Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

[joshuatree]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

Tim, I agree with you, the NIMBY's have stalled a lot of things here in Kona. But I'm not blaming the developers completely. As like I said, all final planning decisions are made in Hilo. It is no secret developers in the past greased the wheel to get their projects to go through with limited or no mitigating infrastructure improvements.

Were there no developers wanting to build in Hilo in this same time frame? Did they also push for the same non-infrastructure building rights as the Kona developers? How did the same Hilo council vote on those issues? I think if you examine the matter at that level, then you can see if there was any bias on the council. Plus, as Tim mentioned, if you have NIMBYs stalling one area and none in the other, that will also alter the balance.

[timkona]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

Remember, it's not JUST the Nimby's. There are a variety of groups that want to say NO for a variety of reasons. Each of the groups, and their reasons for NO, are perfectly understandable. The problem is that, taken all together, they represent the source of the intransigence, and lost money & opportunity, that is plaguing Kona.

We would have had an overpass at Palani when the Queen Kaahumanu BOULEVARD was built back in the 70's. But people didn't want that. We would have a Hokulia Hwy, but bones and LUC issues blocked that. We would have Alii Pkwy, but again theres bones there also.

I'm sure that if Puna wanted a wider hwy or an overpass ( ) then hundreds of folks would speak out against that also.

To hell with safety. To hell with the environment. We want gridlock. We want our children to move to Las Vegas. And we want lots of protest to help make these things a reality.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

But who approved it ? It wasn't anyone in Kona. All final planning decisions are made in Hilo. Also there is 9 council members, one of which is from Kona. How
can one vote beat eight ?

Let's take a good look at this:

The majority of people who live in districts 2-5 work (2-4) in Hilo. The majority of districts 7-9 work in Kona (7&8). 1 and 6 divide between both, which would mean that these two districts are conceivably the swing votes.

I want to know who are these Eight-for-da-Eastside Gang, and which district is the lone suffering warrior-of-the-2lane-beachfront-hwy? And I wish, truly deeply wish, you would respond to Sinjin's link, picking a good crosssection of points (you needn't answer them all), and tell us how Kona is developed--the area between districts 6 all the way through 9-- is Hilo's fault, and what does that specifically mean?

Come oooooooooon, man! Help us advocate or commiserise, or at least understand! But you gotta meet us halfway, since you are the 'All Kona All The Time' Dude. How you fail to point fingers at greedy, short-sighted developers just astounds me.

But I will tell you what flabberghasts me: why is there nothing but dead lava for miles between Waikoloa and the rest of Kona's residents? How come the grid never filled in there? Miles of unnecessary raw land, not even pretty land, while the rest of Kona decides that they need to put all of their jobs over 1/2 hour away from their homes/schools/lives. Is this also the master design of the Hilo Cartel?

[Konaguy]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

Were there no developers wanting to build in Hilo in this same time frame? Did they also push for the same non-infrastructure building rights as the Kona developers? How did the same Hilo council vote on those issues? I think if you examine the matter at that level, then you can see if there was any bias on the council. Plus, as Tim mentioned, if you have NIMBYs stalling one area and none in the other, that will also alter the balance.

The situation is only recently the developers have sprung into action in East Hawaii, specifically in Puna. Hence why they are suffering traffic issues now. East Hawaii thus far though has been less desirable (until recently) due to the weather.

A lot of these entitlements were granted awhile back. Since the market has been hot, developers have been cashing in their entitlements like crazy. The caveat is they haven't had to build supporting infrastructure.

Blaming the NIMBYs is just a smokescreen covering up a deeper problem here.

[Konaguy]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

I thought we were talking about developments that were approved and built?

Were those developers "Kona people"?

The developments I'm talking about are the ones that have gained entitlements already. For the most part these developers are from off shore.

[Konaguy]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

? And I wish, truly deeply wish, you would respond to Sinjin's link, picking a good crosssection of points (you needn't answer them all), and tell us how Kona is developed--the area between districts 6 all the way through 9-- is Hilo's fault, and what does that specifically mean?

