Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0765.105 2016-2018My name is :5, ---,, I'm representing myself and my family. We oppose Bill #112. 1 bought my property specifically for Agricultural zoning. The biggest problem, is some people buy affordable Agricultural lands, with no intention of farming, they build their big retirement houses, Vacation rentals, and BnBs, then they want to force out all the family farms, so their property values go higher. This conflict exist because a specific group expects everyone else to conform to their view. The Realtors should make full disclosures .regarding the sale of Agricultural lands. Buy Agricultural land, expect Agricultural activities. Please VOTE NO on BILL # 112 CID. _D r Thank you, 3--7-19 .i�S� Ref. To.C ,3 MI March 5, 2018 To the distinguished members of the Hawaii County Council, I humbly write this letter to you to express nay opposition of Bill 112. I am a lifelong resident of the Big Island and strongly support agriculture and sustainability. As a graduate of the University of Hawaii with a degree in Agriculture, I believe in sustainability and the rights to cultivate. I also believe in the proper use of agricultural lands and that these lands need to be protected against overdevelopment. I strongly feel that areas that are zoned for agricultural use should remain as such. So that future generations have the opportunity to be sustainable. These lands need to remain as so to keep with our way of life. Bill 112 aims at zoning restrictions that require 75 feet of clearance on all boundaries of these properties to raise poultry. This makes it impossible to own and cultivate on properties on smaller than 5 acres. With the development of agricultural lands in the Puna district, many of these properties are not being used for agricultural purposes. Many of them are being subdivided and buyers are being misled to believe there are restrictions to the use of agricultural zoned land in these areas. The consequences of the passing of Bill. 122 will further impact small businesses. Such as feed stores, building supply retailers, down to farmers who rely on income that is produced on their land. In conclusion, I strongly believe that Bill 112 will affect our way of life for our generation and generations of come. I humbly ask for your support in opposing Bill 112. Best Regards, Keone ®skins 9 strongly OPPOSE Bill #112. This is MALE DISCRIMINATION ! ! ! Roosters are chickens ... looks and taste like chicken.. This bill specifically and unfairly targets all male chickens from 4months of age, illegal male discrimination. Please VOTE NO H1 <A k� �-stronglyOPPOSE Bill #112. I, ��.� � ti� � This bill was created with malice, to appease a specific group of constituents, with no regard for it's legality. The intention of this bill is to prohibit and restrict acceptable legal agricultural activities on Agricultural land, in hopes of forcing out the farmers. The real conflict is greed of Realtors, Retirement Investers, Vacation Rentals and BnBs, that want to reap higher sales and bigger profits. Greed is not acceptable on Agricultural land. Please Vote NO and KILL this BILL... Thank you, My name is I'm representing myself and my family. We oppose Bill #112. 1 bought my property specifically for it's Agricultural zoning. I choose to raise my family within country farm surroundings. My children tend to the animals daily. They are learning self sufficiency, responsibility and value of hard work. Thank you for allowing my testimony and I humbly ask dor your support. Please Vote NO, and Kill thisIM y March 5, 2018 TO: Hawaii County Council & Committee on Planning, FROM: Sidney Gene Etrata Jr. RE: Opposition to Bill .112 Dear members of the Hawaii County Council & Committee on: Planning; I thank, you for the opportunity to .provide written testimony in opposition to- Bill 112.. This bill -. will prevent homesteaders, farmers and ranchers in agricultural lands under 5 acers with narrow boundaries. of 150 feet and less -to .raise and appropriately maintain a flock of poultry. I have been raising poultry since- about 8 years- old, We raised animals and grew fruits and vegetables to supplement our food purchases. Passing this measure under proposed- Section 3 A (22) (B) Will eliminate: many family's ability to raise poultry because they would not fall into the" exempt categories. 75 feet from any boundary .is very unreasonable with no thought in the development of this measure: This would eliminate about a 95% of property owners :in agriculture zones less than 5. acres in the County of Hawaii ability to raise poultry in affordable agriculture land from Pahoa to-Keaau to -volcano and almost everywhere in-between. Examples would be in Hawaiian Paradise Park 150 feet wide, Orchid Land 125 =feet wide in most parcels, Ferri Acres 10.0 feet wide. In Conclusion, Hawaii is known to be the breadbasket, of the ,state and those Who raise poultry should not be subjected to, be denied the ability to appropriately and responsibly, raise poultry because,of their property size in agriculture zones. Hawaii being an island state would -prevent individuals from. being self-sustaining and sustaining communities, in -:a time of crisis. With the real estate market rising I along with other poultry people would not, be able to afford, property of 5 acres or more. For all: =these forgoing reasons, I strongly -oppose the passing of Bill 112 I thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to M11.112 Respectfully, Sidney Gene Etrata-Jr March 5, 2018 TO: Hawaii County Council & Committee on Planning FROM: Elvis V Julian PO Box 966 Pahoa, HI 96778 RE: Opposition to Bill 112 Dear members of the Hawaii County Council & Committee on Planning, I thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony in opposition to Bill 112. 