HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0853.052 2010-2012 Dear Council Members,
Again, I ask, what is Council's agenda in regards to Resolution 308-12? ": 2 u
There is no disagreement that the County should provide access to Papaikou Mill Beach, but why through tiny
Mill Road? Why eminent domain, why just an easement, why THIS trail? Who appointed some Global Hope
group, or the San Clemente, California group, Surfriders, as representatives of Papaikou or Silverton Camp?
Everyone agrees, the County should purchase an access, but it is not required that the county"take"this
problematic trail, or that it use eminent domain to do so, and it is even more disturbing that the resolution is for
the purchase of an easement only. In a community meeting, Chairman Yagong answered my question about
how much this would cost with a generalized comment that there's no exact number, but it's just an easement the
County would purchase, and that amount would probably be manageable within the County budget. So this is
the precedent you want to give to Surfriders and Global Hope, that the County doesn't have to buy land and
make trails for public access, it can just force private landowners to open their lands? And, why are the voices
of the many Mill Road residents who live at the bottom of the road, who remember how out of control the
situation was with parking, drug use, theft,vandalism, being ignored? These are the people who are really
going to be impacted, who have spoken through their written and public testimony, and are being ignored.
What is so incomprehensible is that there is an alternative, with a willing landowner, which would provide a
better solution. Yes, it involves another road and another landowner, but that landowner is going to have to
provide shoreline access anyhow, by law, to do his subdivision. Why is this permanent access solution, which
doesn't even address parking, being rammed down the throats of the Mill Road residents who do not want to go
through the same situation again, when, with planning and coordination, a far superior solution is obvious? Is
this really about doing what's right for Papaikou and Mill Road people, or is this just about a"win" for Global
Hope and the San Clemente, California's Surfriders group?
You directed Charlene Prickett to work with the community, and she has pulled together a broad-based group to
improve users' access across the existing trail while the details and construction of a new trail come together.
Isn't moving forward with aloha, to a great community-based access solution, supposed to be the "victory"
here? Moving this resolution forward might be a"win" for Global Hope and the San Clemente-based
Surfriders, but it is a loss for the people who should count.
— It's a loss for the Mill Road residents who have told you they don't want more vehicle traffic and more
users and more problems on their narrow road,
— It's a loss for the community, who will be be stuck with a"permanent" access solution that doesn't fix
the big problems, like parking,
— It's a loss for private landowners, who will be quick to eliminate voluntary access currently granted as a
result of this precedent, and
— It's a loss for all County residents, who will be stuck paying to reconstruct and maintain a money pit of a
trail, that is actively sliding off the hillside.
So what is the Council's agenda? For whom are you going to score this victory? This Global Hope group and
San Clemente's Surfriders, or the community who want public access and deserve leaders who will make wise,
not political, decisions?
Mahalo, I ��
Jeff Sacco
Papaiko HI
L
Comm. No. 3-c 3 'C2-Ref.To:
Ref. Date