Why should I, when the ultimate culprit is the former Hawaii County administrations. Bear in mind, like I said, all final planning decisions are made in Hilo. Hence why we have the problem as described in the article.

How you fail to point fingers at greedy, short-sighted developers just astounds me.

It takes two tango. Developers cannot unilaterally develop their projects here without permission.. They have to seek entitlements from Hawaii County and the State of Hawaii. These government entities are responsible for planning, not developers. The developers are looking out for their investors only.

But I will tell you what flabberghasts me: why is there nothing but dead lava for miles between Waikoloa and the rest of Kona's residents? How come the grid never filled in there? Miles of unnecessary raw land, not even pretty land, while the rest of Kona decides that they need to put all of their jobs over 1/2 hour away from their homes/schools/lives. Is this also the master design of the Hilo Cartel?

A lot of the land you mention is owned by KSBE or the State of Hawaii. It has been placed in the conservation or agriculture district. Believe it or not 96% of the 1 million plus acres of ag land on the Big Island is considered marginal. In other words the land use system here is severely broken, as shown in the Hokulia mess.

[Konaguy]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/artic...al/local02.txt

There was an interesting WHT article in regards to the property tax disparity between East and West Hawaii. There was one nugget of information shows the disparity loud and clear.

"The discrepancy between East and West Hawaii seems even more acute when examined by the average tax paid per parcel. Each of the 39,614 lots in the four traditional West Hawaii districts will pay an average of almost $3,800, while the 98,670 lots in the five East Hawaii districts will pay an average of $620."

To break it down further,

"Kim said between 35 to 38 cents is spent in the West Hawaii districts for each dollar paid in property tax. While many say the money is going to Hilo, Kim said residents of South Hilo -- where the city of Hilo is located -- are in a relatively similar situation, getting back around 50 cents on every tax dollar.

At the same time, Puna, with the largest population and most parcels of any district on the Big Island, is returned two dollars for every dollar its residents contribute into county coffers."

I find the latter very shocking. I really doubt that is statistically accurate that Puna is getting 2.00 back in services for every 1.00 in property taxes. Especially taking into account the poor infrastructure and overall lack of services Puna has currently.

[timkona]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

Geeesh boy,,,,, no offense...but you are clearly showing what it is that you do not understand about infrastructure, and social/urban planning.

Density. Density. Density. That is the lesson for today. And I hope you google it. Math is a damned pissy science.....mainly cuz it does not allow for any opinion. It don't matter what you think about 2+2. It's the same every time. Ratios and densities are wonderful concepts in mathematics. Low Density development is bad, bad, bad. Subdivisions are bad. Single story living structures = bad. 1 Acre lots = bad. Distance longer than walking from domicile to domicile = bad. And not the way we used to do it before we had autos. (really less than 100 years, in reality.)

Then you should learn the idea of zoning. Add in the cost of any road per mile in a union dominated environment, plus utilities, and pretty soon you have something as nice as Hokulia. And then your education will be complete.

<<<and this county honestly thinks they can have affordable HOUSING )


<<<dude, hey tim, the word you should use is 'Dwellings'...no offense man.

[Konaguy]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

Ummm Tim what is your point ? I was just pointing out some hard cold facts about the disparity between Hilo and the rest of the Island. Since some people on here had a strong desire to have me show some facts.

[TuNnL]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

Ummm Tim what is your point ? I was just pointing out some hard cold facts about the disparity between Hilo and the rest of the Island.

As much as I disagree with Tim on numerous issues, he is right in this instance. His point, is that YOU SAID:

I really doubt that is statistically accurate that Puna is getting 2.00 back in services for every 1.00 in property taxes.

And he is simply describing why you are wrong to doubt the statistics, and explained why they ARE accurate (as shocking as that might be). Simple math, Konaguy. Trust me — both my parents are accountants who have or currently work in real estate.

