The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0088.059 1998-2000 - R -25 -99 05;15 Fri JERRY Fn THSTEIFI 529 5464 P. 01 O 17 C March 25, 1999 `99 [1AR 25 PM 3 59 Hawaii County Council Hilo Hawaii 96721 Dear Hawaii County Council, Attached is a March 25 letter to the Council summarizing the reasons why you should "fix before passing" instead of ` 3ssing before fixing," Also attached is a signed letter dia u Pr>;.h 25 which revises the unsigned letter given you at the March 17 Council F . It is more accurate and readable Yt ,rrs for a better way4 2 Jerry Rothste7% " Let There Be Sunshine 13awarii gland 96740 Comm. No. 23.05? File No /j�C� G Ref. To / !�- ovwou4— Ref. Date_ MAR 2 5 l . - .MRR -25 -99 03:15 FM JERRY R0THTTE1H 329 5464 F.02 I O O March 25, 1999 Hawaii County Council Hilo Hawaii 96720 Re: ZONING CODE: Summary of rcn.cc -° 7 hy, you should "fix before passing" instead of "passing before Fixiir Dear members of the Hawaii County Coun- IF YOU "PASS Y A P S ( .72N FIX" 1. Fixing the defective zoning code after pas it will be a long drawn out, indefinite, complicated, and confusing prix: =•iurn it will be on the tail end of priorities. The public will lose interest. The i =rally passed '96 zoning code will remain in effect during this prolonged arui f •=finite time. 2. Whatever amendments are made are like to be vetoed since almost all of them are changes to the mayor's draft. It will the .;: 6 votes to override the veto. 3. There may be delays caused by legal ac ir, due to the ratification process. 4. Everyone effected by the zoning code is - med directly or indirectly. 5. There is little chance of real change in CIF - :oning code occurring if you pass before fixing. IF YOU "FIX FIRST 'r ° ZN PASS" 1. The bill will become an ordinance by Sept. (plus the time allowed by the Court when both sides, as agreed, request a iictie extension.) Its passage will be a Council priority. The illegally adopted pre code remains in effect a shorter time 2. Whatever pass -the Counci: -i[b a majority of 5 will not be vetoed by the mayor because to do so wouO, c ro void the zoning code under which the County has been operating since '96. 3. There will be no further delays caused > Thal action. 4. Few, if any, people are in jeopardy. Tr , explained at last paragraph on first page of the March 25 letter. 5. There is maximum opportunity for real r; ,sine in the zoning code occurring under this process. Me1 ° -99 33:16 PM JERRY ROTHSTE1H 329 5464 P.3= O If more time is needed beyond s:, : r'steijlished Sept . l deadline, I will join the County in asking the Court for a d 3 ,line extension that allows the County the same nine months the judge gave tilt; co: in the first place. Nine months is approximately the same time it took the '96 C' +u.ncil to do its work. I respectfully request that you vote to \OT ratify draft 9 on 2nd reading I also request that you send D9 (Rat;: trod to your amendments) to the Planning Commission as Draft l of a my: R code bill. /`ours for a better way, Jerry Kothst o "Let There Be Sunshine" Hawaiiisland 96740 • f (71 , ..M� E -2 -99 07:16 PM TERFY ROTHSTEI 329 .x E4 F.' 4 March 25, 1999 0 O A1._ J. Hawaii County Council Hilo Hawaii 96720 `99 nRa 25 PM "8 '58 Re. Clarifying implications �0�,atif i in the im ti o rta " n ,, � Y � - ,f, - •,,.t ratifying" the Bill 250 Zoning Code the issues of harm, ,gy � ons and deadline," and , �� i' rera• „ :.ianp, that Drafts 4/9 not be ratified. Dear Hawaii County Council chair & members, There are significant differences resulting rr . different outcomes in regard to the opportunity to fix the •ting defective zoning code: NOT RATIFYING D419 &i [iSIN'G TI14_ : "' IQ CODE AS A NEW BILL If NOT ratifying D4/9, the existing "voir1'"+ . 7 :oning code remains in place only until it is replaced with a new code by Sept. 1, or as extc by the Court. A bill (e.g. the existing zoning code) to replace the existing zoning code , be processed through the Dept, Commission, Committee, Council in a relatively ;>,; r i t me constrained by the Sept.l deadline (which BJLT & I agreed the Court could extend , C7 sides requested it. If "not ratifying" D4/9, when the new zoning code bill is adopted by a majority of five, that code with all of its new amendments would hP. virtually "veto proof' considering that the mayor would not veto a bill that would place in jen' srdy many rezonings and other actions that that have occurred since Dec.96. "Not ratifying” assures both a specified '; -t frame and a veto proof bill with a majority of five. This process provicl -s g'' - Latest potential for assuring positive change in the existing zoning code. Very few people, if any will be harmed by - Lacy. Those few people have or will have approvals based on a provision in the present coda teat was not in the old code, that is not re- passed in the new code. Such cases, if any, woulc : handled by the court if there is an plaintiff with standing i.e. can convince the court that he c3 he has been harmed. At that time the issue of "equitable estoppel" (wherein the party ha< the right to depend on the actions of the government) will be addressed in court and is likely to be resolved in the applicant's favor. In the meantime, the Corp. Counsel has affirmed that the Nov,'96 Bill 250 code is in effect, applications are being processed, and that actions t=1cn pursuant to it are legal and will be honored by the County. i • M4P -25 -99 05:17 PM JEPE'i' F.'OTHSTEir. 