Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0019.001 1998-2000 ~/u~~y MM iz:I~p. ll~ Concerned Members of the Hawaiian Paradise Park Hui Hanalike C/O 101 Aupuni St #106 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 935-4743 County of Hawaii Community Development Block Grant Program RE: Proposal of Hawaiian Paradise Park Hui Hanalike for development,lof Park, etc. Dear Sirs, 1/3/99 We are writing as very concerned lot owners/residents of the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision. It has come to our attention that the Hui Hanalike is submitting a grant proposal to develop a park on a 31 acre site that the Hui owns, as well as development of a soccer field next to the existing Community Center. We feel it is necessary to contact whomever has jurisdiction over this proposal, as we have not had any of our major concerns responded to, or addressed by the applicants submitting the grant proposal, despite formal efforts to call attention to several matters concerning same. The focus of this letter to inform you of pertinent facts which the applicants may not apprise you of and our opposition to the grant proposal or any other grants to the current Hui. Specifically we do or feel it is in the best Interest of the community to obtain a grant to develop this 31 acre and also are questioning whether it is prudent for the Hui to receive any grant funds. This Is based on many factors which we will address. First and foremost, it must be stated that the Hui Hanalike is currently under court administered receivership. This is due to past mismanagement of funds, lawsuits arising out of the Hui Hanalikes handling of many issues, and questionable practices of the Hui. BEING UNDER RECEIVERSHIP, it has been judged by the courts that the Hui is NOT In good standing, and that they can not manage their day to day expenses and affairs, let alone a big government grant. This should in itself negate any thought of the Hui receiving a County Grant. The way that this grant proposal has been handled and our dealings with the applicants further indicates that there are still MAJOR problems with the current state of affairs in regards to the Hui. Comm. No.~~~ fl rile No.___~~ 1'r . _ - One must first realize that although there are several thousand folks living In the Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision, decisions such as this have been made by only a few. The Community meetings are sparsely attended affairs with only 20 members of the Hui necessary at a meeting to conduct business. Thus, if they reach a quorum, a few can make decisions affecting literally thousands of people, without a vast maJority of these peoples even realizing what is going on. We feel the decisions regarding this grant were made at such a meeting. On this specific matter there has never been adequate notice to residents and/or affected parties as to what is being proposed in order to even decide If the proposed grant is needed, wanted, in the best Interest of the subdivision. We do not even feel that the proposed park is permitted under the bylaws and master plan for the area. We personally became aware of a proposed park in the summer 1997 newsletter from the Hui, whic contained a small one paragraph Indication of a proposed park. We Immediately called the Hul president Walter Moe and were told that the park was going to be next to the existing community center and NOT in a 31 acre site (where the current grant proposal is proposed). At that time, we indicated that we wanted to be members of such a park committee and the president of the Hul took our names and phone numbers. We never heard back from him. In the 1998 newsletter there was no mention of the proposed grant, park, etc. As soon as we became aware that there were plans to develop this site, and obtain a grant, we immediately started to attend the Park Committees meetings. We were treated in a very rude manner and the bottom Ilne was that the decision for a park, grant, etc. had already been made and our Input was not wanted, needed or addressed. It seemed that one or two people were making decisions for thousands. Although we were specifically told that this matter would be taken up at the next community meeting, and that no decision to submit the grant would be made until it was voted on in a subsequent meeting, all decisions had already been finalized. At this subsequent monthly community meeting, there was not even enough people for a quorum and the President, Mr. Moe, told us that all decisions regarding submitting the grant proposal, etc. has already been made In the past.... HENCE we are writing this letter. We will try to be brief In our concerns over the grant proposal, but It must be noted that we were only allowed to take notes at the Community Center In order to review the proposal and being current members of the Hui, were not allowed to make copies and take the grant proposal for proper review by concerned parties. The 31 Acre site slated be made Into a park in the grant proposal Is a very special, potentially historic site and ecosystem that we feel would be Jeopardized by making Into any form of public park. The fact that the original developers did not sell off the separate lots which comprise the 31 acres or put in roads, Indicates that they realized that this was a kapu area. There are burial sites and artifacts on this site. The County Real Property tax office records that there are cave openings (hence graves) on this site. Opening up such a place to the public is not in the best Interest of the site Itself, or the community. SOME of the reasons that this area