1 am a registered voter in district 4. This bill will prevent homesteaders like my self in raising poultry for consumption and maintain a health poultry flock. am a first generation American of Filipino ancestry. All of my family are farmers, ranchers and homesteaders. We grew up raising our own food like vegetables, goats, pigs, cows and poultry. I continue to do so till this day and hope to continue in the future. I live in a half acre Agriculture zoned property in Pahoa and maintain my animals in pens with periodic rotation to another agriculture zoned property. Passing this measure under proposed Section 3 A (22) (B) Will eliminate my family's ability to raise poultry because we do not fall into the exempt categories. 75 feet from any boundary is very unreasonable with no thought in the development of this measure. In addition, I am a single parent. I raise poultry for eggs, meat and to barter for other food items with neighbors and other families. Teaching my daughter, the responsibility, care and compassion for animals (Such as Poultry) is a valuable life skill and teaches sustainability. Passing of this bill will eliminate my daughter's ability to continue the family tradition. For all these forgoing reasons, I strongly oppose the passing of Bill 112 I thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to Bill 112 Respectfully, Elvis VJulian March 5, 2018 TO: Hawaii County Council & Committee on Planning FROM: Jonathan V Julian PO Box 966 Pa hoa, H 196778 RE: Opposition to Bill 112 Dear members of the Hawaii County Council & Committee on Planning, I thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony in opposition to Bill 112. 1 am a registered voter in district 4. This bill will prevent homesteaders like my self in raising poultry for consumption and maintain a health poultry flock. I am a first generation American of Filipino ancestry. All of my family are farmers, ranchers and homesteaders. We grew up raising our own food like vegetables, goats, pigs, cows and poultry. I continue to do so till this day and hope to continue in the future. I live in a half acre Agriculture zoned property in Pahoa and maintain my animals in pens with periodic rotation to another agriculture zoned property. Passing this measure under proposed Section 3 A (22) (B) Will eliminate my family's ability to raise poultry because we do not fall into the exempt categories. 75 feet from any boundary is very unreasonable with no thought in the development of this measure. Furthermore, we have maintained our poultry flock for 2 going on three generations. Limiting an individual's ability to having 4 roosters will result in catastrophic consequences in a breeding program resulting in deformity, abnormality in the genes, and diseases. For all these forgoing reasons, I strongly oppose the passing of Bill 112 I thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to Bill 112 Respectfully, Jonathan V Julian March 5, 2018 TO: Hawaii County Council & Committee on Planning FROM: Donny B Bartolome PO Box 904 Pahoa, HI 96778 RE: Opposition to Bill 112 Dear members of the Hawaii County Council & Committee on Planning, Priced out of ag lands. I thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony in opposition to Bill 112. I am a registered voter in district 4 and I am a registered Democrat. This bill will prevent homesteaders, farmers and ranchers in agricultural lands under 5 avers with narrow boundaries of 150 feet and less to raise and appropriately maintain a flock of poultry. I come from a family of farmers, ranchers and homesteaders. Raising poultry is one of our many farming activities that we do to be self -sustainable. My father who is a survivor of the Japanese occupation of the Philippines during World War II always emphasized to my brothers and I in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Growing up, we raised animals and grew fruits and vegetables to supplement our food purchases. Passing this measure under proposed Section 3 A (22) (B) Will eliminate many family's ability to raise poultry because they would not fall into the exempt categories. 