HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0349.817 2006-2008 Murashige, Laura
From: Melissa Fleming [mfleming@co.hawaii.hi.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:37 AM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us ~ yr_ iu.3 o c;
Subject: FW: Punalu'u Survey ~ -
Attachments: Bjacobsonl.doc
Bjambsonl.doc (24
KB)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Silva [mailto:tatatau@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:07 PM
To: bjacobson@co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: tatatau@hotmail.com
Subject: Punalu'u Survey
Bob,
Please find attatched a Word Document of a letter I wrote to you about the Punalu'u
Resolution and survey.
Thank you for your hard work,
Jeff Silva
http://newlivehotmail.com
Comm. No. .3 ~ - I .
Ref. Toy
Rof. date JUL 10 10fl7
1
Jeff Silva July 6, 2007
PO Box 201
Pahala, Hi
96777
928-6174
Mr. Bob Jacobson
Council member
25 Aupuni St, Suite 200
Hilo, Hi
96720
Dear Mr. Jacobson,
Thank you for your efforts to protect Punalu'u. I am writing today to provide you
with some input that may or may not be helpful to you and the Council to make a
decision on the Punalu'u issue.
Recently, Council member Yagong sent out a survey, which I found to be quite
difficult for many community members to answer. The main problem is that the
wording was essentially support "the resolution;' or support "the development." Of
course, it is just not that simple.
Although I firmly support the resolution with some inevitable changes to the exact
wording, I found it unnerving that anyone not supporting the resolution was by
default supporting wholesale development. Many of the people I have spoken to who
do not support the resolution you proposed, still would like to see Punnlu'u
protected, but are concerned with the proper management of the park. There is
some question as to the goals and motivations of Ka'u Preservation. A conflict of
interest seems apparent. Some also have concerns that private property rights are
respected.
I feel that the Kn'u community was poorly served by this "survey." I am sure
Council member Yagong had no intention of further confusing the issue.
In Sea Mountain Five's recent letter, which had no return address or contact phone
number for further clarifications, their "benefits" to the community appear more
like bribes to be paid after each individual approval for the SMA, grading permits,
etc. Obviously, they feel the project will be lucrative enough to pay some people
off, but how could this be enforced? They also promise jobs for the local
community. Has anyone checked the unemployment rate in Ka'u? I believe that
nearly everyone who wants to work is working. As far as commuting is concerned, I
feel this to be more of a housing issue. Bring the houses where the work is, not the
work to the rural areas that are critical to this islands sustainability. A resort in
Punalu'u would without question increase the cost of living and housing in Kn'u. One
could only expect higher, i.e. tourist, prices for food, water, fuel, property taxes,
and every necessity of life. The residents of Kona could vouch for this.
By supporting local agricultural projects that employ smaller numbers of people, the
Council will ensure continued, gradual agricultural growth in the wake of the
breakdown of the plantations. Kn'u is really the last hope for Hawaii's farmers,
ranchers, AND the tourist industry, as the beauty of Ka'u's longest undeveloped
shoreline brings visitors here. Support what Hawaii was, is, and can be for years to
come.
I hope that the information I have presented will be helpful to you and the Council
to serve the people of Kn'u.
Sincerely,
Jeff Silva