iGUESS

iGUESS: "Resistance is futile" they told us. And they were right. And we gave in.

Instead of what we expected- the usual "egad- Grandpa 'friended' me on Facebook"- our progeny actually forced us to sign up and waste an inordinate amount of our formerly precious time.

It was not just familial insistence- there are now people whose email accounts are so jammed with spam that they no longer open them in favor of being "liked," "shared," and "poked."

It's not all bad. For those who have been on another planet, on Facebook one can "share" practically anything on-line these days at the click of a mouse and they show up in your friends' "news feed"- although the word "news" is often a misnomer.

And who'd a thunk it? All our "friends" seem to be radical lefties who, for the last few weeks have been posting every article available on the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.

We've received slews of hand selected commentaries on corporate greed and related subjects like sustainability and consumerism.

Many of the protesters apparently bemoan our corporate culture which thrives on creating demand for products that we didn't even know we wanted much less needed until we saw the clever ads and decided that, although yesterday we'd never contemplated owning one, now we suddenly can't live without it. Then, as soon as we all own one, our corporate overlords and marketing geniuses suddenly come up with something else we never knew we needed to replace what we just bought so we can throw that "old" crap in the closet and buy the latest thing. More money for more junk, to consume more electricity- all to fill the pockets of more bazillionaires.

Then yesterday- and you probably know where we're going with this- all our radical activist "friends" suddenly took a day off from attacking unsustainable consumerist greed because they were apparently devastated by the death of Steve Jobs... the king of "acceptable" consumerism.

Although we've been one of those eye-rollers at those who pray at the altar of Apple, we're no less schizophrenic in our habit of using a computer and the internet to research and write, if not actual Luddite-themed tomes, then certainly anti-consumerist and even anti-capitalist screeds.

We're not sure why, for many, Steve Jobs sits at the right hand of god while Bill Gates works fanning the flames of hell for Satan. Is it because Jobs seemed to anticipate what we would decide we needed once he purveyed it while Gates merely filled the demanded niche before anyone else? Why is the size of Gates' wallet a topic that spurs anger from we in the new anti-corporate greed movement which is entrenched on Wall Street- and increasingly every city and town across the country- while no one even cares that Jobs left a tiny bundle upon his departure, thank you very much?

We don't own an iPad, an iPhone or an iAnything and have no desire to do so. Heck, we don't even own a cell phone and can be caught complaining to those who do about how, just as "they" perfected the sound in telephones so that voices on the other side of the world come through landlines like we're in the same room, someone went out and invented a device that make Bell's first phone sound clear as a bell in comparison.

We own a the biggest-bang-for-the-cheapest-price PC we could find and constantly kvetch about how the broadband for which we Americans pay $50 a month goes for under ten buck across Europe.

But that doesn't excuse us for the same hypocrisy as the Jobs worshipers practice.

We can remember a conversation a while back with a close friend bemoaning the way our agricultural lands were being lost to agricultural condominiumization. Then she suddenly got a tear in her eye and asked "well w-w-where's m-m-my ag condo?".

So go ahead and preach sustainability while you snatch up the the next "i" product you didn't know you needed until you saw it and then wondered how you could possibly have lived without. It's all part of being an American consumer.

And unless and until we think about it, most of us wouldn't have it any other way.

ALOOOOO-HA

ALOOOOO-HA: A week ago yesterday few knew what or who "Preserve Kauai's Rural Character (PKRC)"‏ was. And apparently no one knows or will say today.

Last Sunday was the day we received an innocent enough yet slick professional email- produced by marketer VerticalResponse- reviving the anti-Kilauea Amphitheater movement in the wake of news of a takeover of the Kalihiwai Ridge Community Association (KRCA) in Kilauea by proponents of the project, causing KRCA to drop it's contested case for the required Special Use Permit before the planning commission.

The mass mailing- replete with one of those "click here to unsubscribe buttons" and a personalized "Dear Andy" salutation- tried to reframe the argument from one of "stay loud already" vs the "nahting for do around hea" mantra to appeal to we professional land use rabblerousers by putting the fear of commercialization of ag land in our green little hearts.

Despite numerous requests this week the originator of these emails remains unknown but not his, her or their intentions.

It didn't take but a few hours for the now ubiquitous developer-Bill-Porter-as-Hitler video to surface, again anonymously. And it didn't take us but a few seconds to identify the style of the short film to be that of a certain local filmmaker who has done a few "who did that" videos.

Not only was the mailing slick- not to mention costly, especially complete with a mailing list- but the PR effort and the knowledge of what pushes the sustainability crowds solar-generated buttons was almost impeccable.

Almost, except that some of the so-called "facts" weren't.

