HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0176.077 2006-2008
May 15, 2007
Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Hawaii County Council,
BILL #51, CHANGES TO CHAPTER 27 OF COUNTY CODE '
One of the beauties of the American system is our ability to pick and choose"
from a wide variety of products, services and other options available to us. "One size
fits all" is rarely the order of the day -and for good reason. Someone living in the
snowy northern lands of Alaska where roads are tough and where mud is the order of
the day when snow is not reigning finds a four wheel drive vehicle to be a necessity.
That same person living in urban Miami, Florida is not likely to spend money for a
4x4, choosing instead to purchase air conditioning. We make similar choices every day
depending on our specific needs and the resources available to us.
The same considerations are generally taken into account when we make choices
for the Public Good. For instance the County of Hawaii does not spend millions of
dollars on snow removal equipment or for salt to melt the non existent snow. Spending
money on such products would clearly be unwise. Asking our residents to similarly
spend money on snow chains and other snow related products would make no sense to
us. We would not ask them to expend those resources.
And yet we find that with the amendments made to Bill #51 that we are
proposing to spend County monies and to require our businesses and citizens to spend
money on problems that for all practical purposes do not exist. While some of our
island properties are subject to flooding hazards, most are not. Thus when we require
that:
• ALL homes be anchored to prevent flotation collapse or lateral movement in
case of flooding we are adding costs that will serve no purpose for most homes.
Most homes are not subject to flooding. All we have done for these homes is
add to their cost with no real benefit. We have spent our citizens' money
unwisely. The same is true when we require that these homes be built of flood-
resistant materials and constructed using electrical, plumbing and other
equipment and services that are flood resistant.
• Flood studies be conducted for areas clearly not in flood zones - we are
spending money for our residents for which they will receive no practical
return. We are delaying the building of their homes as they look for qualified
Ref. lo.. i'" `~'~7
Ref. ~a:e______-~
- 2 - May 15, 2007
consultants who are few and we are reducing the number of homes in both
affordable and in mid range classes. And yet we know that the probability of
flooding for these residents is virtually nil.
• Require that all properties be designed for the 100 year flood knowing that in
that flood the ground will in any case be saturated and complete containment
has never been possible in our history and pre-history, we drastically reduce
spending on options much more useful to our community.
These are but a few of the problems with the current draft of Bill #51.
Problems for farmers are sufficiently severe that while we can measure no meaningful
benefit we add costs and negative impacts that will make using many current
agricultural parcels uneconomical. It is difficult to envision calling oneself farmer
friendly -and yet supporting this legislation -because of the severe impacts the
legislation would have on farming. The list of problems could go on. Suffice it to say
that that we are in the process of adopting a "one size fits all" set of requirements that,
because it does not fit all adds costs to our entire community. In most cases these costs
are not warranted. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to as a government
require our community to spend tens of thousands of dollars knowing that those
dollars will only burden our population while benefiting them not at all.
Sincerely,
Bill Walter