HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0208.046 2004-2006 Gail Byrne, MSCE
68-3551 Awamoa PZ
Waikoloa, Hawaii 96738 rtr'ceiv~ir
~1me.-~ GL~ B -~-t-
Uare----~---5f
o `~j~
May 3, 2005 (,tiwniy Caunc~l
Aloha, Honorable Members of the County Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to present written and oral testimony in support of Bill 78.
In particular, Kohala kupuna, Fleur Weymouth (Aunty Pua), who could not be here
today, wishes to express her support for this Bill.
We urge you to pass Bill 78 because it makes sound economic sense to do so. Data
from around the country show that putting money aside for open space provides a good,
financial return on investment. Those communities that have actively preserved open
space have robust economies and greater, long-term economic stability'. And,
importantly, this economic strength is directly related to the higher quality of life that
open space provides for every community member 2-7. References for these statements
are provided at the end of this letter.
The economic benefits of preserving and conserving open space, intact, are especially
true for Hawaii Island because the Island's largest income sources are directly related to
the intact natural environment and beauty of the Island's open space: tourism and
scientific and educational programs e'9. It is widely understood by the tourism and
visitor organizations within the state that what differentiates Hawaii from other tourist
destinations is the natural environment and host culturet0. Bill 78 will provide an
important tool to protect these invaluable assets.
There maybe some question about whether we can afford Bill 78. Really, we can not
afford not to pass this Bill. The alternative would be economic suicide. If we do not
proactively set aside funds to invest in and protect, intact, those assets that are the
basis for our major economic activities, we will indeed kill the goose that is laying the
golden egg. Again, data and experience show that if you want a solid economy and
high quality of life for everyone, then invest in measures such as Bill 78.
As you know, an independent poll conducted last year showed an overwhelming
number of Hawaii Island residents are in favor of this Bill. Similarly, Kohala has a long,
well-documented history of support for measures to protect open space. Over 5,700
signatures were collected on one occasion in support of such efforts. A significant
handy-cap to implementing local community priorities has been a lack of a local funding
source. And without Bill 78, accessing a variety of Federal funding sources is very
difficult if not impossible. Bill 78 is needed and Kohala supports it. p
Comm. No. ~ 0•~`
Ref. To:tree
R;;f. Cate
Page [ qJ3
Bill 78 provides the means for win-win solutions to the growth pains Hawaii Island is
facing. Landowners win, the public wins, and it makes the most, long-term economic
sense.
Maui and Kauai have already passed similar bills. It is time for Hawaii Island to do so.
And we urge you to pass this Bill at the full 2°h. Anything else will be less effective in
today's real estate market.
Thank you for time and thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Gail Byrne
REFERENCES
I .Lerner, Steve; Poole, William, The Economic Benefits of
Parks and Open Space, The Trust for
Public Lands, 1999. Within this publication the following references, 2-7, are specific to
the relationship between open space, a high quality of life, and resultant economic
benefits:
2.Timothy Egan, Drawing a Hard Lire Against l/rban Sprawl, New York Times, 1996.
3.Garvin and Berens, 1/rban Parka and Open Space, Regional Plan Association and Quinnipac
College Polling Institute,1995.
4.Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy, Lattd 1/se artd the California
F,conomy: Principle for Prosperity and Quality of life, 1998.
SERE Yarmouth and Real Estate Research Corporation, Defining New Limits: hmerging "I""rends
in Real Estate, l 998.
6.Phyllis Myers, GreenSense, Vol. 3, No. I, 1997.
7. Sierra Business Council, Pkrnning for Prosperity.• Building Successful Communities in the
Sierra Nevada, 1997.
8.County of Hawaii, Kesearch and Development, personal communication, January, 2005.
9.Byme, Gail, personal communication, based on informal survey of Hawaii Island scientific
activities, 2003.
IO.Hawaii Tourism Authority, personal communication, July 2004.
11.Krutilla, John V.; and Anthony C Fisher, The Economics of Natural Iinvironments.
Washington: Resources for the Future, 1975, 1985.
12. Lerner, Steve; Poole, William, the L'conomic Benefits of Parka and Open Space, The Trust
for Public Lands, 1999. Within this publication the following references, 13-18, are
specific to the relationship open space contributing more to the tax base than it uses.
13.Burchell, Robert W., et al. /mpact Assessment of the Interim State Development and
Redevelopment Platt, Report prepared for the New Jersey Office of State Planing,
Trenton, 1992.
Page of3
14.Bollier, David, Henn Smari Growth Can Stop Sprawl: A /~'ledg/ing ('ilizen's Movement
F.zpands, 1998.
15.1000 Friends of Minnesota, "Joint Senate Committee Listen to Report on Costs of Sprawl,
Minnesota Land Use (electronic newsletter), 1999.
16.Nantucket Land Council, Inc., Balancing Today's Development and Tomorrow's Taxes,
1989. Included in Land Trust Alliance InfoPak Series: Economic Benefits of Open
Space, compiled by Ted Jackson and edited by Rosemary Infante, 1994.
17.National Park Service, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, L~conomic /mpact
of protecting Kivers, '!'rails and Greer:way Corridors, 1995.
18.Brabec, Elizabeth, Orr the Vahee of Open Spaces, Scenic America, Technical [nfonnation
Series, Vol. 1 Not, 1992.
19.Brighton, Deb, Community Choices: thinking Through I,cmd Conservation, Development,
and Property 'faxes in Massachusetts, 1998.
2QThomas, Holly L., The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation, February 1991.
21.President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, National Park Service, 1995.
Page 3 0/ 3