So it was until mid-week when KRCA busted out the big bucks and published a full page ad in the local newspaper and another email announcing it.

The ad proclaimed that approval of a special use permit would be a first-ever for commercial use "on land zoned as 'Agricultural' by the State"- a meaningless phrase that belied the author's lack of sophistication in the ways of land use in the islands.

As we find ourselves explaining way too often the state, under direction of the Land Use Commission, does "districting" while the county does "zoning." It's an important distinction and one that has caused no dearth of legal wangling over the years.

The next move, apparently from the developer, was an email going over and attempting to refute, point by point, the contentions of the ad, although most were semantic arguments as to whether the ad's depiction of an "amusement park" was appropriate, but also attempting to debunk the ad's debunking of the "Six Myths About the Kilauea Pavilion."

And yesterday, once again, the antis were at it again with a debunking of the debunking of the debunking in point by point by point, tri-color regalia.

The real issue here is the same one that's plagued this and the surrounding parcels for generations- what to do with the "light industrial" land- a remnant of the sugar cane mill days- that sits in the middle of agriculturally and districted and zoned land just north and mauka of Kilauea. It's gone through all sorts of designations over the years, reverting back and forth, as plans either fell through or the Kilauea community rose up against the plans.

While we don't have any way of verifying the "first ever commercial use permit for ag land" claim made by KRCA we seriously doubt it although that may have more to do with Preserve Kauai's Rural Character's confusion between county zoning and state districting and what the two different "agricultural" designation actually mean. And rather than stating and quoting any specific section of HRS 205, which lists the allowable- and more importantly the not allowable- uses of ag lands, KRCA just listed a hodge-podge of provisions and a contention... the point being that unless uses are specifically banned they are generally allowed with a special use permit.

What is pretty obvious is that the handful of Kalihiwai Ridge residents- who themselves live on ag subdivisions and "condos"- that were ousted from their community association posts for their opposition to the project are trying to reframe the argument to suck in- and we might say quite successfully noting the many "re-sendings" of their emails- the land use/sustainability crowd even after a buy-in to the project by the apparent majority of both Kilauea and Kalihiwai Ridge (KR) residents.

Will it set a precedent that will forever change the way special use permits are issued for commercialization of ag lands as PKRC claims? Unlikely considering the way the developer went to the community and asked what they'd like to see on the land which is the one thing that the majority of local people require as an act of "aloha."

It doesn't help that the KR folks are seen as a bunch of rich haoles whose use of ag land as "gentleman estates" is seen as far more objectionable- not to mention destructive of agriculture by cutting up and skyrocketing the price of ag land- even by those whom they are enlisting in the fight to stop the project.

Perhaps that's why the PKRC people refuse to identify themselves and answer questions from the press and have rather tried a last ditch effort to rally the usual suspects by casting the issue as a battle for the future of agriculture on Kaua`i.

Aloha has less to do with smiling as you clean toilets for the tourists as the visitor's bureau wants people to think and more to do with respect- you don't just walk up and take the fruit on someone's lawn, you ask first. Same goes with a notoriously hard to develop parcel of land slated for development.

And no matter what Bill Porter is doing, he not only asked but actually listened.

And while we have apprehensions at the commercialization of the already commercialized area, it's the North Shore residents who will have to live with what they bought into.

Tomorrow the sh*t hits the fan at the planning commission meeting where the permit has been recommended for approval by the planning department staff and director. But, depending on what side you're on, fortunately or unfortunately, the genuine of ingenuous efforts of PKRC will likely have been in vain.

IN THE DOG HOUSE

IN THE DOG HOUSE: The race is apparently on as November approaches.

No not any of those races but the council’s desperate mad dash to cater to the smallest and largest whims of developers large and small.

On this week’s agenda are the illegal vacation rentals bill (#2364, Draft 1) set to give oxymoronic (or just plain moronic) mini-developers of ag land the right to build mini-resorts on their mini ag condo lots despite clear state laws that restrict the county from doing so and the farm workers housing bill (#2318, Draft 3) that could, despite 11 “safeguards”, give medium size developers a foot in the door to added density.

But bringing up the rear is an unbelievable gambit (Bill # 2361) by maxi-developer Alexander and Baldwin (A&B) to get out from under an agreement to build and maintain "permanently-affordable, workforce” housing for 90 years which led to the rezoning of their Kukui`ula development in Po`ipu.

It was designed to take the load off the housing market for the new employees of Kukui`ula, mostly for the “gap group” making between 140 and 180% of the median income.

But despite the fact that the condition of zoning was part of a package of “givebacks” that led to the controversial rezoning a few years back, the council is poised to change the term before the housing can be sold at market prices to 25 years because A&B is now sniveling that it’s “unfair” that in the interim the county passed an affordable housing guideline bill that calls for less.

