HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0208.122 2004-2006 Pagc. I oft
Robello, Alfred
Prom: MBLANN [blann@verizon.net] i,,-:; ~l ; r
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 8:41 AM /
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi us _
i
Cc: Harry Kim
Subject: Bills 78 and 79 testimony
Aloha Hawaii County Council,
Sincere thanks to all for trying to reach an agreement on the very important issue
of securing parklands to guarantee future generations some of the beauty and
tranquility which we have been priviledged to enjoy on this land. I understand that
a poll earlier sanctioned by the Mayor put public approval of using their tax dollars
to do this at 70%, putting it somewhat ahead of love and motherhood.
I may not understand the issue correctly, but believe that opposition to the earlier
Bill 78, supported by a huge majority of taxpayers, was that some felt that county
tax dollars should not be used to pay for parkland acquisitions. I understand that some
of our representatives in both legislative and executive branches are willing to accept
use of bond funds for this purpose. The earlier Bill 78 used tax dollars on a pay as you go
basis to finance purchases. The new Bill 78 uses the same tax dollars, but guarantees
that it will be at higher cost to the taxpayers. There will be the administrative cost of the bond
float, the interest service on the bonds, including extra interest payments to cover
arbitrage. So instead of paying cash for our parklands with tax dollars, we will borrow the
funds, and pay them back with tax dollars at higher cost. The taxpayers lose; the banks
gain at the expense of county taxpayers. I am having difficulty understanding
that revised Bill 78+79 is a step forward rather than- in the other direction.
It is not clear to me how the $ 250,000 will be used. It will buy half a buildable lot in W. Hi.
The present proposal of deferring a bond float until a prioritized list is ready means a year delay
in getting a float, preceded by a delay of several years as death by committee
takes place in identifying and prioritizing these potential future parklands. The additional
suggestion that council debate and approve each and every parcel puts a further delay in
place. It also continues to bog the council down in further micromanagement of the minutae
of a huge and diverse county. Choice parcels are likely to be sold and fully developed into
golf courses and luxury housing a few years prior to final council action on the parcels
identified, debated, deferred, then approved.
Now to the more constructive side. Under present county organization the suggestion to
pass each parcel before the council for approval is the appropriate and responsible course.
It also means that the decision becomes one of politics rather than merit, need, and fairness.
The block with the votes gets the parklands. As demographics are changing on the island,
it is not clear where that might be- but independent of where the votes lie, fairness and need
should decide.
A different approach would be for council or a committee to divide the island into parkland
cantons. A percentage of the funds might be voted to each canton based on population
and existing parklands, taking care not to underfund lower population areas. The decision
of aquisition might then be left solely to the citizens of each canton- easing the burden
on county council, and assuring fairness to each canton.
As our population increases, if government is not already suffering from a single
centralized government of which we ask too much, it will in the future. Centralization
toppled the USSR, and can hinder effective government in our large county. Perhaps ~ 0
we should define those issues which are countywide in nature. and make those the jurisdic~~m, No.__ U
Ref. To: • u
Raf. Uote
5/31 /2005
Page 2 oft
of a single county council. Then define cantons, each with urban and rural components,
with authority aver those many issues which really affect only the canton. In the present case,
locating and acquiring parklands would take place within each canton.
I have not yet met an elected official in favor of giving up same power, let alone part of tax
revenue to a new political sub-group- but as the island continues its rapid expansion, I think
that it is not an issue of if , but'when and how' some decentralization takes place.
I would support Bills 78 and 79, though I preferred the earlier Bill 78 as more cost effective
and likely to produce results. Often to acquire land one needs to be able to enter negotiations
promptly, not suggest that an offer will be forthcoming in a year or two if council approves
the particular parcel sometime.
Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony on this topic.
Marshall Blann
75-5865 Walua Rd. D423
Kailua Kona, 96740
5/31 /2005