HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0349.176 2006-2008 Council Members and Guests:
I live at Punalu'u mauka. I have lived at this residence for almost 10 years. I do not
support this resolution because I first feel it is misleading. The resolution insinuates that
the Mayor and the Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation
Commission is recommending to purchase the whole area at Punalu'u, when they have
recommended only a small portion of the coast line be purchased.
My second point is I am not sure of the legality of this resolution in indicating that the
over site of this area is recommended to be Kau Preservation. It seems the county is
looking at purchasing as azea only to give it to a private group to run when to my
knowledge this was not put out for a bid or even put out to see who else might be
interested to overseeing this area.
Third: I do not support this resolution because I feel it promotes the "welfare child
syndrome". Instead of looking for ways that Kau can pay for itself and the services that
we need, this resolution asks for more hand outs. Has the Council looked at what Sea
Mountain V has to offer? There may be other offers out their that I don't know about. But
as I understand it Sea Mountain V has proposed many things that would help Kau to
stand on it's own two feet, while this resolution makes us rely even more on county, state
and federal money. As I see it, the resolution would generate only a minimal number of
jobs, does not address the problems ofinfra-structure and would provide access for only a
few selected people to the beach area because of developing a "living classroom". Sea
Mountain V has promised enhanced access to more beach area, protection for sacred
areas, protection for endangered species at no cost to the tax payers and even has
promised to help with the up keep of this area. I think the question is do we always want
to be an expense to the tax payers or do we want to be independent and choose what is
best for all of Kau?
3~'P• i7G
Ref. Ta t
Ref. Date Jl1N 4