HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0927.035 2004-2006
Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura
From: Michael J. Riehm [ropa@hawaii.rr.com] JUL 17
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:29 AM PM 5 17
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us -
U-
Subject: testimony resolution 381-06 COUNT'
Attached is my testimony regarding resolution 381-06.
Comm. No. " IZ7.3S
Ref. To:p* e---wd G~
Ref. Date JUL 19 NO _
7/17/2006
Statement of
Michael J. Riehm, A.I.A., Owner
Riehm Owensby Planners Architects
Wednesday, 19 July 2006
Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa
In consideration of
Resolution No. 381-06 (Draft 4)
Relating to Postponing Action on Rezoning Applications
In the Districts of North and South Kona until the
North and South Kona Community Development Plan
Is Adopted by Ordinance, Or Until January 1, 2007,
Whichever Shall Occur First
The Honorable Stacy Higa, Chair
The Honorable Virginia Isbell, Vice-Chair
Members of the Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street,
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Aloha Chair Higa, Vice-Chair Isbell and Members of the Hawaii County
Council:
I am Michael J. Riehm, a member of the Hawaii Leeward Planning
Conference (HLPC), an organization committed to sound planning, wise use
of our resources, and effective government process.
If this resolution is being stimulated in part by such concerns, then we would
ask the Council to consider both the stimuli and responses in a
comprehensive manner. For example, at present, it is unclear how
postponement of rezoning applications pending updating and implementing
by ordinance, the CDP for North and South Kona, will address existing
infrastructure concerns without discussion of both short-term (to meet
current needs) and long-term (to meet needs stimulated by future growth),
commitment to and funding of, identified infrastructure requirements.
While Resolution 381-06 does not provide a mechanism for dealing with the
causes of public frustration such as existing traffic congestion and insufficient
road infrastructure; rezoning often does include mechanisms and the
opportunity for providing roads, water systems, school and commercial sites,
and other infrastructure. Such opportunities may be lost to the community if
consideration of rezoning applications is delayed by this resolution. For
example, one way to deal with congestion is to encourage commercial and
shopping development in areas closer to existing residences to lessen
commute time and distances, thereby eliminating some of the traffic on main
roads, and such opportunity may come through rezoning.
As the County and State continue to look at planning and land use, this
resolution rather than providing much needed clarity and consistency,
appears to support erosion of property rights through poor definition
thereby increasing the level of uncertainty for land development, and
effectively transferring rights to use of property from the property owner
through the political process, to the general public.
1 of 2
The issue at hand is related specifically to resource distribution. An excerpt
from an article titled "Growth Management in Florida, Lessons for the
National Economy" written in 1990 which reviewed Florida's Growth
Management Act, speaks directly to this and states, "When resources are
allocated through the private sector of the economy, distributional issues are
secondary because all parties have an incentive to structure trades so that
everyone gains. Otherwise the trade would not take place. When resources
are allocated through the public sector, distributional issues are important
because, unless unanimous consent is required, there is always the possibility
that some individuals will impose costs on other non-consenting individuals
through the political process."
In other words, by transferring property rights from property owners to the
public domain, property owners are subjected to political decision making
and "as a result, rights that were at one time more clearly defined become
more poorly defined, and the problem of common ownership arises."
This is important to the current discussion as one considers other desired
outcomes of the CDP including and not limited to, affordable housing. An
unintended consequence for consideration is whether this resolution may
encourage existing property owners to keep developable land scarce thereby
maintaining (and exacerbating) high property values that discourage
investment and development, and have a negative impact through exclusion
of additional affordable housing (both rental and for purchase),
infrastructure, etc.
One should also consider unintended consequences and negative impact that
may result from deferring such decision-making exclusively to Kona. For
example, would this moratorium on rezoning encourage developers to look
at areas outside North and South Kona, thereby increasing problems and
encouraging sprawl into other regions of the island where CDPs are not
expected for several months and/or years after Kona's CDP Steering
Committee has made its recommendations?
I suggest that in this case, postponing Council action on rezoning
applications would in fact be the "error." The delay which would be
preferable to this error, is for Resolution 381-06 to be rejected and for a
comprehensive review to be conducted of both the stimulus (i.e. growth
management), and response (i.e. the tools available that have allowed other
jurisdictions to successfully manage growth and its related issues) followed
by the necessary commitment and discipline to fund and construct necessary
infrastructure.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael J. Riehm, A.I.A.
Riehm Owensby Planners Architects
2of2