Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0508.006 1996-1998 ~~~w Sustainability Committee P.O. Box 6 , Volcano, Hawaii 96785 " ' May 11, 1998 Mr. Abraham Wong C; Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 RE: Title VI Complaint regarding Hawaii Long Range Transportation Plan (HLRTP) Deaz Mr. Wong, This letter is to request investigation and correction of discriminatory planning and effects against the lowest income communities on Hawaii Island, in the Hawaii Long Range Transportation Plan, produced by the Hawaii Department of Transportation for the purpose of ISTEA compliance. The discriminatory characteristics of this HLRTP have been the subject of conflict between us, as members of the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the DOT staff and consultants since almost the beginning of the plan prepazation process in 1994. Briefly, we assert that the Draft Final HRLTP discriminates by • Failure to recognize the actual land uses and current population, and the underprojection of future population growth in the 80,000+ lots making up the huge substandazd subdivisions of the Big Island, which aze, according to the State Department of Health, a) the most socio-economically at risk communities in the state, and b) the fastest growing concentration of native Hawaiians (by some DOH estimates 50% or more of subdivision population). • Failure to take into consideration the economic development and multi-modal transportation needs of these communities as low-income communities. • Failure to model any transportation alternatives designed to meet the economic and mull-modal needs of these communities. • Failure to identify or apply any evaluation criteria to HLRTP development scenarios which address the needs of these communities. We have further asserted that these failings have the result of denying multi-modal scenarios, evaluation criteria, and projects to al[ existing communities on Hawaii Island, in favor of enabling future auto-dependent sprawl development by politically and financially powerful landowners. The Draft Final HRLTP not only illustrates but specifically acknowledges that this is so. The Draft Final HRLTP also asserts that this result is justified by following the County of Hawaii Genera] Plan and population projections, however inaccurate, as required by the USDOT guidelines. A number of existing communities presented Community Development Plans and Master Plans specifically created, by or with the County of Hawaii, to meet the landuse/transportation criteria and goals of sustainability developed by The President's Council on Sustainability, and Livability as defined by the USDOT. These plans were ignored, and the result is a Draft Final HRLTP which not only enables future sprawl, but sabotages livability in existing livable communities, and the plans for Sustainability and livability in the low-income subdivisions (which have 65,000 vacant, buildable homesites), to provide a mazket advantage, as well as access, to future auto- dependent sprawl developments planned by powerful landowners. We submit that this Draft Final HRLTP is an clear illustration, by negative example, of the nexus v,a~~ucra. Ltu. ~S IO,g . D~_. P7k3 1(a. ___~.S~.q_1.2-.Z_~... IIkY i ti 1998 Sustainability Committee: Title VI Complaint for Draft Final Hawaii Long Range Transportation Plan 5/11/98 p.2 between equal treatment and sustainability. We attach a Title VI background briefing on the history of the discriminatory environment of these substandazd subdivisions to assist you in understanding the context of this complaint. We ask that no projects contained in this HRLTP be allowed to proceed until this civil rights violation is remedied. We will be happy to provide the particulars of land use, population data, and planning irregularities to assist in your investigation. Mahalo for your attention. / ~~ZZ~Gi,,P C~~CC~ Bonnie Goodell, planner John Luchau and Roger Evans, Hawaiian Paradise Pazk Jon Olson, Puna Community Council Ron Reilly, David Skaife and Keith Wallis, Mayoral Advisory Committee Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety, Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii Bev Byouk, Ocean View (concurrence via email or fax review) CC: Governor Ben Cayetano Charles Toguchi, Governor's Office Kazu Hayashida, Julia Tsumoto, Pericles Manthos, Doug Mellor, Department of Transportation Stanley Tamura, District Engineer, DOT Mike Medeiros, State Bicycle Coordinator Virginia Goldstein, County Planning Director Donna Kiyosaki, Chief Engineer, County of Hawaii ~ Hawaii County Council members Hawaii Island State Legislative Delegation Hawaii Congressional Delegation Tom Brown, Hawaii County Transit Coordinator Sus[ainability Committee, P.O. 13ox 6, Volcano, Hawaii 96785 Title VI Complaint: Background and advocacy information regarding substandard subdivisions on Hawaii Island, with examples of broad discriminatory effects. Summary Problem Statement The substandard subdivisions of Hawaii Island, whose 80,000 parcels make up fully two- thirds of the parcels on Hawaii Island, have been, by design, denied access to basic infrastructure and services for forty yeazs, while continuously providing taxes that subsidize additional services to existing, already-served, higher-income communities. In 1998, these subdivisions are approximately 15%-20% occupied, with a population determined by the State Department of Health to be the most socio-economically disadvantaged in the state, approximately 50% native Hawaiian. Yet they continue to provide faz more tax revenue to the County of Hawaii than they receive back in services, and they continue to be systematically excluded from programs and benefits, including federal programs. Political, Geographic and Demographic Backround The 80,000+ buildable homesites in the substandazd subdivisions are almost all in the Puna and Ka'u districts. The lots range in size from 1/5 acre to 3 acres, with most subdivisions having uniform lots sizes. They were permitted between 1955 and 1973, with the rationale that they would "give the little guy a chance" to own land in Hawaii, where most land is held by a few large landowners. (See Chapter 8 "Hawaii: Subdividing Lava Fields," in band and Power in Hawaii by George Cooper and Gavan Daws.) Subdivision