HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0128.026 2010-2012Murashige, Laura
From: Jeanne Holmes [paauilofarms @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:57 AM
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: oppose bill 270
Dear Council Representative,
2911 RUG 16
Page 1 of 2
PI co utcr ,
J_ieo
Please note my opposition to Council Bill 270 with regard to building in Hawaii County.
This bill is designed for mainland problems, not the varied needs of homeowners in the various districts
here on the Big Island. Each district has distinct and separate needs which need to be addressed by the
homeowner and their contractor, architect and engineers using their combined wisdom and experience.
These professionals are educated and licensed to make these decisions - are you? What is the liability to
all of us if the choices you now make create greater problems that we now have...unaffordable housing;
homeless people living without housing and sanitation, the health care issues of poor sanitation in parks
and public places as more staff resistant bacteria spreads in our wet climate; underemployment; not
enough work to support our once bustling construction industry. This bill creates a financial burden
which the struggling construction industry and local construction companies are likely not to survive.
The tourism industry will continue to suffer as the sanitation/safety of beach parks declines with
increasing demand of people who simply cannot afford to have a permanent home but chose to live here
or simply can't afford to go elsewhere.
This bill will reduce new construction and remodel /repair work due to already high costs - this will have
a negative impact on underemployed construction workers and their families. Today's Channel 2 News
reported that new construction for single family residences on Oahu are down where this legislation was
enacted.
Please strive to enact legislation that promotes appropriate technology for the Big Island and which
recognizes that the needs and technology are so different in the districts that one bill does not do justice
to your constituents. One example: 10,000 gallon water catchment may not be adequate in some areas
where drought and fire danger exist. 10,000 gallons of standing water is certainly excessive in areas of
high rainfall and low usage - it is expensive to treat and circulate this water. Collecting and storing too
much water breeds bacteria and mosquitoes - it attracts birds and rats, slugs and snails - some of which
drown and contaminate the large catchments which are difficult to maintain because of their height and
expensive to purchase and install.
This bill creates unnecessary and unwarranted costs to existing homeowners as they are forced to
upgrade their existing safe homes when they are repaired or risk criminal prosecution should a neighbor
or vigilant homeowner association report repairs or home improvements. It is likely that many will
avoid making changes to their existing homes due to the fact they would not chose impact resistant
"hurricane proof' glass or roofing that can withstand 200 mile per hour winds when their homes aren't
designed to for this nor does history suggest a need for the same. Consider a intact 200 mile per hour
roof becoming a projectile with the 78 mile per home still attached as it is pulled from the ground
instead of a few small pieces. Consider also, the damage from the 2006 earthquake as Simpson Straps
held the buildings rigidly causing considerable damage to structures as they moved and were damaged.
Consider the damage "vog" is likely to create as the sulfuric acid etches and discolors the expensive
"lexan" plastic windows that will cost 3 times what glass does. Perhaps, the council might consider
Comm. No. 12$ .26
Ref. To: Prow Courâ–ºc;
Ref. Date AUG 1 7 2011
8/16/2011
Page 2 of 2
upgrading your own homes to the standards you suggest - at least estimate what it would cost you and
think about how your constituents will feel about you when they do the same math....because they need
it. This is a civil matter - the criminal system is already overtaxed. If this were commercial only it
would still be excessive, we are talking about homeowners, your neighbors, your friends who have lived
safely and happily for years without ever experiencing a hurricane which I'm told is extremely unlikely
due to the large mountains deflecting the air.
Last year, I switched my homeowners insurance from the state operated program to a Florida based
company who specialized in hurricane insurance - the premium went down by about 50% - they
specialize in the risk of hurricanes and have chosen to pursue insuring homes here. This 600 page bill
seems to have been written by people who have no real experience with the lifestyle here - please
streamline the change; start fresh - hit the high points and don't micromanage by buying into an easy but
bad plan. Imagine the charm of the plantation homes as it disappears in favor of cookie cutter hurricane
proof homes - " ticky, tacky boxes" as Pete Seeger would say as he sang about the lack of warmth and
charm of California developments. The Hawaii we know and love will change forever with this bill -
please stop, take your time...try wait. Find something better - you can do it.
Please reconsider this bill - mahalo
Auntie J - --
8/16/2011