Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Page 2 of 2 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Original Message y <br /> From: Charles Flaherty <br /> To: oneheart@aloha_net r_ <br /> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 6:31 PM Q 6 B <br /> Subject: General Plan "accountability" <a~!p SE <br /> Aloha, t.' <br /> ,C) <br /> I have reviewed the proposed General Plan Implementation amendment "15.3 Annual Report" using my prior <br /> experience as a former CPA/auditor and plaintiff/community activist familiar with the many ways in which legal <br /> language can create "loopholes" that render County and State laws unenforceable (term-limit law, HRS 205, etc). <br /> After my review, I do not believe that the language contained within 15.3 creates Planning Department <br /> "accountability", because it is legally unenforceable as written. As written, it is relatively useless and has little or <br /> no value to the community when compared to the demand and need for public hearings related to the proposed <br /> E-4 and F-2 changes. <br /> Please note that the word 'shall' implies a mandatory statement, 'should' implies an advisory statement, while <br /> 'may' implies the right to use discretion. <br /> <br /> 15.3 proposes, "To the extent possible, the annual report should develop measurable indicators related to the <br /> policies". This language has no provides meaningless legislative advice. It provides no specific guidance and/or <br /> enforceable conditions and requirements. Should the Planning Department hold that it is not possible, for <br /> whatever reasons, to develop "measurable indicators", the public shall not have any recourse to force compliance <br /> with the "accountability" intent of this law. <br /> The public has already been forced to take the Planning Department to the State Supreme Court on numerous <br /> occasions because of the Planning Department's refusal to follow existing laws. For instance, the Court found in <br /> Leslie v. Board of Appeals of the County of Hawai'i that the County Planning Department was not interpreting <br /> "shall" as a mandatory statement in its administration of the subdivision code. Therefore, there is no reason to <br /> believe that the Planning Department "shall" develop measurable indicators related to GP policies when it only <br /> "should". <br /> 15.3 proposes, "The Planning Department shall prepare an annual report to monitor progress towards achieving <br /> the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies." This language specifically excludes the Community <br /> Development Plans, which are being created island-wide to provide more specific goals, objectives, and policies <br /> that those already described within the GP. As such, there is no Planning Department accountability for <br /> compliance with the more specific, detailed, and, some would say, more important CDPs. <br /> The annual report and C/P shall be the means to reconcile and prioritize competing community needs from a <br /> County-wide perspective. Reconciled to what? Also, how shall competing community needs be valued within the <br /> context of this means? <br /> The Planning Department may organize an interagency committee to provide input for inclusion in the annual <br /> report. <br /> This is a completely discretionary condition that contains no guidance, details, or purpose for "input". No purpose <br /> other than a purposeless "inclusion" is described. <br /> In conclusion, 15.3 is useless as written. It should not be used as a valid reason to avoid public hearings <br /> regarding proposed GP changes E-4 and F-2. <br /> <br /> Therefore, I will be asking the County Council to hold public hearings on the proposed E-4 and F-2 changes. <br /> Mahalo, <br /> Chuck Flaherty <br /> Comm. No. S <br /> J <br /> Ref. Top es*de <br /> Ref. Date, %IF g ZO <br /> <br /> 9/6/2006 <br />