75 feet from any boundary is very unreasonable with no thought in the development of this measure. This would eliminate about a 95% of property owners in agriculture zones under 5 acres in the county of Hawaii ability to raise poultry in affordable agriculture land from Pahoa to Keaau to volcano and almost everywhere in-between. Examples would be in Hawaiian Paradise Park 150 feet wide (where I am a property owner), Orchid Land 125 feet wide in most parcels, Fern Acres 100 feet wide. Section 2 Chapter 25, article 1 section 25-1-5, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended) "Rooster means a male chicken over the age of four months" Proposed amendments in the definition of a rooster are false. Most chickens are not ready to be harvested until about a year old due to their maturity http://www.dictionga.com/browse/cockerel defines a 4 -month-old male chicken as a cockerel Harvesting 4 -month-old cockerel will be considered an outright unethical practice. In addition, securing in poultry is a common and ethical practice amongst poultry farmers. This is done to protect the animals from predators, wandering, and to prevent them to catching various diseases that could be detrimental to the rest of a flock. Section 1 states that "...rooster farms can have a detrimental effect on the ... and the land value" THIS IS FALSE. Individuals and those engaged renting, leasing, or selling homes and property should use their due diligence in purchasing their property in affordable agriculture land. West Hawaii Today: 2017 a strong year for Big Island real estate (January 16, 2018) "Throughout 2017, Puna saw considerable ongoing growth, with 916 residential sales year round. The median residential property price of those sales increased by 14 percent to $225,000." "Ted Stubbs, chief broker at Hawaii Home Store Inc., said most of his Puna sales were made to mainland retirees last year, but the district is also attractive to young local families or to Oahu families who can purchase much larger properties on the Big Island for the cost of an Oahu property "the size of a postage stamp." http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2018/01 / 16/hawaii-news/2017-a-strong-year-for-big-island-real-estate/ In Conclusion, Hawaii is known to be the breadbasket of the state and those who raise poultry should not be subjected to be denied the ability to appropriately and responsibly raise poultry. Hawaii being an island state would prevent individuals from being self-sustaining and sustaining communities in a time of crisis. With the real estate market rising I along with other poultry people would not be able to afford property of 5 acres or more resulting of being "priced out of ag lands" For all these forgoing reasons, I strongly oppose the passing of Bill 112 I thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to Bill 112 Respectfully, Donny B. Bartolorne March 5, 2018 TO: Hawaii County Council & Committee on Planning FROM: Linda B Bartolome PO Box 904 Pahoa, HI 96778 RE: Opposition to Bill 112 Dear members of the Hawaii County Council & Committee on Planning, I thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony in opposition to Bill 112.1 am a registered voter in district 4 and a registered Democrat. This bill will prevent homesteaders, farmers and ranchers in agricultural lands under 5 acers with narrow boundaries of 150 feet and less to raise and appropriately maintain a flock of poultry. I am a 7t'1 generation resident of Hawaii. All of my family are or have been fanners, ranchers and or homesteaders. I grew up raising our own food like vegetables, fruits, goats, pigs, cows, rabbits, sheep and poultry. I Hope that my 4 sons, 3 grandsons, 1 granddaughter, 1 step grandson and 1 step granddaughter will be able to cavy on this tradition of being self -sustainable as most of them currently are accoss the state and in the US Mainland. Passing this measure under proposed Section 3 A (22) (B) Will eliminate many family's ability to raise poultry because they would not fall into the exempt categories. 75 feet from any boundary is very unreasonable with no thought in the development of this measure. This would eliminate about a 95% of property owners in agriculture zones under 5 acres in the county of Hawaii ability to raise poultry in affordable agriculture lands. Section 1 states that "...rooster farms can have a detrimental effect on the ... and the land value" THIS IS FALSE. Individuals and those engaged renting, leasing, or selling homes and property should use their due diligence in purchasing their property in affordable agriculture land. West Hawaii Today: 2017 a strong year for Big Island real estate (January 16, 2018) "Throughout 2017, Puna saw considerable ongoing growth, with 916 residential sales year round. The median residential property price of those sales increased by 14 percent to $225,000." "Ted Stubbs, chief broker at Hawaii Home Store Inc., said most of his Puna sales were made to mainland retirees last year, but the district is also attractive to young local families or to Oahu families who can purchase much larger properties on the Big Island for the cost of an Oahu property "the size of a postage stamp." http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2018/01 / l 6lhawaii-news/2017-a-strong-year-for-big-island-real-estate/ In Conclusion, Hawaii is known to be the breadbasket of the state and those who raise poultry should not be subjected to be denied the ability to appropriately and responsibly raise poultry. For all these forgoing reasons, I strongly oppose the passing of Bill 112 I thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to Bill lit Respectfully, Linda B. B art®, once 08 March 2018 Hawaii County Council Committee Planning Department Re: Bill #112, an Ordinance amending Ch. 25, Article 1 and 5, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended), relating to Rooster Farm. Dear Hawaii County Council, I am a registered voter and I strongly OPPOSE the proposed Bill #112, an Ordinance, relating to Rooster Farm. I currently reside in Hawaii Paradise Park on Shower Drive. Below