Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0183.077 2006-2008 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura From: David Schmitt [schmitt99@msn.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 3:00 PM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Formation of KVBID, Bill number 55, attn Councilman Hoffmann Attachments: INBID Letter to Hawaii Council.doc The attached file is my testimony in opposition to the passage of Bill #55 as currently presented to the council. Thank you for your consideration of my testimony. David Schmitt G~~ _ . C c'_ r, Y '3 y .r_ Comm. No. ~',1 Ref. To: kese unc: Ref. Date„ 6/5/2007 David Schmitt 75-5919 Alii Drive #U4 Kailua-Kona, HI (808) 326-2145 June 4, 2007 Chairman Hoffmann and Councilmembers Hawaii County Council CounciltestimonyCcDco. hawaii. hi.us Re: June 5th Public Hearing regarding Bill 55, KVBID I feel Bill 55 should be rejected as submitted. It should be sent back to its originators for review and modification. The problems it proposes to address are very real and apparent to everyone, however this Bill isn't the answer. Bill 55's major problem areas are Council approval for formation of the District, protest of condominimum owners against formation of the District, boundaries, inclusion of Alii Cove in the District, responsibility for the deficient conditions and fairness of funding sources. The District will be formed by vote of the 9 member County Council. Only the people living in the proposed District should have the vote on whether it is formed. Since Councilman Pilago is the only council member who has constiuents in the District, he is the only one actually accountable to District residents for his vote. I can't imagine what basis the other 8 council members will use to cast their votes. Maybe they will vote yes just because it is a good deal to get additional money from the taxpayers, no matter how it is used, and obviously nobody in their own district is going to fuss about it. In the District formation process an entire condominium project will have only 1 vote. The individual condominium owners will be taxed on their property value, but will only have a fractional interest in the 1 vote by the project. I believe this provision violates the right of an individual property owner to have a direct vote on District formation, especially since each taxpayer will have to pay on his individual property. I feel the courts should find Chapter 35, section 35-13 (c) unconstitutional. Chapter 35 is inherently undemocratic because formation of the District has to have a 50% protest rate in order to block it. This is the reverse of what it should be. It should be that more than 50% of the elgible property owners must approve the District's formation. The boundaries have been gerrymandered to provide the maximum revenue with the least amount of voter resistance. I am a resident of Alii Cove and object to it's inclusion in the District. At informational meetings it has been represented that we will recieve some intangible benefits, but few and Invited direct services. The District should only incompass the active tourist areas. The tourist district is really the current zone 1 with the addition of the zone 2 properties north and south of Kuakini from Palani to Hualalai roads and zone 1 should stop after the Royal Kona Resort. If this reduced District is not acceptable, then the district needs to be greatly expanded because the intangible benefits actually apply to a much larger area than presently proposed. I submit that the KVBID, Schmitt, page 2 District would then be a triangle roughly bounded by the ocean, with a side from Honokohau Marina to the intersection of Palani Road and Mamalahoa Highway and the third side from the Palani and Mamalahoa intersection to Keauhou Bay. In fact this large area would receive the same intangible benefits that Alii Cove would receive. Downtown blight is nothing new. It is not limited to Kona, the state of Hawai or even the mainland. Cities ebb and flow in their attractiveness, desirablilty and prominence. I question who is responsable and what is the best way to make Kona more desireable and safe. Some would say the quasi-governmental KVBID should get the job done. I don't agree. I believe a central issue is the Hawai County government's role in this. It is my understanding that there are no chartered, incorporated city governments on the Big Island. This raises the question of parity of services received by Hilo and Kona. It is a question of fact about the comparative level of services. However, if the situation is as severe in Hilo as it is in Kona, why isn't it necessary for Hilo to have an improvement district since it is the largest city on thie island? A more responsive County government with increased police patrols and protection, a clean up and maintenance crew and ordenances can make a significant improvement. Police protection and law enforcement can only be done by a police department. The protection described by KVBID is informational patrols with no authority to make arrests and no permission to be on private property. If the lawlessness is as pervasive as described, private patrols will be ineffective and sitting ducks for determined lawbreakers. The DLNR seems to be a culprit too. Complaints about the restrooms, restroom cleanliness and general pier appearance have been voiced at the informational meetings. Put pressure on DLNR to make their equitable conribution, especially considering their collection of docking fees, etc. Items such as lanscaping, lighting, streetscape furnishings, public signage and marketing sound like items that should be the responsibility of the concerned local merchants and landlords. The state and county tourism authorities should put in some money too. My understanding is that the tourism monies currently just go to promotional advertising. The KVBID, as presented at the informational meetings, is mainly just another layer of government. The district will contract out virtually all services. It's contribution is organization and mainly just getting somebody to do something. As astounding as this sounds, a major desire is to lobby the county government to get what the KVBID proponents view as their fair share of services. So now the taxpayers are being asked to fund a separate group to lobby the county for the services which as taxpayers, it should already be receiving. Apparently concerned citizens have been trying for over 20 years to get some action, but the requests have not been turned into actions. The KVBID promoters view this as a last-ditch effort to get something, anything, done. In conclusion, what can be done now instead of approving the KVBID as presented: The County can increase police protection and drug enforcement to a proper level. Drug enforcement may not be popular over all the Big Island, but it is in Kona. Make the KVBID smaller so it is just the tourist business district with a budget smaller than $900,000 per year. KVBID, Schmitt, page 3 The KVBID can hire a clean up crew it can afford. A subgroup of the chamber of commerce can educate and persuade landlords and businesses to clean up the landscaping of their own area. In the final analysis, it may be that the majority of businesses just don't care about the impresion they make on customers whether they be locals or tourists. Pressure DLNR to do its fair share. Have the tourism authorities step up the marketing of Kailua Village. If Bill number 55 passes this second hearing, you need to change the boundaries to exclude Alii Cove. Bill 55 has many ramifications and different points of view. I believe it should not be passed at this time. Study and revisions must be done before any business improvement district is considered again.