HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0853.011 2010-2012 P el of 1
R.
Murashige, Laura r~
�W,�1G'1• �.�3
From: Aurobindo&Adrienne Dey [ADEY @hawaii.rr.com] PV)11 ! 2
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:57 AM 'f'i R!
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Fw: Eminent domain motion at Papaikou Beach
Importance: High
Attachments: Papaikou eminent domain.doc
This is for the public hearing tomorrow October 10, 2012 by the Finance Committee to
be held in Papaikou. My mail was refused by the mailer because the box was full, I
think.
Please see that this gets to the right place! Thanks.
Adrienne S. Dey
Original Message
From: Aurobindo &Adrienne Dev
To: bfordco.hawaii.hi.us
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:02 AM
Subject: Eminent domain motion at Papaikou Beach
Good morning! I sent mail to you yesterday at what I think is your home address which
I found on the Internet, however I have not received a read reply so I am sending my
comments again to your office address. Please forgive the duplication.
Regards, Adrienne S. Dey
Comm. No. `V x3. 11
Ref. To: [" I FL
Ref. Dote OCT 1 0 2012
10/9/2012
39 Poko Place
Hilo, HI 96720
October 8, 2012
Councilor Brenda Ford
Finance Committee Chair
County of Hawaii
Subject: Papaikou Beach Access
I want to point out some factors which relate to the cost for the County to acquire the pedestrian
easement by eminent domain at Papaikou Beach.
1) Pedestrian access has been free ever since the Waughs acquired the property which gives
access to the beach, specifically now for 12 hours a day for 364 days a year(only one day of
closure usually unless there is some serious maintenance problem). The switchback trail to
the beach was built by the owners at their own expense. This is all free to the public because
the owners recognize the importance of beach access to the community.
If Mr. Yagong's bill is approved and goes to Corporation Counsel there will ensue a long legal
battle, funded of course by the taxpayers at great cost. Then if the County were to be successful, the
Waughs would have to be compensated adequately. Mr. Yagong's claim that "the trail will not cost
much because it is only 10 feet wide" is quite misleading.
2) The trail requires constant maintenance which could not be done in a reliable manner by
volunteers. There are retaining rock walls and partial rock paving of the path to mitigate the
constant erosion of the hillside. More cost lurking here.
3) The land surrounding the former sugar mills is basically a toxic dump site which has had to
be cleaned up at some other locations. There is plenty of asbestos, arsenic, heavy metals,
other toxics, and dangerous buried debris. If the County wants to be responsible for the
health and safety of the public using the trail to the beach, it is my opinion that an EA or EIS
would have to be done followed by a cleanup of the site even if only a portion of it becomes
the responsibility of the County. Cost is adding up.
4) It is also my opinion that if the County becomes the owner of this path to Papaikou Beach, it
will be required to make it accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to
make it accessible to all citizens. How this could be done here is not easy to discern. Cost is
adding up.
5) There is no parking for this site, not on the Waughs land, not along Mill Road which is too
narrow, and not near the dangerous intersection of Mill Road and the highway. Perhaps you
should confiscate the Pinky's parking lot as well? Cost is adding up.
Conclusion: you may end up with an extremely expensive project, all funded by the taxpayers of
course, for something that was AVAILABLE FREE all along. Those who are demanding 24/7
access just want to go back to the good old days when they were carousing on the beach all night.
This bill should be consigned to the trashcan of really bad ideas.