approvals were conditioned on development of roads to County standards and dedication. However the County did not enforce, and the solution was belated, haphazard corporations of lot owners as owners of the substandard roadways. In 1968, an overhaul of County toad dedication standards was designed to prevent these subdivisions from being able to dedicate their roads (by setting a 50-foot minimum ROW, when subdivision roads are 30-40 feet wide.) County policy has been consistent in its defense against providing almost all County services to these subdivisions. Taxes from the vacant lots have regularly contributed 15-20% of the County's tax base for forty years, with virtually no reinvestment. Since about 1985, there has been a change in the typical in-migrant, from older people more likely to be from the mainland and "hippies," to young, local families from Oahu. Although the Census found only about 20% of the population to be Hawaiian, the Department of Health estimates that about half of the people moving in are part-Hawaiian. These areas now have the largest concentration of part-Hawaiians in the state. DOH statistics also indicate that these Hawaiian families have a birth to death ratio of 6 to 1, more than three times the ratio of any other ethnic group. The Big Island has the highest level of teen pregnancy and low-birthweight babies in the state; these statistics are heavily weighted by the residents of these subdivisions. The population is younger than the rest of the state or the island. Virtually all the subdivision children must be bused, commonly about an hour each way, to overcrowded schools, and many cannot participate in after-school activities because of lack of transportation. The state- run schools aze the state's worst, largely because of this rapid growth of low-income in-migrants with insufficient, distant, too-large schools. Total population is now approaching 30,000. Typically, house counts show the numbers doubling every five to eight years. Families continue to arrive seeking to own their own homes, in spite of the poor economic prospects. The result is 75% home ownership coupled with 75% of the children receiving subsidized school lunches. In 1990, the medium income for these Census Tracts was $22,000, compared with $34,000 for the State. In the 1995 Primary Care Needs Assessment by the Hawaii Department of Health found Puna and Ka'u to be the most socio-economically at-risk in the State. In spite of this, these subdivisions have received virtually no spending for schools, parks, Sustainability Committee, Box 6, Volcano, Hawaii 96785 Title VI Background: Hawaii /sland p.2 police and fire stations, water or sewer development, or transportation improvements, from the County, the State, or the Federal government, while funding for these programs has continued to flow to other, more well-off Hawaii Island communities. Roof catchment is the only water source. During droughts there is no water available for fire protection. Many families run out of water so there is risk of failure of sanitation, and of the epidemic risks associated with a failure of sanitation. The lack of approved water systems prevents businesses from operating legally, so many of them operate illegally out of their residences. Therefore, businesses are unwilling to invest or hire employees. Economic development is stifled. Agricultural production is often destroyed by drought. Barriers and Catch 22s Local political barriers to equal treatment for these subdivisions come fmm two sources: • If treated equally, these subdivisions would indeed represent a real opportunity for the "little guy" in Hawaii, for land ownership, business ownership, and economic democracy; they are therefore a competitive threat to the large landowners which dominate Hawaii's economic and political environment, and monopolize Hawaii's land. • The primary financial beneficiary of the tax subsidy provided by these substandard subdivisions is the town of Hilo, which has had a substantial per capita subsidy in taxes paid and services received for every yeaz since 1955. By 1980, 40% of Hilo worked for the government. Hilo is dependent upon this subsidy from the subdivisions' vacant lots. Both of these powerful constituencies have strong financial motives to view socioeconomic success of the substandard subdivisions as a direct threat to their own interests. In order to prevent the equal treatment that would lead to subdivision success: • The County General Plan does not recognize most of these subdivisions, though they make up 75% or more of the buildable pazcels. The admitted motive is to avoid providing services. • In every state and county facilities plan-water, transportation, schools, agriculture, economic development, etc.-services are not planned for these existing areas, but aze planned to serve the future developments of lazge landowners (which aze represented in the County General Plan). • Land use analyses for changes in designations of land use do not consider these parcels as part of the inventory of buildable parcels. (If they were recognized, it would be impossible to justify approvals for future developments planned by large landowners.) • The State of Hawaii's unusual government structure, in which there are no municipal governments below the County level, ensnazl these subdivisions in a web of Catch 22s. • The County and the Department of Water Supply have a policy of treating these subdivisions as if they were responsible for their own development. Yet, because they aze not municipal governments, nor facilities districts, nor cooperatives (and cannot be under the Hawaii constitution), they cannot participate in federal programs, except through the County which disavows them. • Because Hawaii has a unique political structure, qualification for federal programs must often be waivered on a ad hoc basis, so is highly susceptible to local political manipulation. • The subdivisions populations are not counted. Census workers estimated a 20% undercount in the 1990 Census. Official population projections, upon which capital projects are distributed, project little growth in the subdivisions, by using methods that systematically undercount low- income residents, or using agricultural zoning rather than actual use to estimate populations.