tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post7952652926163408816..comments2023-11-04T23:31:40.392-10:00Comments on got windmills?: MEMO FROM PEABODY TO SHERMAN:Andy Parxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15398587036690312685noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post-84661799963717850722008-04-11T07:13:00.000-10:002008-04-11T07:13:00.000-10:00making the process more "responsive to the public"...making the process more "responsive to the public" only works to limit development in times of full employment. The balance of political sentiment isn't always against growth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post-18332575214367850912008-04-10T19:07:00.000-10:002008-04-10T19:07:00.000-10:00A cap on the rate of growth of what, specifically?...A cap on the rate of growth of what, specifically? You have to define what you want to cap and even if you do they’ll change the word so you’re stuck with a Charter amendment that doesn’t work and could even cause people to say it’s “unconstitutionally vague” if you don’t make it specific enough.<BR/><BR/>That’s why this kind of thing needs to have the unintended consequences examined before they’re instituted. Andy why it may be something for initiative, not a charter amendment. An initiative can pass an ordinance that can be amended. -if there turn out to be problems it can be fixed in a jiffy- yes there’s a catch- if there’s political will to do it But then it would be passed now.<BR/><BR/>We might have won if we had done the tax charter amendment as an initiative- and a lot of people know I said something at the time.<BR/><BR/>What is a tourist accommodation? If we use the word we’re struck with it in the charter. And who’s doing all the research to make something like this is airtight- if it can even be made such.<BR/><BR/>If there were a specific proposed ordinance with well set goals and definitions maybe a cap could be implemented. <BR/><BR/>I don’t think that anyone has even approached council members with the idea of an ordinance like that. That at least would show there’s no political will to do it and that might show more in November than a big-gesture yet essentially meaningless charter amendmentAndy Parxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15398587036690312685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post-30813940230016749602008-04-10T16:06:00.000-10:002008-04-10T16:06:00.000-10:00An elected planning commission. Might be better t...An elected planning commission. Might be better than one staffed with people with little to no planning knowledge, but when you look at the goofs on the Council, we might end up worse off. The inmates already run this asylum.<BR/><BR/>I can understand why people against development want the County Council to make the final decisions. Since it takes them 6 months to fight over a couple of pavilions over picnic tables, this system is the equivalent of stopping all development. Not to mention an excellent opportunity for grandstanding. The greatest danger of global warming on Kauai is Rapozo vs. Yukimura on development. <BR/><BR/>It's interesting Carl focuses on the "rate" of development. Is the proposal to dole out permits on a time schedule? Would fallow years build up rights for the fat times ? That's basically what we've had. 10 dead years after the hurricane, followed by 4-5 wild ones with a crash about to come as little of this development sells.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post-76340747856402786012008-04-10T14:11:00.000-10:002008-04-10T14:11:00.000-10:00the next question is how to mount that campaign to...the next question is how to mount that campaign to get the charter to spell out the elections of the planning commission? isn't the cap the amendmant proposal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post-65357217935800997012008-04-10T10:18:00.000-10:002008-04-10T10:18:00.000-10:00The entitlement of an ordinance is what it says- o...The entitlement of an ordinance is what it says- only that nothing less. Then if all conditions imposed by the Commission and Department are followed, there is an entitlement to that if it is fully complied with. And they can't just make up things like saying "oh, and they have to set foot on the moon before they start".<BR/> <BR/>You of course are right on point in your premises but they don't yield the proposed solution. To say that "complexities that will need to be ironed out during its implementation" are not the "devil in the details" makes it apparent you haven't actually thought though it as I detailed. The "details" are where the solution often falls apart.<BR/> <BR/>The cap is an interesting concept- it might have merit. Personally I'd have to think how it could be done and what the implications are and again what the devil of details yield. But to tie it to some scheme to send certain nebulous projects back to the council is antithetical to the basic form of tri-branch government that you would have to change while you're at it.... not to mention the lack of essential tools and ability for a legislative body to do administrative permitting..<BR/><BR/>As I said, it makes a lot more sense to do what people have been talking about for the last 30 years- elect the Planning Commission... and maybe even consider a cap on development in the charter.Andy Parxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15398587036690312685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post-62433277406324665022008-04-10T02:18:00.000-10:002008-04-10T02:18:00.000-10:00email chatter****************************Aloha And...email chatter****************************Aloha Andy,<BR/><BR/>I am too caught up in other matters right now to respond in detail to your thoughts. But in short, as you might expect, I disagree with your analysis. I think that our basic point of departure is that you seem to have accepted the land developer premise that zoning creates an "entitlement." It doesn't.<BR/><BR/>Zoning establishes the maximum that a property owner can build (without a variance or zoning amendment), provided that the property owner can meet other conditions - such as the many findings that must be made in order to receive an SMA Use Permit, a Project Development Use permit, a Class IV permit, or other types of permits. Unless and until those findings can be made, the developer has no right or "entitlement" to build. <BR/><BR/>And even if there were no findings required, until a project is truly vested (there are many definitions, but they generally entail having made substantial expenditures on a proposed project), there is no "entitlement." Government can downzone property simply because it is in the public interest, without taking away an "entitlement" and without triggering a "taking."<BR/><BR/>Finally, a rate-of-growth cap that is enacted for reasonable purposes (such as the public welfare or compliance with a General Plan's policies) does not necessarily constitute the taking of an "entitlement," and such caps have been implemented in other states.<BR/><BR/>The constitutionality of government's right to downzone, to re-zone, to deny permits for projects that cannot pass the public interest standards associated with certain types of permits, to require compliance with general plans, and to impose rate-of-growth caps is undeniable, although it is also true that there are reasonable bounds in each of these cases. The proposed charter amendment stands on solid legal ground.<BR/><BR/>I have insufficient time to go into the other details of your thoughts, so I'll just jump ahead to the bottom line. The purpose of the proposed charter amendment is to enable the County Council to ensure compliance with the County's General Plan. There is nothing radical about that. <BR/><BR/>And for those who would argue that the proposed charter amendment is less than perfect (which I will certainly acknowledge) or might have complexities that will need to be ironed out during its implementation (as is envisioned in the charter amendment itself), I ask: do you prefer the status quo, in which the Planning Commission and Planning Department have chosen to completely ignore the General Plan by approving tourist accommodations at a rate that exceeds four times that envisioned in the General Plan, with all of the concomitant negative impacts for the island? Because that's the choice that this charter amendment places before us.<BR/><BR/>Take care,<BR/><BR/>CarlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post-55549801756858023852008-04-09T21:31:00.000-10:002008-04-09T21:31:00.000-10:00WOWI agree with almost everything you said today! ...WOW<BR/>I agree with almost everything you said today! Good primer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post-39694092886988906132008-04-09T20:38:00.000-10:002008-04-09T20:38:00.000-10:00Wouldn't that be pissing in the wind? Doggy style!...Wouldn't that be pissing in the wind? Doggy style!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com