329 5464 P.05 e RATIFYI1Q 04/9 AND T Hs; : T AMENDING IT If ratifying D4/9, the existing "voidable" e.Yon code is immediately readopted. Amendments would then be proposed ;hr. _ , gt.l time constraint (extendable by the Court) so that the process could go on indeffuitei_ .,then than months, during which time the existing Bill 250 code is operational. If ratifying, if and when the amendments t ,assed by the Council, they are likely to be vetoed by the mayor since most if not all of the e ..,ges are to his administrations revisions. Such a bill would require six votes to overcome li„'eto because there is no `voidable" code pending A lot of people will be harmed by ratifcat • They are "the public" who were denied the "right to know" and are subject to the provisions :ut zoning code that was passed "in the dark." The provisions of the zoning code impact e :eryone! Don't ratify D4/9, and use the existing code as Draft 1 of a new bill. "Ratifying" assures untold delay. The A:.,t „° a013e code remains in effect and six votes would be needed to override a veto. a hF� _: (Dens provides the least opportunity for making a positive change in the existing zo &im,, Aside from the "political” ramifications. legal issues are also fraught with uncertainty about whether D9 is ratifiable. A ca . ',,: reading of the transcript indicates to me that the judge expected Draft 9 (called "Draft v" : e time) to he used in conjunction with a new bill, not as being ratifiable. This position is .; . Igthened by the fact that Corp. Counsel Wurdeman, in a motion for reconsideration, askc� hat D8 be substituted for D4 in the order. The judge denied the request. It will ultimately br ,2 to Judge Ibarra to determine if the Council acted properly in the way it adhered to the Cc'. t''. ' :der regarding ratification. Considering that the Council would be starling with the existing code which already was processed by the '96 Council, the process need no lake longer than Sept. 1, as further extended by the Court upon request. If more time is needcc '-;;and the Court established Sept. 1 deadline, I will join the County in asking the eau or a deadline extension that allows the County the same nine months it took the '96 Coy.; to do it its work. You might ask staff what an "expedited` ht._ ltg process would look like. It would not have to linger at the Planning Dept for weeks or ' nor would the Commission, which meets twice a month, need the maximum time as ;wed. Committee meetings dedicated to the zoning code could be scheduled as often as rice, „ry to get the job done within a reasonable time as allowed by the Court. Such expedited rev;ew is not to be compared to the 14 day action of the '96 Council when it adopted the preseni zoniiis code I ask that you vote to "not ratify" Drai't3 fog' ally or all of the above reasons. I further request that a motion as made a , _ - 3:55ed to "not ratify 04/9 and send the existing zoning code with amendments to tiff rt "i,tg Dept. to initiate a new bill." ,Mi+. F.' -25 -99 05:17 PM JEFF F'IiTF {oTE ?h ■ X29 _°484 P.06 0 0 A final consideration. The '96 Council ignored the Sunshine Law_ but when people finally found out about the issues from the media and attended at the last nir{° !e, the Council did respond to their comments with some amendments. The '99 Council, has followed the Stu :,cw but if the Council ratifies D4/9, it may be following the letter of the law but abandonin ; spirit by foreclosing all opportunities for making any amendments at this time. Ratifying Draft 4/9 is like giving food to a i ^r.ry man only to find its made of plastic and inedible. Or like allowing public statemen's r —ins on the agenda at the end of the meeting rather than the start (as Mayor Yamashi: ) :; when Council chair), or like welcoming public testimony but shutting off the microphone: As I see it, ratification of D4/9 by the '99 C: nc'il as proposed, is as unacceptable as passage of Bill 250 by the '96 Council. • fora better .'r s / r.R othst; in, fo 'Pier, / -° et T here Be Sunshine Hawaiiisland 96740 329 -1568