HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0349.893 2006-2008 Murashige, Laura
From: msunnafr@d.umn.edu
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 9:30 AM
To: Yagong, Dominic
Cc: Ikeda, Donald; Yoshimoto, J; Higa, Stacy; Hoffmann, Pete; cohmayor@co.hawaii.hi.us~
cohinfo@co.hawaii.hi.us; counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us;Dacobson, Bo~a~o~jiBr~7ida; S>c~~
Pilago, K. Angel; Naeole, Emily; sunnafrank
Subject: Re: Resolution 169-07
I have now received two e-mail responses to my comments about Resolution 169-07 from
council members who voted to delay Resolution 169-07. 2 want to thank them both for taking
the time to do that.
However, their comments reflect either a misunderstanding of the position I was taking-in
my e-mail (and the position of, I believe, the majority of Ka'u residents) or political
spin. 1 will here assume the former and try to speak more clearly about my concerns with
delaying 169-07. _
One council member wrote me that he supported the delay to give Mayor Kim time to work on
negotiation. Another that this was a very emotional issue on both sides and therefore
supported delay so a professional facilitator could be brought in to help with matters.. He
also reported he was very concerned about proptecting the environment.
Sounds reasonable until one examines that lanuage a bit.
To be clear, it is apparent to me that anyone who favors further negotiation or
facilitation would be quite open to approving a large development, perhaps one cut back
somewhat from the present proposal and with less of a foot print on the environment--but
one large enough to do irreversible damage to the local people, the culture and Punalu'u
itself. And that is one of the reasons using terms like facilitation, mediation and
negotiation produce such an emotional response in supporters of 169-07. They have seen
this used on the islands before, many times this old story is told. Propose a huge
development that you know has little chance--one in fact that is larger than you really
expect to get approved. Then during "negotiation" you eventually get "reasonable" and
settle for less (but likely what you had expected) and offer some "give back" to the
community. Shazam. The development is approved and the people lose yet again. That is what
most of us think is happening here, with Five council members to back the Mayor and the
developer if these "negotiations" are "successful."
Ans, yes, the environment is plenty important to me too. But it is also about a unique
culture in the two plantation towns of Ka'u, a mixing of Hawaiian and cane immigrant ways
from many lands that has produced a culture and ways of life as rich as the creole
language of Hawaii, perhaps the most advanced creole ever in the world. The life style in
this place and the locals who live it deserve better treatment than this. It is one thing
to protect the unique environmental niche of the Punaluu waters, an important thing. But 2
think it at least as important to preserve the way of life in this place, a way of life
that is fast fading on the islands. In fact, 2 believe it only really exists with in
vitality any more in Pahala and Naalehu.
No wonder this is an emotional issue. Of course it is emotional for the developer and
supporters of development. For the developer it is about serious money and the possibility
of losing out on more wealth creation. I am not saying all or anything but a very small
percentage of supporters of the development are in it for the developer's money.
Many are obviously concerned about jobs. And that is a legitimate concern that effects
families and local life-style as well. Those who look at it that way are fighting for the
right reasons. I, however, disagree that this development will be, in the long term, the
answer to the economic problems for the locals in Ka'u.
It is emotional for supporters of the Resolution, the clear majority in Ka'u, have the
foresight to see what an approved development (even a scaled down one) will do once beyond
the short-term, well-paying construction jobs. They realize that those will be replaced by
low-end service jobs. They realize that the local children will grow up without access to
houses that will be out of their price range for buying or renting, driven there by this
development (just look at the cost of "affordable" units in the develo/p~ment-,,I-Iareyy~~o-(uj'-L~~-~~`:~Q~
Kef. To:
Ref. Date. 3
kidding me (I'd prefer a much stronger term)). And of course the choice then is go
houseless, go to Vegas, maybe Puna. But they will have to leave and this unique culture
would have been destroyed so a few wealthy people could get a bit wealthier. Emotional-
responses seem quite right in this case, not facilitated reason. They also realize that an
influx of thousands of residents who are not island people will destroy the culture and
values of this place. They will want things done like they are done "back home." You know
the story, you've seen it in action elsewhere. This influx of middle and upper middle
class folks will introduce class barriers where little now exist (the different econmic
and educational strata mix better in Ka'u than anywhere else 2 have been). Cultural
misunderstanding will produce friction and disharmony.
The beach and bay will be overstressed by these numbers. So life will get far less
pleasant in the years leading to the exodus of most locals and the end of this culture.