That’s bad enough but what has received less attention than the reduced time element is that fact that under the current agreement Kukui`ula is fully responsible for the housing for the 90-year “life” of the project and in addition there’s a provision that if they can’t
sell the housing at affordable prices they would have to rent it out their qualifying workers or, if no qualified buyers were available, to other workers.

Now, not only is the time of affordability going to be 25 years but the whole responsibility for the housing- including coming up with the money for the buybacks if people want to sell- will rest with the county which will also make a few bucks on the secondary sales although not really enough to make a difference according to the county housing agency which for some absurd reason is supporting the changes.

One of the opponents of the original project, the rezoning and now the reduced housing giveback has been Dr. Jack Lundgren who testified at last week’s planning committee meeting- where the bill remains for now- and gave a rundown of the history of the project and the reasons for his opposition.

Here’s his testimony which lays out the history of the project and reasons why he opposes the changes:

RE: Bill 2361, relating to Kukui`ula 90 year affordable housing.

Please retain the 90 year affordable 75 unit housing agreement that was made when A&B and Kukui`ula Development were granted changes in density to their project in Po`ipu five years ago.

When A&B first was granted rezoning from Agricultural to Resort/Residential back in the ‘80s, (reference their attorney at the time, Walton Hong,) they proposed that approximately 3400 units would be constructed for sale. These were to be marketed to local residents, not wealthy mainlanders and retirees. True, the homes were not to be truly “Affordable”, but they were aimed at middle class locals, like, perhaps, a firefighter and office worker, or construction worker and teacher. This was to be “Gap Group” housing. The idea was that the former housing that these people vacated would become available to other residents who might not yet afford Kukui`ula. This would thereby relieve the housing crunch.

Then about five years ago, A&B partnered with luxury developers from Arizona and formed Kukui`ula Development. They proposed a much less dense project of approximately 1500 units. It sounded good. Nobody wanted beautiful Po`ipu turned into an over-crowded, traffic-choked nightmare. The disadvantage was that now the housing created would be mostly for the very wealthy. Many are to be fancy, view-oriented estate homes, costing in the millions of dollars.

To offset the impact of this massive project, and to provide an increment of affordable housing for workers and for other local residents, Kukui`ula development agreed to construct housing near Port Allen. This was to be housing in the $250,000 to $400,000 range, not cheap, but perhaps manageable.

To assure that this housing be kept in the “Affordable” category, the developers and the Council agreed to the 90 year buy-back clause. This would prevent speculation that would occur if the units were allowed to go to market.

The additional benefit was that this housing was going to minimize traffic by keeping commuting workers closer to the project than they might otherwise be if they had to drive in from Hanama`ulu or Kapa`a. The council worked out a formula as to income and worker priorities. Again, this was all agreed to by the developers.

Now, with a downturn in the real estate market, the developers want to renege on the deal, and allow the affordable housing to go to market after 20 years. That’s not a good idea. We would lose the pool of affordable housing, and be right back where we started. Yes, the market may be slow now, but these things go up and down. As the economy recovers, housing again will become scarce and expensive.

Do we remember what it was like after Iniki? There was plenty of empty housing for sale in a down market. The market recovered, and prices soared.

I admire A&B and their commitment to the Hawaiian community and its young people. I appreciate their underwriting of Hawaii Public Television. If Kukui`ula Development is facing an economic hiccup due to previous business decisions and a slowed economy, perhaps adjustments can be made to the affordable housing development timeline requirement. But please, do not throw out the agreement that would keep the housing affordable for ninety years. We need that to be retained for the continuing health of our community.

A&B’s ridiculous claim that the current economy and housing market should be considered for a 90- or even 25- year project is obvious specious considering that by the time they start the project and get to the actual sales the economy and housing market will most likely not resemble today’s climate as past experience has shown.

And of course if they really wanted to delay it for a couple of years they should be asking for that not trying to bamboozle the dullards on the council.

Yet somehow this developer friendly council that hasn't turned down a developer request during it’s year and a half reign seems poised to do it again.

Many times over the past decade the “current” council members have blamed past councils for the lack of foresight especially when it comes to affordable housing such as the councils of the ‘80’s who approved resorts willy-nilly with virtually no housing requirements or those of the mid to late 90’s who, during the post-Iniki down market decided that we didn’t need to create any future affordable housing after landlords complained about diminishing prices for their rental creating the worst housing crunch in island history in the early to mid ‘00’s.

Don’t expect any of the current crop of glad-handers to cross A&B in a season when A&B routinely crosses their pals’ palms with campaign silver... 40 pieces of it to be exact.