are the reasons why I oppose the limitation of roosters in the county. We take great pride in living in an agricultural and rural setting. We specifically chose this lifestyle and it is part of our way of life. Having the ability to have livestock is the biggest aspect of the agricultural lifestyle. Those who choose to live in these areas of unincorporated community should understand that they would be exposed to the elements of livestock. Those who are bothered by the sight, sound, or smell of livestock should choose to reside elsewhere. • This is a Property Rights issue. Roosters and livestock are property. Under the United States Constitution, we have a right to possess and protect our property. I oppose any legislation that will dictate what I can or cannot possess as property. • This ordinance will have detrimental economic effects on local businesses. Many local businesses, specifically Feed Stores and Grain Mills, depend on the poultry industry for their livelihood. Less poultry in the area will mean less feed and supplies to be sold. This can lead to the demise of many local businesses in an already challenging economy. I read that this ordinance was proposed to also deter animal fighting. However, there are already many state laws related to animal fighting and cruelty to animals with punishments as severe as imprisonment. Why impose a blanket ordinance that will PUNISH the WHOLE COMMUNITY who has nothing to do with the select few that break the law? It is not fair. It is not just. An overwhelming majority of those who have roosters are law abiding people who have them for consumption, fancier clubs for poultry shows, therapy pets for kids and adults with special needs, and breeding purposes. Don't punish an entire community because of a select few. In conclusion, we ask that the Hawai'i County Council retract the proposal. We ask that the county handle the select complaints within the community on an individual, case-by-case basis as opposed to a punitive blanket ordinance that will ruin the agricultural and rural lifestyle, infringe upon our property rights, and cause detrimental harm to local businesses. As a final point, let it be known to the County Council that we as a community voted you into office to protect our rights in your district. In future elections, we will NOT support a County Council District Representative who chooses to support this ordinance. Respectfully, J oeitteGoj7me Agricultural Lan owner in HPP 4a � 08 March 2018 Hawai'i County Council Committee Planning Department Re: Bill #112, an Ordinance amending Ch. 25, Article 1 and 5, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended), relating to Rooster Farm. Dear Hawai'i County Council, I am a registered voter and I strongly OPPOSE the proposed Bill #112, an Ordinance, relating to Rooster Farm. I currently reside in Hawai'i Paradise Park on Shower Drive. Below are the reasons why I oppose the limitation of roosters in the county. We take great pride in living in an agricultural and rural setting. We specifically chose this lifestyle and it is part of our way of life. Having the ability to have livestock is the biggest aspect of the agricultural lifestyle. Those who choose to live in these areas of unincorporated community should understand that they would be exposed to the elements of livestock. Those who are bothered by the sight, sound, or smell of livestock should choose to reside elsewhere. • This is a Property Rights issue. Roosters and livestock are property. Under the United States Constitution, we have a right to possess and protect our property. I oppose any. legislation that will dictate what I can or cannot possess as property. This ordinance will have detrimental economic effects on local businesses. Many local businesses, specifically Feed Stores and Grain Mills, depend on the poultry industry for their livelihood. Less poultry in the area will mean less feed and supplies to be sold. This can lead to the demise of many local businesses in an already challenging economy. • 1 read that this ordinance was proposed to also deter animal fighting. However, there are already many state laws related to animal fighting and cruelty to animals with punishments as severe as imprisonment. Why impose a blanket ordinance that will PUNISH the WHOLE COMMUNITY who has nothing to do with the select few that break the law? It is not fair. It is not just. An overwhelming majority of those who have roosters are law abiding people who have them for consumption, fancier clubs for poultry shows, therapy pets for kids and adults with special needs, and breeding purposes. Don't punish an entire community because of a select few. In conclusion, we ask that the Hawai'i County Council retract the proposal. We ask that the county handle the select complaints within the community on an individual, case-by-case basis as opposed to a punitive blanket ordinance that will ruin the agricultural and rural lifestyle, infringe upon our property rights, and cause detrimental harm to local businesses. As a final point, let it be known to the County Council that we as a community voted you into office to protect our rights in your district. In future elections, we will NOT support a County Council District Representative who chooses to support this ordinance. Respectfully, Eliot Gomes Agricultural Landowner in HPP