HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0352.006 2018-2020 CommP/M
2.
E
From: tawn(ftonokaapeoole.com
To: Council Testimony tt�
Cc: Kierkiewicz,Ashley;Chung,Aaron; David,Maile; Eoff,Kara Awn -KI eld o Sue;
Poindexter,Valerie;Richards,Tim;Villegas,Rebecca
Subject: Comments on Bill 87 re. Kona Community Development Plan
Date: Sunday,July 21,2019 7:06:49 AM
Attachments: CDP Comments Bill 87,odf
Dear council member,
I received the attached email from the Hawaii Island coordinator of the Sierra Club. Her issue seems
to be well presented and clear. I herein challenge the County Council to respond directly to these issues
in addressing Bill 87. Cory and myself, of course, prioritize protection of the environment above
development in its many forms. I believe that that has been a cornerstone position of the several CDPs
developed by the public of this island. My impression has been that the County government entertains
the position of'balance' as its guiding principal. But the issue described here so obviously suggests that
the position of balance may lead to failure to protect the environment. It is through the design of the
Community Development Plans that the direct input of the constituents has been allowed to be heard. I
do not believe that Cory and I would be in the minority opinion among the public about removing an old
growth forest for the sake of a development. I further believe that the majority of the County Council
members would agree that doing so would be undesirable. This example suggests therefore, if an
inconsistency or conflict exists between the application of the directives of the CDP and the directives set
down as rules or laws guiding the County's administration, should we not look only at altering the
directives of the CDP, but look just as closely at reforming the administrative rule or law which formed the
basis of conflict with what seems to be the will of the People. In this sense, conflict or contest may lead to
desirable outcome. To have that conflict or contest built into process may be a beauty in the existence of
a 'strong' CDP. If the Council, in it's wisdom, decides that the CDP is to be relegated to an 'advisory' role,
and please be sure that this was what was intended in the idealistic envisioning of these bodies, then
there must be a mechanism formed wherein the issues of dissension between the CDP and the
'Administrative Authority'can be aired very publicly and very directly so that this tension or contest will be
illuminated clearly for the public to see. If you will decide to define the CDP as a advisory body then, in
that same decision, you should take concrete steps to develop that mechanism for public presentation of
the issues of contention. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Tawn Keeney MD
Comm. No.
Ref. To: P[Vr-
Ref. Date 2019