HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0042.042 2004-2006 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¢~.~~'
General Plan, a law enacted by this body in 1989, very clearly establishes public
participation before a revision is written. Section 6, Ordinance 89-142, which we are
discussing changing, states:
"(2) In proceeding with the comprehensive review, the Planning Director shall give
notice of the comprehensive review to the Planning Commission, Council, and the
general public. The notice shall state:
(a) The general scope of review;
(b) The ability for the Public and Council to provide their input to the
Planning Director within 45 days after the date of the notification.
"(3) Upon receipt of suggestions from the public, the Planning Director shall review
the General Plan, the assumptions upon which the policies were drawn, including
the suggestions for change. Within 90 days the Planning Director may propose draft
amendments, and shall give notification to the County Council and the public of
any proposed amendments." (emphasis added)
In Revision Draft 1 the public is mentioned but their 45 days to act before writing
begins is left out of the process:
"(2) The Planning Director shall give notice of the comprehensive review to the
County Council, Planning Commission, and the general public. The notice shall
state:
(a) The general scope of review;
(b) The ability for the Couatv Council, Planning Commission, and the
general public to provide their comments and suP,aestions to the Planning
Director and
(c) The initiation date, schedule of events, and time for completion of the
review period.
"(3) Upon completion of the review period, the Planning Director shall conduct
public workshops on the proposed amendments.
"(4) The public shall be afforded 60 days from the date of the Iast public workshop
to provide comments to the Planning Director."
In other words, the public gets to comment only after the Planning Deparment writes
the Revision. That is what happened -illegally in Draft 1, before you. If you pass
it you will incorporate illegal acts as law and endorse the Planning Department's
open and cynical refusal to obey. What is going on here?
---Bill Eger, Page 2
2
Hearings were held on this faulty Revision but Draft 1, without any of the changes
asked in those hearings, is now being rushed to passage. It is common knowledge
that passing this Draft will ignore not only the law but the public presentations
during the late hearings. Again, what is going on here?
Honored Members of this County Council, do not begin your new term with a trick.
It is a cruel hoax on the public. Do not endorse a plan that is illegally derived. A
county worker asked me within this week about those illegal actions? "Where are
the penalties," he asked. The penalty, in this case, will be your embarrassment when
the first court of law that sees this act throws it back with the order, "Begin again."
You constitute a new body so I gently request of you that you do the right thing.
Ignore this failure of the past. Send this document back to the Director of Planning
with the clear instruction that existing Ordinance 89-142 Section 6 on revision is to
be obeyed. In obeying the law, use what the public has presented and hear the public
again before re-writing.
In seriously studied testimony heard during hearings on this Revision the most
frequent concept was, "Take it back. Begin again." That seemed to echo in the
public hearing last night.
"Begin again" is the only action that makes sense for this body of the County
Council. You will learn it is the only worthy way to serve the constiruents of your
district! There is nothing in Draft 1 to make your districts better. Don't allow the
lack of positive requirements for county action to continue as an opportunity for
error and graft. Return authority for the furure of our island to our citizens.
Thank you and I'll be happy to accept any questions.
Bill Eger Page 3 1/4/2005
3