My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0762.060 2004-2006
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2004-2006
>
COM 0762.060 2004-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 9:10:27 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 11:56:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2004-2006
Communication
0762
Point
060
Author
Michael Reimer
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Council: Close file - 6/05/06 Presented: Council - 5/17/06
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 06/05/2006 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2004-2006\Council
BIL 246 Draft 01 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2004-2006
COM 0762.000 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2004-2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> Page 1 of 1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> <br /> From: GeoMike5@att.net <br /> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 1:26 PM <br /> <br /> To: Isbell, Virginia <br /> Cc: Pilago, K. Angel; counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Subject: No vote on 246 <br /> <br /> Ms. Isbell: <br /> <br /> I urge you and the entire County Council to vote NO on Bill 246 to allow zoning changes to be <br /> forwarded with incomplete information. <br /> <br /> We now see a primary reason for numerous development problems in Kona. How can anyone make a <br /> reasonable determination on the viability of a project if important information is not addressed. While it <br /> might be easiest to assume good faith, it risks bringing forth too many burdens on the County at a later <br /> date. <br /> Interestingly, the Council has before it now two examples of promises without backup. There can be no <br /> better indication than these for why 246 must be defeated. <br /> <br /> The first is for a developer to be allowed to go ahead with a project that promises infrastructure <br /> development for the State University (Bills 224 and 225). The University seems to have little interest in <br /> that project, despite the offer of ammenities. <br /> <br /> The second is development promising space for a Salvation Army Post (Bill 251); here the Army knows <br /> little about the offer and does not have the resources to buy and build there! <br /> <br /> There is nothing wrong with requiring complete information with any application. Would an architect <br /> give a contractor incomplete plans? There should be no need for putting the County Council in a <br /> position to vote on good faith. Let all the facts, potential problems, and resolutions be known before a <br /> decision is made. It might be tempting to vote for a chicken in every pot, but first find out who is going <br /> to supply the chickens, who will provide the pots, and who will donate the energy needed to cook the <br /> birds, and, of relevance to this County, what landfill will take the garbage! <br /> The planning department has failed to show that streamlining the applicaiton process is workable or best <br /> for the citizens of Hawaii County. <br /> <br /> Please, vote NO on 246, 224, 225, and 251. <br /> <br /> Michael Reimer <br /> Kailua-Kona <br /> GeOMlke5((,att.net <br /> <br /> <br /> Comm. No. ? b Z <br /> Ref. Torreseoted <br /> Ref.'°'e.MAY 17 <br /> 2006 <br /> <br /> <br /> 5/12/2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.