The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0349.919 2006-2008 w BOB JACOBSON 333 Kilauea Avenue, Second Floor Councilmember • ~ Ben Franklin Building, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Chair, Environmental Mana emenf Committee ~ • Mailing Address: 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 200 Vice-Chair, Finance Committee 'i'a'N~"~ Phone: (808) 961-8263 Fax: (808) 961-8912 E-Mail: bjacobson@co.hawaii.hi.us HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai `i Sunday, September 16, 2007 To: Chairman Hoffmann and Members not the Hawaii County Council From: Council Member Bob Jacobson Topic: Report Summary From James Kent"Associates (JKA) The Report Summary From James Kent Associates (JKA), The Kau Listening Project: "Talk Story until There is a Balance", reminds me of advice regarding recounts of elections, "Keep counting until you're ahead then quit and declare victory." I think that the work of JKA resulted in neither community mediation nor valid surveying. It misleads the Council at this crucial time for clarity and good decision-making. I draw these conclusions from: examining the massive public testimony since Reso 169-07 was introduced; talking with and observing the JKA "listeners" in action; discussions with my constituents regarding their experiences with JKA staff; and finally, examining the JKA Report Summary itself. Throughout the testimony on Resolution 169-07, the public did not clamor to find a "compromise" or "middle ground". Those supporting the resolution consistently stated that they did not want to lessen the shoreline setback or the amount of land to be preserved. Those who opposed Resolution 169-07 supported whichever proposal Sea Mountain Five (SMS) was offering at the time. They did not seek a change in SMS's basic vision. Just as I believe Resolution 169-07 is the bare bones proposal to protect the essence of Punalu'u, SMS remains firm that their project must retain the basic features such as hotels close to the shoreline, hundreds of hotel rooms, more condos, and around a thousand exorbitantly priced homes so that they meet their profit expectations. Common sense tells you that this is not the type of conflict resolved by compromise. Indeed, from talking to several JKA listeners, and observing their information gathering techniques, I conclude that JKA neither mediated nor accurately surveyed the Ka'u community. In my conversation with Mr. Ryen, a JKA listener, he told me how JKA had "gotten other projects through on Oahu". JKA's website says "By using the informal system of communication "to uncover issues at the grassroots District 6 _ Upper Puna, Ka `A, and South Kona Cpmm; ~ 3 ~ , -1 Hawaii County Is An Equa! Opportunity Provider And EmployerRef. 70e tiwrwM~ fJ~KG: Ref. Dote SEP 19 level we create a moderate middle ground where citizen involvement becomes part of the issue-solving process. Through this process we diminish the wind in the sails of the extreme voices." This shows that JKA is not neutral and has an agenda to marginalize those opposed to SM5's development at Punalu~u. JKA has imposed Orwellian wordsmithing in their questioning (lobbying) where `conservation' really means putting in development and `preservation' means denying the public use of a resource. These are part of a not so subtle technique to marginalize the leading organized proponents of protecting the proposed 2,000 foot buffer that Reso 169-07 seeks. I suspect that if their name were Ka'u Conservation, JKA would try to demonize, marginalize and pervert the meaning of the word `conservation' in an equally cynical fashion. The real nature of the law in Hawaii regarding conservation districts would deny the use of such land to resorts, condos and other mega developments. Evidently the mayor and JKA have declared KP an extreme voice and decided to "diminish the wind in the sails of the extreme voices". The Big Island Weekly reported that, `Given the questions they asked, the claim that James Kent & Associates (JKA) began the Ka'u Listening Project, as an "unfiltered, unbiased targeted assessment" is a distortion of their methodology. JKA has worked in over 200 communities around the world preventing, managing and reconciling disputes involving mining projects, logging operations, military base installations, resort developments, power plants, including geothermal, among other "human change initiatives. Some questions were clearly aimed at preserving the possibility of development. "What is the best possible balance between conservation and development in the current Sea Mountain Five proposal? What in your view would be a way to improve the Sea Mountain Five proposal in order to optimize community benefits?" In posing alternative opportunities for Punalu'u, JKA asked, "is Ka'u Preservation's proposal for an international learning laboratory and eco-campus for that area realistic.' As this shows, JKA was not mediating positions or objectively collecting community opinions. Many Kau constituents complained bitterly to me about their experience talking to JKA listeners. Many viewed the questions as the, "Are you still beating your wife?" type