Tweet
Re: Offensive Letter To The Editor About Puna
Regarding: "Actually Aaron I thought your initial premise concerning the shifting of tax revenue from Kona to upgrade Hilo's infrastructure likely true, at least once upon a time. It's just you provide no concrete data supporting this "shafting". I could find none myself. For me it's important to justify my opinions by investigation of the matter. I've been misinformed before."
I am new to this list, thanks to Aaron. I did the Level of Service study in 1998 or so. I'll talk about that later. But we also, in 1992, did a complete study, back to 1950, of per capita taxes paid, and capital improvements received, for Puna, Hilo, and the Rest of the Island -we were focusing on Puna for the Puna Community Development Plan at the time. [Getting the information on taxes was a story in itself, of opening file drawers while backs were turned and finding files that officials claimed didn't exist, and spending weeks in the finance office going through every annual audit.]
Anyway, what we found was that up until about 1956, two years after the Democratic Revotution, the taxes paid per capita and spending received was pretty equally spread among all districts. If you know your history, you know that that is about when sugar began to die, tourism started to take off, and the County of Hawaii went on a subdividing frenzy in Puna and Ka'u. From then until 1992, and I am 90% sure continuing until now, Hilo paid way less in taxes per capita, and received way more in CIP spending than any other districts.
This was accomplished in various ways that still apply.
Homeowner exemptions and lower rates: Hilo has a far higher level of homeownership than Kona. Puna is similar in ownership rates to Hilo but has so many vacant lots that were created specifically to tax absentee owners to subsidize Hilo. The rate structure became so skewed to keep Hilo's taxes low that by 1994 a vacant lot in Puna typically paid more in taxes than the lot with the owner-occupied house next door. (Now there's a great way to provide for services for incoming residents!). And in Kona, as property values rose, tax bills rose even more, paid by renters.
The further complicating factor, which we didn't look at at the time, was the effect on the operating budget. If all that CIP spending accumulated a Level of Service of almost 10 acres of developed county park per 1000 people for Hilo vs under 2 acres for Puna, in 1998 (when we did the LOS study) what does that mean for salaries and retirements paid to park staff in Hilo vs Puna (or Kona)? (Note: 5 acres of active park per 1000 is the national and Hawaii County standard.) It means that the operating budget is heavily skewed to Hilo long after CIP stops, making corrections almost impossible.
Note that the data we developed is not disputed by anyone that I know of in the County. In fact, County officials happily provided me with the damning data. The good ones are just a disgusted as I am. Also note that since there has been about 5 acres of new park in Puna since then and no parks in Hilo shut down, while Puna's population has probably doubled, the Level of service disparity between Hilo and Puna is far worse now than in 1998.
Among other factors to consider: Most of the miles driven by Puna and Ocean View residents are on roads they maintain at their own expense. Yet the gas burned contributes federal, state, and county gas taxes. We once did a spreadsheet to calculate a dollar amount of county gas taxes produced annually by gas burned on HOVE roads. It was in the hundreds of thousands ten years ago. No doubt millions now. County DPW officials recognized this, and some forward thinking ones were considering giving the subdivisions road corporations a county subsidy - because the subdivisions make transportation dollars go so much farther than government, and it is patently unsustainable to keep collecting gas taxes and then telling those subdivisions they must maintain their own roads. This is further complicated by the fact that in 1968 the county widened their minimum road Right Of Way standards specifically to prevent the subdivisions they had just approved, from ever being able to dedicate their roads to the County.
It is a complicated business. Remember that Hilo was washed away in 1960 and felt justified in sucking from all over.
Interesting discussion. I would like to encourage current a future data diggers. It is all there. I had been defending Hilo's greed with some of the urban vs. rural arguments I have seen here, but the data made me eat my words. Hilo was and is a hugely disproportionate winner, and the situation continues to deteriorate as Kona, Puna, and Ka'u gain population. Even if the political will existed, what exactly would we do to correct it?
