HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0687.066 2004-2006 Page 1 of 2
Murashige, Laura
From: Lillian [Russellr004@hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:49 PM
To: Council Testimony; Ikeda, Donald; Isbell, Virginia; Holschuh, Fred; Hoffmann, Pete; Arakaki,
James; Jacobson, Bob; Safarik, Gary; Pilago, K. Angel; Higa, Stacy
Subject: Fw: No vote on 246 ~ -
I also urge the Council to vote no on 246, 224, 225 and 251. I ehco Mr. Reimers sentiments.
Lillian Fox
Original Message
From: GeoMike5Cc~att.net _i
To: visbell@co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: kapilagona.co.hawaii.hi.us ; counciltestimony(rDco.hawaii.hi.us
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: No vote on 246
Ms. Isbell:
I urge you and the entire County Council to vote NO on Bill 246 to allow zoning changes to be
forwarded with incomplete information.
We now see a primary reason for numerous development problems in Kona. How can anyone make a
reasonable determination on the viability of a project if important information is not addressed. While it
might be easiest to assume good faith, it risks bringing forth too many burdens on the County at a later
date.
Interestingly, the Council has before it now two examples of promises without backup. There can be no
better indication than these for why 246 must be defeated.
The first is for a developer to be allowed to go ahead with a project that promises infrastructure
development for the State University (Bills 224 and 225). The University seems to have little interest in
that project, despite the offer of ammenities.
The second is development promising space for a Salvation Army Post (Bi11251); here the Army knows
little about the offer and does not have the resources to buy and build there!
There is nothing wrong with requiring complete information with any application. Would an architect
give a contractor incomplete plans? There should be no need for putting the County Council in a
position to vote on good faith. Let all the facts, potential problems, and resolutions be known before a
decision is made. It might be tempting to vote for a chicken in every pot, but first find out who is going
to supply the chickens, who will provide the pots, and who will donate the energy needed to cook the
birds, and, of relevance to this County, what landfill will take the garbage!
The planning department has failed to show that streamlining the applicaiton process is workable or best
for the citizens of Hawaii County.
Please, vote NO on 246, 224, 225, and 251.
Comn? No.
Michael Reimer Ref. Tos ~
Kailua-Kona Rif. DaM.
5/15/2006