Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0072.005 2004-2006 Page 1 of 2 Safarik, Gary From: TimKona@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 8:09 AM To: Isbell, Virginia; fholshuh@co.hawaii.hi.us; Ikeda, Donald; Pilago, K. Angel; Jacobson, Bob; Safarik, Gary Subject: To Promote Affordable Housing i ttECti~~ Aloha Ms. Isbell and Council Members, ~d1!C? - Y~- r.ri ndi ,s Thoughts and ideas towards solving the affordable housing issue. ?~111!-^"'~- Coy! vb- K Housing has 2 essential components....land and buildings. In Hawaii, land is expensive, and building materials are not cheap either. Sc to mitigate the cost of both, densities must be increased. Multifamily Dwellings invoke an economy of scale so that the "per dwelling" unit cost to build goes down. When more property owners share the cost of an acre, the "land component cost" of a dwelling goes down. Housing also consists of many types of buildings, NOT JUST Single Family Detached Residences. If you try to solve the affordable housing crisis with SFR's, you will end up subsidizing the developers, and it becomes another "Social Program". Lord knows the county is overburdened with costs as it is. You also must identify the demographics of WHO the target market for your housing is. Let's be honest with reality. Many of the folks needing the affordable housing are working in menial jobs, and are also likely to have school age children. You don't want to put the affordable housing too far from schools or places of employment, or you will increase the traffic congestion on our already overburdened road system. We must first identify the "Economic Zones". These zones include the old industrial section, the new industrial section, any and all schools, supermarkets and retail centers, or large nodes of employment such as OTEC, The Resorts, or Downtown Kailua4<ona/Keauhou. V~thin 1000 feet of a perimeter of these areas, land zoning's must be changed to accommodate higher density, multiaevel, multi-family living environments. The reason for the 1000 foot perimeter is that social studies has proven that humans are highly unlikely to walk further than about 1 /4 mile. The proof of that in Hawaii is the number of HS students bussed from Kealakehe N'hood to Kealakehe HS every day when there is a perfectly good walking path for them to use. The Kealakehe High School is a perfect example. 1Nth undeveloped land surrounding it on 3 sides, there is a good opportunity for the county to increase densities surrounding the school. Much of the land surrounding Kmart and Safeway is prime for high density. And then, perhaps, someone might walk to the store for milk, or to go to work. Additionally, Hawaii County MUST create new zoning to accommodate mixed useenvironments. Retail on the first floor, office on the second, 7 stories of apartments/condos above that. To separate our land uses by putting houses over there, and jobs over here, and schools over there, and industrial sections out there is very old fashioned thinking in terms of planning and urban design. Higher densities in the nodal environments will also increase the likelihood that Mass Transit will grow naturally, and without subsidy. In society, we have a broad mix of humans. In development, we must build the proper variety of housing to accommodate the spectrum of need. We already have low density, expensive development such as Hokulia and Palisades. We need to concentrate on more high density so as to even out the mix. The last major high density project that i recall is the old folks home on Hualalai Road, and its not really tall enough anyway. It all comes down to a simple choice. Should we grow up, or spread out? Should we protect the view plane, or protect the undeveloped Ag/Open land? If we continue to chew up Ag land with low density development, traffic will get worse and worse, and affordable housing will be a chain around our necks. ~ Z..S Comm. No. Ref. To: 1/24/05 Ref. Date Page 2 of 2 As you know, Hawaii is full of the "politics of NO". And people will be resistant to increased densities citing various straw man arguments such as "protect the view", "keep kona country", "no highfises" etc etc. These people, by and large, do not study or understand the principles of urban planning, and therefore, those opinions should be ignored. But alas, a weak willed body politic has caved in to pressure from the uninformed masses for years in Hawaii. The greatest politicians have gone down in history as making the most unpopular decisions at the moment of impact. But those tough decisions were always reviewed favorably in hind sight. I have included a copy of the letter I wrote to HIJ last month. I hope you read it with a thirst for solutions in your mind. I have several other ideas that have been implemented in other counties that I would love to share with you some time. Aloha Timothy W. Bates 808-328-2650 1 /24/05 Folks who get involved, write, have social discourse, and debate the issues are the fire that burns deep in the soul of society. I was pleased