up the wellspring for planning, using our resources in a considered and wise manner to the benefit of our children, ourselves and the history of your service on this Council. Because it is their future, the public is watching. In the case of the Revision before us since January 2002 there is no quick way to save it. The day it was passed to the County Council from your Director of Planning, it was an illegal document, written without early public input as clearly required in Ordinance 89- 142, the General Plan you are revising. That ordinance requires the public to be consulted before the revision is written. We were not consulted, however, until the changes revealed in Drag 1 were printed. Public hearings were held after this document was released but it seems nothing the public said is taken into account as you rush to adopt an unaltered Draft I. Where are those requested changes? The document fails on more than legal grounds. It fails to plan at all! There are no new schools, no hospitals, no transportation changes to meet our population growth requirements. There is no clear plan to add water service anywhere. Police and fire protection are not mentioned. We see County government has an ample new nest in Hilo but what of the community buildings that more directly serve the public every day, community centers, police and fire stations and, equally important, new circuit court facilities? Without those considerations, what is it we are planning? Public facilities for education, health, public safety, agriculture must be the highest priority but, in Draft they aren't addressed. There are many quick examples from the Revision document but to recite them would beg the point. This draft's failure lies in what is missing, and those elements are the essence of what is required in state law, Chapter 226 of Hawaii Revised Statutes. Those sections require elements every County General Plan must have. They aze missing. Chapter 226, sets out procedures that remain in law but aze being ignored. When the State Plan procedure was adopted in 1978 it set out the requirement for intense public involvement through the preparation of local Community Development Plans. Some counties took that to heart and I think, where that occurred, they have better planning with broader public support than we can imagine here. Those responsible on the Big Island of Hawaii acted otherwise. Gradually, through the yeazs, the public has been weaned away from participation in their future. The existing Comm. No. ~ tzeF. Ta lresed~ 1 R¢~.~~'