questions. Constituents frequently felt that they should not be expected to create all the economic answers to Ka'u when the legislative issue before the Council is to preserve 150 acres of the Punalu'u shoreline. One constituent brought to my attention that, when she asked to see JKA's work (not just the Report Summary) she was told it was confidential. Neither JKA nor the Mayor's office would provide this information and yet taxpayers paid for this report. This is not open government at work and not responsible professional behavior. As another example of the lack of objectivity, at the Discovery Harbor JKA talk story meeting, one of the listeners was reported to have started with the statement that `The Council is leaning toward approving this development'. The decision of the Council is to be made September 19th. Who can say now what that vote will be. JKA's statement certainly is not neutral. Finally, the Report Summary is hugely misleading, lacking in either mediation results or survey results and primarily succeeding in rubber Dislrict 6 - Upper Puna, Ka'A, and Sauth Kona Hawaii County /s An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer stamping the opinions of SM5 proponents. The eleven ~~Findings" are opinions, most of which could be quoted or paraphrased from testimony by SMS proponents. The glaring unsubstantiated attacks on Ka'u Preservation, and silence on the role of OKK, speaks volumes for JKA's bias for major development at Punalu~u. The conclusion that ~~neither of the major options on the table-buying a part of the Sea Mountain land or accepting the Sea Mountain Five proposal in its present state-moves the community to where it wants to go" is wrong! I remind you that the vast majority of the 800 plus pieces of written testimony and oral testimony supported preserving Punalu'u and, in Councilmember Yagong's mailed survey, three of the four communities (Ocean View, Na'alehu, and Volcano National Park residents) supported Resolution 169-07 with twice as many people in favor as opposed. Preserving Punalu~u has been shown to be the overwhelming position of Ka'u, the scientific community and other residents and visitors. For Council Members who voted in favor of the mayor's postponement, it is unfortunate they did not receive a document that helps in this decision. I urge each of my fellow Council Members to reject the contents of the JKA Summary Report and let the overwhelming evidence in support of Resolution 169-07 lead you to this historic opportunity to preserve Punalu~u. BELOW I'VE INCLUDED ONE RESIDENT'S REPLIES TO JKA SURVEYS OF VOLCANO RESIDENTS IN CAPS THAT DEMONSTRATES THE DIFFICULTY IN ANSWERING THEIR QUESTIONS IN ONE'S OWN WORDS. JKA-DO you use Punalu~u for recreation, for fishing, for gathering, etc? RECREATION JKA -How do you feel about the possibility of 1,000 new homes, two resort hotels, a shopping mall and a golf course? THE PROPOSAL WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT MY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL AS THE NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE AREA. JKA -Would the proposed projects create jobs? SURE, BUT THEY WOULD HURT HAWAII'S ECONOMY IN THE LONG-TERM BY REDUCING ITS ATTRACTIVENESS AS A VISITOR DESTINATION. JKA -IS Kau Preservation's proposal for an international learning laboratory and eco-campus for that area realistic? YUP. JKA-Should the County of Hawaii purchase certain areas around Punalu~u to protect it from development and to preserve it for future generations? ABSOLUTELY. JAMES KENT & ASSOCIATES SHOULD NOT BE ATTEMPTING TO MEDIATE OR NEGOTIATE A SOLUTION HERE. SOMETIMES, MEDIATORS NEED TO ACCEPT THAT FOR CERTAIN COMMUNITIES ANY DEVELOPMENT OF SENSITIVE AREAS IS UNACCEPTABLE; THAT MITIGATION PROPOSALS DO NOT ADDRESS ALL CONCERNS. JKA- What would you see as the best economic future for Kau, given the current trends and economic conditions? 1. KEEP IT WILD! 2. PRODOCE AS MUCH ENERGY LOCALLY AS POSSIBLE (WIND AND PV) 3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE (INCLUDING ORGANIC DAIRIES) 9. SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY ON PRIVATE LAND 5. EXPAND THE NATIONAL PARK JKA- What is the possible balance between conservation and development in the current Sea Mountain Five proposal? THERE IS NO BALANCE. EITHER YOU KEEP IT WILD, OR YOU SCREW UP THE PLACE WITH DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS NO IN-BETWEEN. YOU CAN REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT YOU ARE STILL GOING TO DESTROY THE AMBIANCE, THE EXPERIENCE, THE NATURAL RESOURCES, THE BEAUTY. OH, OK, HOW ABOUT JUST LETTING THEM DEVELOP A LITTLE BIT ON THE MAUKA SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY? JKA- What in your view would be a way to improve the Sea Mountain 5 proposal in order to optimize community benefits? WHAT KIND OF LOADED, UNBALANCED QUESTION IS THIS? THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE IMPROVED IF IT WAS DROPPED. COMMUNITY BENEFITS DO NOT MITIGATE THE DESTRUCTION THAT WOULD BE CREATED BY THIS PROJECT. DistrPct 6 - Upper Puna, Ka`H, and South Kona Hawal `i Caunry Ls An Equa[ Opportunuy Provider And Employer