HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-30 Naomi Melamed Testimony Corrected Bill 194
From:Naomi Melamed
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Re: Support #8 @ 11/1/24 WPC Meeting
Date:Wednesday, October 30, 2024 8:21:32 PM
Aloha,
Apologies, I have read through my testimony and found an error in my earlier email. Would it be
possible for me to please provide a corrected written testimony for the Nov. 1st meeting?
Mahalo, Naomi Melamed
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Tuesday, October 29th, 2024 at 12:49 PM, Naomi Melamed <hinaomi@protonmail.com>
wrote:
Aloha Committee Members,
Mahalo for your dedication on this committee and your thorough
investigation into a Pono solution for wireless infrastructure on the Big
Island.
My name is Naomi Melamed and I am an Hawaii Island leader for Safe Tech
Hawaii. A 100% volunteer group, serving statewide for several years.
We educate, support, empower, and engage with the legislative process to
ensure the balance of connectivity and safety is met for Hawaii. None of our
work involves monetary compensation or personal promotion. We are
composed of thousands of members across the state that care deeply for the
protection of the clean air space of Hawaii.
You may know that the frequencies emitted from cellular infrastructure are
called “electromagnetic” or “EMF”, which is categorized as an air pollutant
by all major insurance companies by legal framework.
This point is crucial in understanding a vital difference between bill 194 and
the directors ordinance: The right for a contested case and need for a special
use permit vs. “streamlined” process.
If we are considering an air pollutant, we must realize that involuntary
exposure will be commonplace nearly everywhere with the proliferation of
this technology. The least we can do ethically is outlined in Bill 194. People
must be informed, especially those living nearby (reference cancer study
within 500 ft. of a cell tower), awareness of such a construction beforehand,
and there must be a venue for their voices to be heard. A use permit and
contested case hearing are important elements to preserve.
I appreciate that your branch of the planning department requested to view
council member Cindy Evan’s Bill 194, which had already been introduced
on the county council level, when the planning director originally introduced
his version of an ordinance relating to the same topic to Windward Planning.
As I testified at that time, I hold that Bill 194 is a superior legislation as it
accordingly reflects the will of the residents of this island over the desires of
telecommunications and development industries.
The Big Island is in great need to a bill of this sort to protect the beauty,
safety, well-being, and property values of all who live on or frequent our
islands.
Bill 194 was in the works for about a year. It has been crafted with careful
consideration taken from a wide-range of community members and groups.
Even the planning director was approached for collaboration, but chose to
take another path. Our group was pleased to offer our expertise where
appropriate.
I have looked further into a side-by-side analysis of the two bills and will
attach the information to this email, which I found to be very helpful. I
believe that you will also be receiving this document from CM Evan’s office.
Mahalo for your time and consideration,
Naomi Melamed
Safe Tech Hawaii, Hawaii Island Leader