HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0488.047 2008-2010
r a
October 20, 2009
J Yoshimoto, Chairman
Hawaii County Council
County of Hawaii
Dear Chairman and esteemed Council Members,
I come to you today representing the Hawaii Island Board of Realtors, an organization of
approximately 700 professional Realtors. We are concerned about Bill 132. While we
support transparency in government, we do not believe it is the true purpose of Bill 132
to create openness in government. Bill 132 would only require one additional piece of
information from the administration's proposed open bid process, and that is the
requirement for the buyer to declare his or her intended use of the property.
The true purpose of Bill 132 is to stop the sale of the Hamakua Sugar lands that were
conveyed to the County in lieu of a cash payment for delinquent real property taxes. That
money was due to go into the general fund fifteen years ago. In the last fifteen years
under the County's control n4 real property taxes have been collected from these lands
and the lands have sat fallow i?enefiting no one. The lands should be sold and the money
should go into the general fund just like any other real property tax payment. The money
would then benefit the entire Island and not just the Hamakua District.
While some believe that the public deserves to know the buyer's intended use, it changes
the sale of surplus land to a political event complete with public hearings. How many
buyers do you think will be interested in purchasing these lands under a scenario where
you have to prove your motives are pure enough to pass the public and Council scrutiny?
Very few we believe. There is an abundance of agricultural land without water for sale
on this island without being subject to this kind of scrutiny. Why would someone put
themselves through this for these lands?
Additionally, let's suppose for a minute that a successful bidder did come forward. The
County Council would have the arbitrary veto power over the sale depending upon if the
Council doesn't like the bidder, his or her plan for the property, or if the Council dislikes
anything else about the sale. Again, are these lands so special that someone will be
willing to go through this process and pay at least the appraised value?
The counter argument is we need to protect these lands. These lands have a State Land
Use Agricultural designation as well as County agricultural zoning. The lands can only
be used as allowed under Chapter 205 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and the County
Zoning Ordinance. If a buyer wants to rezone one of the properties, that application will
have to be approved by the County Council. So the County Council has control to insure
that these lands are used for agricultural uses.
Lastly, eight of you nine Council Members approved this year's budget which included
the sale of a portion of these lands. If Councilman Yagong is successful with Bill 132 88.4-7
Comm. No. sf. To:
c~tp OC.T ~.1 ?nng
Ref.
~ a
and the lands are not sold, how do you propose to make up for this 8.2 million dollar
deficit to the budget?
For all of these reasons, we believe that Bill 132 as written is not in the best interest of
the County of Hawaii.
Sincerely,
Chris Bril ante
Government Affairs Committee Co-Chair
Hawaii Island Board of Realtors