Regarding: "Actually Aaron I thought your initial premise concerning the shifting of tax revenue from Kona to upgrade Hilo's infrastructure likely true, at least once upon a time. It's just you provide no concrete data supporting this "shafting". I could find none myself. For me it's important to justify my opinions by investigation of the matter. I've been misinformed before."
I am new to this list, thanks to Aaron. I did the Level of Service study in 1998 or so. I'll talk about that later. But we also, in 1992, did a complete study, back to 1950, of per capita taxes paid, and capital improvements received, for Puna, Hilo, and the Rest of the Island -we were focusing on Puna for the Puna Community Development Plan at the time. [Getting the information on taxes was a story in itself, of opening file drawers while backs were turned and finding files that officials claimed didn't exist, and spending weeks in the finance office going through every annual audit.]
Anyway, what we found was that up until about 1956, two years after the Democratic Revotution, the taxes paid per capita and spending received was pretty equally spread among all districts. If you know your history, you know that that is about when sugar began to die, tourism started to take off, and the County of Hawaii went on a subdividing frenzy in Puna and Ka'u. From then until 1992, and I am 90% sure continuing until now, Hilo paid way less in taxes per capita, and received way more in CIP spending than any other districts.
This was accomplished in various ways that still apply.
Homeowner exemptions and lower rates: Hilo has a far higher level of homeownership than Kona. Puna is similar in ownership rates to Hilo but has so many vacant lots that were created specifically to tax absentee owners to subsidize Hilo. The rate structure became so skewed to keep Hilo's taxes low that by 1994 a vacant lot in Puna typically paid more in taxes than the lot with the owner-occupied house next door. (Now there's a great way to provide for services for incoming residents!). And in Kona, as property values rose, tax bills rose even more, paid by renters.
The further complicating factor, which we didn't look at at the time, was the effect on the operating budget. If all that CIP spending accumulated a Level of Service of almost 10 acres of developed county park per 1000 people for Hilo vs under 2 acres for Puna, in 1998 (when we did the LOS study) what does that mean for salaries and retirements paid to park staff in Hilo vs Puna (or Kona)? (Note: 5 acres of active park per 1000 is the national and Hawaii County standard.) It means that the operating budget is heavily skewed to Hilo long after CIP stops, making corrections almost impossible.
Note that the data we developed is not disputed by anyone that I know of in the County. In fact, County officials happily provided me with the damning data. The good ones are just a disgusted as I am. Also note that since there has been about 5 acres of new park in Puna since then and no parks in Hilo shut down, while Puna's population has probably doubled, the Level of service disparity between Hilo and Puna is far worse now than in 1998.
Among other factors to consider: Most of the miles driven by Puna and Ocean View residents are on roads they maintain at their own expense. Yet the gas burned contributes federal, state, and county gas taxes. We once did a spreadsheet to calculate a dollar amount of county gas taxes produced annually by gas burned on HOVE roads. It was in the hundreds of thousands ten years ago. No doubt millions now. County DPW officials recognized this, and some forward thinking ones were considering giving the subdivisions road corporations a county subsidy - because the subdivisions make transportation dollars go so much farther than government, and it is patently unsustainable to keep collecting gas taxes and then telling those subdivisions they must maintain their own roads. This is further complicated by the fact that in 1968 the county widened their minimum road Right Of Way standards specifically to prevent the subdivisions they had just approved, from ever being able to dedicate their roads to the County.
It is a complicated business. Remember that Hilo was washed away in 1960 and felt justified in sucking from all over.
Interesting discussion. I would like to encourage current a future data diggers. It is all there. I had been defending Hilo's greed with some of the urban vs. rural arguments I have seen here, but the data made me eat my words. Hilo was and is a hugely disproportionate winner, and the situation continues to deteriorate as Kona, Puna, and Ka'u gain population. Even if the political will existed, what exactly would we do to correct it?
Comment