to read the words "Smart Growth" in your paper a few times, though after analyzing the context in which it was used, 1 feel as though I need to help clarify the concept. Smart Growth (SG) is sometimes referred to as New Urbanism, so when you look on the Internet you might find both used interchangeably. One particular study done by the EPA most recently is fascinating reading. Smart Growth encompasses a range of ideas including mixed-multi-use buildings, like a Store with 3 stories of Apartments above it, high density living environments of 3-6 stories that promote walking solutions, like condos next door to schools or industrial areas, and the preservation of agriculture and open space as if it were sacred. The basic idea is to achieve the outcome where somebody, somewhere might possibly be able to walk to his or her economic destinations (ED). ED is the fundamental driving design consideration in SG planning. Think of it as a way of getting people tc sleep in close proximity to where they might like to go once they awaken. That being said, I would submit that the majority of Big Island Residents who might read the Journal would say that they prefer "low-density' growth such as Ocean View, Most of Puna, Hokulia, Palisades, and other such subdivisions that promote one story "sprawl" as far as the eye can see. Sustainability is the friendly sounding term used to mask destructive, low-density points of view. This viewpoint is tragic when analyzed with a historical perspective using the last 30 years in California as the baseline. Low Density growth has been promoted to a point where traffic congestion has reached critical levels both in California and here on Big Island. Everybody, no matter how far away they live, has the desire/need to get to an ED, so traffic at the center is inevitable because distances are beyond pedestrian ability. In addition, low density growth patterns destroy the prospect of Mass Transit solutions simply because bus systems cannot go up and down EVERY street in a 1 acre subdivision, and sadly, studies have shown that most "regular folk" are unlikely to walk further than'/: mile unless their "hair is on fire and their asses is catchin". As for "studies, workshops, committees' and other nonesuch, they are a waste of time. Hawaii is far behind the time line of societal development. Good Communities and Bad Communities have already been designed throughout the world. There is no need to study this further, unless of course, you are an aspiring undergrad majoring in urban planning. The studies have been done. There is no room for "I think" or "In my opinion" or "Maybe we should" type of thinking. Solutions have already been designed in communities that have struggled before with the same issues we deal with now. Can you imagine being in a mathematics class and a fellow student stands up and says "I think 1 plus 1 should be 3". It might sound laughable, but it happens every day throughout society. Big Island must embrace Smart Growth Philosophy. Higher Density, Mixed Use, Pedestrian Friendly, Mass Transit capable societies have been built for 100's of years prior to the advent of the automobile. Philadelphia and New Orleans are fine examples of high density, old cities with high functionality. While Los Angeles and Houston are terrifying examples of how bad low density growth decisions can truly become. The secret can be found in the analysis of "Fcot vs. Automobile' as a function of distance. What continues to astonish me is the level of anxiety that the words High Density invoke. It seems as though most people do not associate low density with urban sprawl. But history clearly shows that one begets the other. As we chew up the Big Island with 1 acre subdivisions here, and 12,000 sq. ft. lot s/d there, I see the pattern of California being repeated as though in a mirror. Low Density growth is a surefire way to repeat the mistakes that have been made throughout cities designed in the recent 100 years. While high density growth is guaranteed to provide affordable housing in close proximity to potential economic destinations while promoting mass transit solutions and discouraging or negating the need for cars and therefore more roads. And we save AglOpen Spaces forever. These concepts are not arguable, inasmuch as Pythagoras was correct. The concrete and time- tested solutions to societal development have been implemented in cities for ages. When I hear people complain that the General Plan is not complete, I know they have little concept of urban planning from a theoretical and historical standpoint. I go to the planning meetings, and the council meetings, and as many meetings as I can possibly attend. But, alas, and tragically I might add, my ideas are met with contempt, disgust, ridicule, condescension, confusion, and outright anger. I am fearful of the consequences that will result on Big Island due to low-density growth patterns. The "Sustainability" Folks will win. California here we come. Aloha Tim Bates Cc Bob Jacobsen Cc Harry Kim Cc Chris Yuen