HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0964.056 2004-2006
Page 2 of 2
Original Message y
From: Charles Flaherty
To: oneheart@aloha_net r_
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 6:31 PM Q 6 B
Subject: General Plan "accountability" <a~!p SE
Aloha, t.'
,C)
I have reviewed the proposed General Plan Implementation amendment "15.3 Annual Report" using my prior
experience as a former CPA/auditor and plaintiff/community activist familiar with the many ways in which legal
language can create "loopholes" that render County and State laws unenforceable (term-limit law, HRS 205, etc).
After my review, I do not believe that the language contained within 15.3 creates Planning Department
"accountability", because it is legally unenforceable as written. As written, it is relatively useless and has little or
no value to the community when compared to the demand and need for public hearings related to the proposed
E-4 and F-2 changes.
Please note that the word 'shall' implies a mandatory statement, 'should' implies an advisory statement, while
'may' implies the right to use discretion.
15.3 proposes, "To the extent possible, the annual report should develop measurable indicators related to the
policies". This language has no provides meaningless legislative advice. It provides no specific guidance and/or
enforceable conditions and requirements. Should the Planning Department hold that it is not possible, for
whatever reasons, to develop "measurable indicators", the public shall not have any recourse to force compliance
with the "accountability" intent of this law.
The public has already been forced to take the Planning Department to the State Supreme Court on numerous
occasions because of the Planning Department's refusal to follow existing laws. For instance, the Court found in
Leslie v. Board of Appeals of the County of Hawai'i that the County Planning Department was not interpreting
"shall" as a mandatory statement in its administration of the subdivision code. Therefore, there is no reason to
believe that the Planning Department "shall" develop measurable indicators related to GP policies when it only
"should".
15.3 proposes, "The Planning Department shall prepare an annual report to monitor progress towards achieving
the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies." This language specifically excludes the Community
Development Plans, which are being created island-wide to provide more specific goals, objectives, and policies
that those already described within the GP. As such, there is no Planning Department accountability for
compliance with the more specific, detailed, and, some would say, more important CDPs.
The annual report and C/P shall be the means to reconcile and prioritize competing community needs from a
County-wide perspective. Reconciled to what? Also, how shall competing community needs be valued within the
context of this means?
The Planning Department may organize an interagency committee to provide input for inclusion in the annual
report.
This is a completely discretionary condition that contains no guidance, details, or purpose for "input". No purpose
other than a purposeless "inclusion" is described.
In conclusion, 15.3 is useless as written. It should not be used as a valid reason to avoid public hearings
regarding proposed GP changes E-4 and F-2.
Therefore, I will be asking the County Council to hold public hearings on the proposed E-4 and F-2 changes.
Mahalo,
Chuck Flaherty
Comm. No. S
J
Ref. Top es*de
Ref. Date, %IF g ZO
9/6/2006