[joshuatree]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

I actually can believe Puna gets $2 for every $1 of tax. Here's a quick example. Say you got 10 houses all built in a row spread 10 feet from each other. Then all you need is a 100+ foot utility line with branches to feed each house. Now let's say the 10 houses in a row are spread apart a mile each. Then you need a 10+ mile long utility line to serve all 10 houses. Obviously the second scenario will require more $$$ for the infrastructure to be built. And because Puna's density is low and spread out, I can see Puna getting more money for infrastructure but still getting inferior infrastructure because it's still not enough money to cover the distances.

[Konaguy]

As much as I disagree with Tim on numerous issues, he is right in this instance. His point, is that YOU SAID:

And he is simply describing why you are wrong to doubt the statistics, and explained why they ARE accurate (as shocking as that might be). Simple math, Konaguy. Trust me — both my parents are accountants who have or currently work in real estate.

*sigh* Instead of making disparaging comments about my intelligence, why don't you educate me. It really irritates me when people criticize me but do not justify it at all.

I actually can believe Puna gets $2 for every $1 of tax. Here's a quick example. Say you got 10 houses all built in a row spread 10 feet from each other. Then all you need is a 100+ foot utility line with branches to feed each house. Now let's say the 10 houses in a row are spread apart a mile each. Then you need a 10+ mile long utility line to serve all 10 houses. Obviously the second scenario will require more $$$ for the infrastructure to be built. And because Puna's density is low and spread out, I can see Puna getting more money for infrastructure but still getting inferior infrastructure because it's still not enough money to cover the distances.

The way interpreted what was written was Puna receives 2.00 back in services or infrastructure. Take a look at the data on this website http://www.bonniegoodell.com/losrisk.htm and you'll see why I doubt that figure. (Services is like e.g fire protection, police etc).

(I already know that someone is going to point out the data is more than 8 years old. But its the best data I've found to back up my disparity argument).

[TuNnL]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

*sigh* Instead of making disparaging comments about my intelligence, why don't you educate me.

I made nary a disparaging comment about your intelligence. I merely agreed that you were wrong, which is a fact.

the data is more than 8 years old. But its the best data I've found to back up my disparity argument).

And how fair is it really to cite statistics that were published before Mayor Harry Kim even took office? Any stats that were published anytime during his 7-year tenure?

[timkona]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

First of all, Thank You TuNnL. We do agree on some things.

Joshuatree NAILED it. His description is but one small piece of the whole nightmare that is called low density development.

One way to judge a person's logical ability is find out who the environmentalists are, and then ask them if they favor low density development. If they answer YES, then you can be certain they know not of what they speak, and likely favor 'belief' systems over facts and science.

Many folks on Big Island honestly believe that low density development is best. But they do not know that such an idea promotes dependency upon autos, increases infrastructure costs, causes traffic gridlock, latchkey children, expensive dwelling costs, air pollution, environmental destruction, and about a gazillion other problems.

Low density proponents are usually guilty of supreme cognitive dissonance.

[Konaguy]

Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna

I made nary a disparaging comment about your intelligence. I merely agreed that you were wrong, which is a fact.
And how fair is it really to cite statistics that were published before Mayor Harry Kim even took office? Any stats that were published anytime during his 7-year tenure?

How can it be a fact when I backed up my argument with with that website I cited. Joshuatree's explanation doesn't work for me, as its more than roads and water.But overall services, like police and fire protection that the property taxes are funding.

I strongly believe that the data I cited is still relevant. This discussion is firing me up to compile updated data, so non believers like you TuNL will see the light. But why should I, on the other hand, nothing has changed as far as the disparity over the past 7 years.But I can't expect you to see that, when you are living on Oahu.

To answer your last question, I'm not aware of any updated data. The person who did the original data, has not been able to compile updated data. I asked her awhile back
if she was going to do that. But she was unable to at the time.