HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0687.045 2004-2006
As citizens, we have obligations and rights. The obligations include obeying local, state and
federal laws, and our rights include the expectation others will do the same. We also have a right
to know our elected and appointed leaders and lawmakers will obey and enforce our laws. None
of us has a right to decide, without ramifications, which laws or portions of them we will abide by
andlor enforce.
So why can a developer in Hawaii County select the portions of the laws they wish to follow?
Ordinance 93-45, effective May 12, 1993, required an 80 foot right of way mauka-makai road
that was to be extended to Queen Kaahumanu Highway when development occurred in what is
now Palamanui. This same requirement was part of Ordinance 850, effective February 15, 1983,
and was restated in Ordinance 88-23, effective February 29, 1988. Yet the road required by
three laws for over twenty years was never built.
Instead, we're saddled with a substandard road not built to applicable standards per our own
County officials and therefore, according to the Hawaii Supreme Court in the recently decided
case of Kienker vs. Bauer and the State of Hawaii, one that leaves the residents of Hawaii County
exposed to significant legal liability as a public road. The existing road was designed,
constructed and designated by the County as a minor road. Per the County Code, it may be used
exclusively for access to abutting property and not as the required mauka-makai connector. It
should therefore not be accepted by the County as the County Code requires roads accepted by
dedication meet all appropriate standards.
Using the figures presented in the March 2181 edition of West Hawaii Today, the anticipated value
of Palamanui at build out will be $958 million. With land costs of $4.6 million and $300 million in
infrastructure, the resulting $658 million is a return on investment of over 14,200%. The $25
million estimate provided by County Planning Director Chris Yuen for an alternate mauka-makai
connector represents but 3.8% of that. Guy Lam's own estimate of $15 million is only 2.3%.
Either estimate is a small price for a properly designed and constructed safe road that meets the
County's standards as legally required.
While we're toltl Hiluhilu is "actively pursuing" alternatives, it is unconscionable to grant any
zoning changes and/or variances as requested in Bills 224 and 225 without a firm and binding
commitment to meet its existing obligations. Anything less will leave us with another high density
subdivision with lots of promise and excuses why promises can't be kept after the fact, exactly as
has happened with the mauka-makai road. While Bill 225 contains a "housekeeping" component,
the combined effect of the two bills relieves the developer of its obligations to build the road that
meets County standards as has been legally required since 1983. This goes way beyond mere
"housekeeping".
The University is in question. The once promised hospital and golf course are gone. One acre
lots have been replaced by high density lots. The required road doesn't exist. Concurrency must
start someplace. Please, make it here. Require this developer to meet its existing legal
obligations to the citizens of Hawaii County.
Thank you.
Jerry Schneyer
72-1173 Ho'opai Road
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
(808)937-0770
Comm. No.
Ref. To: tnbcte
Re#. Uata