HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0426.020 2004-2006 Pagc 1 of 3
Murashige, Laura
.
From: Whittington, Noelani ]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8'06 AM
To: Koga, Pat; Aiello, Jeanette; Murashige, Laura
Subject: FW: Resending testimony regarding proposed agtourism zoning
here it is. Enjoy the holiday.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Fleming [mailto:fleming@hawaii.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:28 AM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: Murashige, Laura; Aiello, Jeanette; Koga, Pat; Whittington, Noelani
Subject: Resending testimony regarding proposed agtourism zoning
I regret that I will be unable to attend the hearing regarding agtourism zoning. I
teach on the UH-Manna campus every Tuesday and Wednesday.
First, I commend the County in its long and arduous struggle to develop
appropriate zoning laws that will accommodate the rise of agtourism. Agtourism
has been growing at a very fast pace in Hawaii, especially since the
first "Agtourism in Hawaii" Conference in 1999. To foresee the problems
associated with unplanned growth, one need only look at the problems in Napa
today. Napa's agtourism has exploded over the past two decades in an
environment where there was inadequate planning. Hawaii agtourism is in its
infancy and will not be a mature industry until visitors start coming to Hawaii, not
just for the beaches and golf but also for its agtourism attractions. (In other
places around the world, such as Italy and Napa, people now visit for the
agtourism.)
So we do need regulation! But we need regulations that effectively help to retain
the invaluable rural character of much of our state while allowing legitimate
agtourism to prosper and grow. Unfortunately much of the current zoning
regulation proposal fails to achieve this goal. This proposal does NOT
accommodate agtourism as it exists today and as most of us would like to see it
evolve.
The core of the problem is Section 25-4-15. "Agricultural tourism", Sub-section
(d) "Agricultural tourism shall comply with the following regulations:" I will focus
on it, although I am sorry to say I also have many objections to other parts of the
proposed legislation.
(d) (6) states that gross revenues from agtourism shall not exceed 50% of the
total gross revenue. That is an absurd requirement because it does not reflect the
reality of agtourism. First of all it is almost impossible to calculate what
percentage of gross comes from agtourism. As an economist I have tried for
many years throughout the world to determine exactly what percentage of gross
is from agtourism. I have now stopped asking the question, and I would suggest
you do likewise. The question concerned me for academic reasons related to cost
of production issues, but I cannot conceive of how such limitations would be
related to good zoning. Z~o_~
Comm. No. L
Ref. To:
rte. Late
1 1/10/2005
Pagc 2 of 3
Take Holualoa Kona Coffee Co. as a case in point. All of that firm's 12 acres of
coffee production is sold retail to people who visit the farm (both in the store and
later over the Internet). If you were to extract all agtourism influence, the
residual would be gross income unrelated to agtourism. If the production from
those 12 acres were dumped on the wholesale market, the amount received
would probably be less than 5% of the current gross. (Custom roasting would add
a bit more revenue, but agtourism related revenue is still way in excess of 50%.)
Dumping on the wholesale market is the approach of "old agriculture." We want
to encourage the "new agriculture" where growers take responsibility for their
marketing, where through the many avenues of direct marketing they
become "price makers" rather than "price takers" of the old agriculture. Proposal
d.6. is not only impossible to calculate accurately, its attempted implementation
would be regressive. It can only have seriously negative consequences and should
be deleted. If you can come up with a clearer idea of what you are trying to
achieve, you will be able to write an effective regulation in its place.
I cannot here itemize all of my other objections in detail, but I do want to
mention one more: Section 25-2-75, Sub-section (3): agtourism facilities "shall
not exceed 1,000 square feet in total area."
It is unrealistic, arbitrary and irrelevant to demand that agtourism facilities not
exceed 1,000 square feet. That regulation would eliminate many of our finest
Hawaii agtourism attractions, including the above mentioned Holualoa Kona
Coffee Co., Monty Richard's Ranch and Greenwell Farm. Again, how will you even
calculate which facilities are agtourism facilities. The store is clearly an agtourism
facility, but what about a coffee parchment drying area nicer than would be
required for non-agtourism related production? Perhaps you would add only that
area to the 1,000 square foot limit that is necessary to accommodate visitors.
But, really, how much is that? As you can see this arbitrary 1,000 square foot
limitation is as much a quagmire as the above regulation limiting agtourism
income to 50% of total gross income. Delete it or rewrite it to reflect a genuine
need.
I believe the intentions of the planning Commission and the County Council are
good. While I can clearly see many of the proposal's problems, I do not know
from where exactly these problems arise. I suspect the source of the problems
may lie in the fact that the definitions of "agricultural tourism" and "agricultural
activities" are fundamentally inaccurate and extremely limiting and rigid. I think if
you were to articulate more realistic definitions, more appropriate zoning would
emerge. This is an important topic for another day. But clearly, the Planning
Commission has more homework to do.
The economic and social benefits of good agtourism are easily demonstrated.
Effective planning is critical to realizing the enormous potential of good agtourism.
The County's citizens, especially those in the agricultural community, are looking
to you for appropriate zoning regulations. Indeed the whole state is looking to you
for guidance because the County of Hawaii's zoning regulation, being the first in
the state, will inevitably become a model for the other counties.
Sincerely,
Dr. Kent Fleming
Professor & Extension Economist
1 1 /10/?005
Page 3 of 3
Dept. of Tropical Plant & Soil Science
College of Tropical Ag. & Human Resources
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Kona Research Station:
79-7381 Mamalahoa Hwy.
Kealakekua, HI 96750-7911
Email: fleming@hawaii.edu
Phone: (808)989-3416
Campus:
3190 Maile Way, St. John 107A
Honolulu, HI 96822-2279
Phone: (808)956-8714
11/10/2005