Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0349.796 2006-2008 Murashige, Laura From: Richard P Creagan [creagan@hawaii.edu] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 9:14 AM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Cw'~ r!t0 q r~_ Subject: Sea Mountain and Punaluu Attachments: Letter of June 8 to County council.doc Letter of June 8 to County cou... Councilmembers: Attached is my testimony re Resolution 169-07. Richard Creagan, M.D. comm. No. 3 9.19 (o Ref. To: hie ~ G Ref. Date L 9 2nn7 _ i Richard & Marilyn Creagan Kiolaka'a Mountain Farm 94-6539 Mamalahoa Highway P.O. Box 189, Na'alehu, HI 96772 Phone (808) 929-7606 ~ E-mail: crea an ,hawaii.edu July 8, 2007 Hawaii County Council Finance Committee Councilmembers: I am writing to strongly recommend that you not approve Resolution 169- 07. My wife and I have resided in Ka'u for16 years. I was the president of Na'alehu Main Street and my wife and I helped start the Na'alehu farmer's market. I am a retired Emergency Physician and worked at Kona, and occasionally Ka'u Hospital. We are now farming in Ka'u and she continues to work as a nurse In Labor and Delivery at Kona Hospital. I was present and testified at the Naalehu meeting in June and was also present and submitted written questions to Mr. Jacobson at his "talk story" on July Scn As many have said this issue has polarized the people of Ka'u. In my view this polarization is in large part due to the slanted and inaccurate presentation of the issue by Mr. Jacobson and Ka'u Preservation. I have supported Bob in the past on many issues and expect to in the future, but on this issue his involvement with Ka'u Preservation has distorted his responsibility to the people of Ka'u and Hawaii County. He has largely presented this issue as Punalu'u County Park versus the Sea Mountain Development. His apparent goal from statements he made at the talk story is to stop development, not just "save" Punalu'u. The proposed development at Sea Mountain is not incompatible with having a much-improved county beach park; in fact these would potentiate each other. The beach park would be at the heart of the development and would undoubtedly be well maintained by the developer. It would become county property, however (at NO cost to the county) and rules of use would be up to the county. I don't know one individual who does not support keeping a county park at Punalu'u. It is not surprising that Sea Mountain supports this. It is in some ways more surprising that Ka'u Preservation supports this. The posters, web sites etc. is full of pleas to save the turtles, but the current and proposed uses as a county park are very incompatible with this goal. If the turtles were that endangered and important this beach should be closed. The boat ramp should be closed. The pollution of the sands and water by cigarette butts, food, trash, oil from boats, suntan oil, gasoline, light pollution from campers and cars would never be approved in a sanctuary fro turtles. If a satisfactory county park were created/preserved would the Sea Mountain Development benefit Ka'u? Absolutely. The support for the "stop development" position is principally Ka'u Preservation with Mr. Jacobson as their principal mouthpiece. At the talk story event on July 5`h he indicated that the response to Mr. Yagong's "ballots" was eight to one for "saving Punalu'u" whereas the West Hawaii Today reported it as almost even. What would be some benefits of the Sea Mountain proposal? 1.The county park would be improved and preserved at NO cost to the county 2. There would be an economic boost to the Ka'u community, both through the construction, the jobs created at the resort, the ripple effect jobs in the community, and the enhancement of opportunities for local farmers to provide fresh produce, a place to showcase Ka'u coffee, a place for local fishermen to sell their catch. 3. There are at least two large components of the Ka'u community that would benefit greatly from these jobs: The Filipino community and the Marshallese community. These communities have in common a considerable proportion of individuals with limited English speaking skills and a considerable proportion who already have experience working in the Kona resorts. These two community components have been largely not heard from. There is a very large and very rapidly growing Marshallese community in Ocean View. Sea Mountain would provide an excellent opportunity for this group and help them improve their living conditions. It is no secret to the state and county workers that interact with this community that they for the most part live in substandard housing, with multiple unpennitted dwellings and families living on one parcel. I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Marshall Islands and speak Marshallese, and my wife sees many Marshallese families in her position as a labor and delivery nurse and by volunteering at Naalehu School, which has a very large Marshallese student population. We are very aware of this community and I strongly feel that they would benefit greatly from Sea Mountain. Now whether the current offering from Sea Mountain is good enough is difficult to say. I would prefer that the area around Ninole cove be more protected and addressed. That area in my view has more potential as a swimming area, and is not a turtle nesting area at this point as far as I know. A no vote today would not negate a revised effort to for the county to buy property at Punalu'u. The current proposal however is out of proportion. If the county had 150 acres under its responsibility it is highly likely that it would not be maintained and would ensure the development of homeless encampments and other undesired uses of this property. The current proposal is almost certainly to kill the Sea Mountain project, and I believe that is Mr. Jacobson's intent. A further point on this proposal: Mr. Jacobson's intimate involvement and membership with Ka'u Preservation, his two $10,000 donations to Ka'u preservation, bring in to question whether he could ethically vote on this resolution. Vote NO on THIS resolution! Yours truly, Richard P. Creagan, M.D.