As I noted, jobs and economic engine for Ka'u is important. I get that. But it is not -
about anti-developers or environmentalists against jobs. As I said in my first a-mail a
good long-term economic engine with well paying jobs can be produced in other ways,
notably eco-culture programs, historical programs centered on education.
Whenever I or my students tell people about what they learn and do in Ka'u the response is
"where do 1 sign up." People who regularly come to Hawaii would love such an opportunity
to become part of such a way of life even if only briefly. To listen to the Aunties and
Uncles, to laugh with the children, to sing/dance and talk story, to engage in worthwhile
labor, to learn how to live on this land, in this place. As I said, I'll volunteer my
services to help develop something like that. But if you approve significant development
that will not be possible as that culture will soon disappear. Oh, you could do a fake
experience, like so many others. Hell, you could find another developer to through up a
mini-Poly-culture center. Disneyland anyone?
I hope you will eventually side with the will of the people most directly effected by
this, the residents of Ka'u. This is not simply about environmental impact, though that is
very important. It is about cultural preservation, about keeping alive a quickly fading
way of life. The less powerful, less well off cane immigrant descendants and Hawaiians of
Ka'u need to be considered as does the unique culture these camps produced. They and that
culture deserves as much protection as any turtle.
Any significant development would destroy this way of life, even a "negotiated,
"mediated," "facilitated" one.
Mike Sunnafarnk
Quoting sunnafrank <msunnafrC~d.umn.edu>:
> TO:Council Members Higa, Hoffman, Ikeda, Yagong, Yoshimotow
> FROM: Michael sunnafrank -
> RE: Resolution 169-07
> I am contacting you to express my dismay about your vote to delay
> Resolution 169-07. I previously wrote and expressed my gratitude for
> your courageous July vote supporting this resolution. But now find you
> have decided to give the developer, despite nothing new from that
> front, more time to attempt to ruin a very special place. I urge you
> to do as the vast majority of Ka'u residents wish and eventually
> support this resolution.
> i own land in the Ka'u District where I plan to retire in a few years. _
> Currently, I am a resident of Minnesota and Professor at the -
> University of Minnesota. I recently wrote to you in support of
> Resolution 169-07 and again to thank you for your July vote to pass that Resolution.
> Given that unanimous vote I was shocked to learn that five members of
> the council reversed themselves, voting to delay another two months.
> This was done despite overwhelming support for the resolution by
> residents of Ka'u. The developer scores yet another victory. -
> Yes, money is tight. Yes, it would be nice to bring jobs to Ka'u. But
> we are talking about a tragic and imminent threat to the people and
> culture of this rural area. We are talking about one of the last
> undeveloped easily accessible beaches in Hawaii. We are talking about
2
> a rich educational resource. We are talking about a food source for
> local families. We are talking so many more important things than
> wealth creation for a few non-local investors and more cookie-cutter
> condos for vacationers and wealthy retirees who know little if
> anything about the local culture or history.
> As noted in my first letter supporting the resolution, good jobs based
> on eco-culture education can be brought to Ka'u. The fact it is
> largely undeveloped and local, primarily serving tourists as a
> drive-by experience, makes it a relatively rare district and one that
> can support eco-culture experiences. That is what my students get
> there as they are welcomed with Aloha and for the first time
> experience a communal culture, one they come to love. Many return. In
> fact a group of 20 from 2001 is planning a return next May. I believe
> many of my students wrote in support of the resolution. That is how
> special this place was to them. I'd be more than willing to volunteer
> my expertise to help develop an eco-culture experience incorporating
> Punalu'u if you eventually do the right thing and go forward with the
> purchase. This could produce jobs that would be sustainable and would
> grow in number as the word gets out. Not construction jobs that would
> pass as the condos are completed to be replaced by low-pay
> housekeeping and gardening jobs filled primarily but immigrants. Local
> children will grow up and have to move on since the developer has _
> driven the price of land beyond what those low-pay jobs can pay for.
> Please do not turn this special place into yet another fading memory. -
> Please do not give into the dollars, the developers and a Mayor who is
> more willing to listen to non-resident wealth than the clear majority
> of residents of this district. In the future as I take up residency in
> Ka'u I will do all I can to unseat those who support the developer on
> this. In fact, I will do all I can now. Please do not add Punalu'u to
> the list of places and people crushed by sandalwood, cane, military,
> tourism and by corrupt leaders all for the sake of a buck.
> Mahalo for listening and your past and, hopefully, future support of
> 169-07
>
> Michael Sunnafrank
> Department of Communication
> University of Minnesota Duluth
> Duluth, MN 55812
> 218-726-6363
> msunnafr@d.umn.edu
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
3