specifically should not be granted funds, or developed at this time are as follows: a) The bylawsand master plan for Hawaiian Paradise Park Indicate that this 31 acres is a a educational ethnobotanical site, NOT A PARK. There is a maJor distinction between a park and a site. A site is a well policed and carefully administered area. There are no provisions for same in the proposal. The grant proposal Indicates that the site was set aside for recreation and a park. One only has to read to bylaws and master plan to see this is not the case. b) The applicants have not notified the Hawallan Burial commission, discussed opening this burial site with Hawallan elders, or the Hawallan community at large. Opening such an area to the public would lead to desecration and vandalism. It Is very questionable that the Hawallan Community would want such a burial site opened to the public. c) The grant proposal, as well as the master plan contains a letter from a Consulting Archeologist, Paul Rosenthal from 1985. He viewed a small portion of this 31 acre site and his conclusions were that it may be a late prehistoric or very early historic site, potentially significant In terms of scientific research and Interpretive value. Further he states in his oplnton it needs to be preserved and studied and mapped, BEFORE any determination of use Is made.. The grant proposal submitted calls for developing a road Into same, opening It up for public access and use and then studying it. in their zeal to receive government funds, the applicants have not adhered to the Master Plan and recommendations of the consulting archeologist. Before any decision for this area or submission of a grant proposal is made for this 31 acre site, it should be studied, mapped, discussed with neighboring residents, as well as respecting the Hawaiian Communities input. To submit a plan to develop a public park, expend funds for roads, etc, prior to research and determination of best use and protection for same is not In the best Interests of the site, or community. d) There are endangered species on the subject 31 acres. Nesting sites for two species of Hawaiian Owls and Hawks as well as the Hawaiian Hoary Bat would be disturbed if opened to the public. The grant proposal submitted indicates that there are no endangered species. e) The grant proposal indicates that development of such a park will help with crime In the area. A park Is an open area, which is easy to police and maintain some sort of surveillance over. This area is a dense mango forest, very secluded. Unless all the beautiful trees are dozed and It is opened up, It will be Invitation for all the kids In the area and outsiders to have a secluded unpoliced spot to congregate and desecrate as well as a perfect spot for muggers and thlefs to gain secluded access to many homes. Making such a spot a park, will increase crime, thus not In the Interest of the community or the site. These are a few of our concerns about obtaining funds for this 31 acre site. There are many other factors that we feel should be reasons to not to consider this grant proposal based on the guidelines and rules in the CDBG proposal packet. Some have been discussed, but in summation: 1) Being in court administered receivership thus not In good standing should make the Hui ineligible for receiving grants. 2) The intended use and recommendations In the Master Plan and bylaws for the area are not being adhered to in this grant proposal. A public park is not the Intended use for this private historical site. 3) There are numerous environmental and historic concerns for the area which should make granting the proposal a mistake. 4) In reviewing guidelines for granting funds to such anon-profit organization it appears that an Important factor Is that the proposal will benefit a majority of the people in the area. Such a public park In a secluded site will not benefit a majority of people who reside In Hawaiian Paradise Park and there are far greater needs in the Community that should be addressed first. 5) In reviewing the applicants themselves, i.e. not only the Hul, but i.e. the one or two persons whom are making the decisions for thousands, and have submitted the grant proposal; it should be stated: The way that they have handled this whole matter, not adhered to master plan, not obtained Hawaiian and burial commission Input first, not notified any neighboring residents and addressed their concerns, not responded to formal written complaints and concerns when same were made at the grant proposal committee meetings, not Including any of the communities concerns (which were formally submitted) IN the grant proposal Itself SHOULD CONCLUDE that this grant proposal or any other grants should not be approved to these applicants. The fact that there are provisions in the grant proposal to have two persons oversee the grant and receive $50,000 for merely arranging for some bulldozing, obtaining some community assistance, etc. puts Into question the true motives of these applicants. In conclusion, these are only a few of our concerns that we feel have not been addressed or dign(fied with a response from the applicants, or the Hul Hanalike and wish that you take these matters under your careful consideration. We do hope you will forward this to whomever is the governing body for the proposed grant. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Our motivation Is only to protect a special place and give it the respect It deserves. The proposed public park will not accomplish this goal or benefit the community at large in our estimation. E Slirtc~ rely, Terry S ho erg Jeannette Cole