ANOTHER HOLDUP

ANOTHER HOLDUP: As a five-year-old pup growing up in the concrete canyons of the northeast megalopolis we were quite sure of our reply when we answered a teacher’s query as to where milk came from by saying “the A&P”.

Not that we were technically wrong given the way the question was asked but we soon came to find that it’s a little more complicated and indeed, the farmer is the man that feeds them all (with apologies to all the hard working women farmers).

Here on Kaua`i it’s even more complicated because despite lip service about preserving agricultural lands they’ve been cut up in little pieces and the resulting “fake farms” make sure the only thing that grows is the bank accounts of the shysters who used land use law loopholes to line their pockets.

The fact is that because of this the cost of farm land is already so high that no one can afford to successfully farm it if they have to pay off a mortgage on it from the proceeds of the farm.

So when a few years back farmers started asking for a Farm Worker Housing Bill it sent up all sorts of red flags as just another loophole-ridden legislative initiative to increase the density on all this used-to-be ag land destined to drive the prices of ag land higher still.

When the bill (#2318) hit the council floor over a year ago that’s exactly what it was- even those legitimate farmers who asked for the measure were saying so.

But to make a long story short after many hours of work by farmers and politicians a bill that has a long list of really tight restrictions is about to be passed into law tomorrow... maybe.

In Sunday’s newspaper a guest column by one of the true farmers on Kauai, Louisa Wooten, along with farm advocate Andrea Brower of Malama Kaua`i details why they have come around and what the bill does to make sure only legitimate farms will be able to put up “temporary” worker housing.

The point out that the bill says that:

- Farmers would have to show receipts of $35,000 from gross sales for two consecutive years. This level would have to be maintained each year in order to keep qualifying;

- The land would have to already have a county agriculture dedication;

- Only certain crops would qualify, with tree and turf farms excluded. Those crops have had a history of abuse under the ag dedication program;

- Farmers must have a viable commercial plan that clearly defines a need for worker housing;

- Farmers must appear before the Planning Commission;

- Only current CPRs can apply;

- In case of sale or transfer of land, the Planning Commission must be notified and the permit reviewed;

- Annual fillings and regular inspections will ensure compliance;

- Structures, which will sit on stilts, must be removed within six months of non-compliance;

- Possible fines and liens could bring stiff financial repercussions.

Sounds pretty restrictive. And in most places these things might insure that the bill doesn’t give fake farms- the ones that with no farms just “farm dwellings” as state law requires they be- the added “density” to put up another house on their lot.

And in just about any other place the bill, as it stands right now, might pass muster.

But this is Kaua`i and the last two of those restrictions give us pause.

Because the success of this measure. like others before it. lies in our planning department’s ability to enforce the law and, from past experience, anyone who pays attention knows that the requirement that “(s)tructures... must be removed within six months of non-compliance” is a joke waiting to be told.

This was the main point made by Council Chair Kaipo Asing in a convincing presentation at the last council meeting and is the main reason why the bill may not pass tomorrow.

The article states that “Maui has had a less stringent farm worker housing bill in place for ten years. It has been a great boost for farmers on that island with no documented history of abuse.”.

But then again Maui has had a real planner in charge of their planning department for the last 10 years.

There is hope though. Brower and Wooten write:

If there are concerns about potential abuse of the bill, let’s work together to close the loopholes.

There is one more thing that might insure that these “temporary” structures are removed- a requirement that farmers put up a bond in the amount of the cost to remove the structure and be required through the conditions on the use permit to allow the county to use the bond money to do the removal... and sign legal documents allowing the county to do so.

Even then we have reservations given the track record of the planning department to enforce council-passed ordinances such as the botched transient vacation rental bill that has become it’s own joke since it went into effect almost two years back.

The fact that legitimate farmers and farm organizations who saw the problem and opposed the original bill have signed off on it says much in its favor. But legitimate farmers have waited years for the bill’s enactment and can wait another couple of weeks to include a provision to assure that the houses will be removed when they are no longer called for.

THE CHEESE DEMANDS A LOAN

THE CHEESE DEMANDS A LOAN: If you thought the two bills still bottled-up in Councilperson Jay Furfaro’s Kaua`i County Council Planning Committee- the “farm workers” and “vacation rentals on ag land” measures- were not just stomach turning but illegal, you ain’t seen nothin' yet.

The giveaway to residential non “farm dwelling” homeowners- those gentleman farmers who have ravaged the viability of agricultural in the islands by “condominiumizing” ag-zoned lands, jacking up prices way beyond the affordability by legitimate farmers- continued at a public hearing Wednesday on Bill 2322 that would again extend the deadline for building “additional dwelling units” (ADUs)

The original measure was designed to provide family members displaced by the end of the pineapple industry a chance to build an additional house and was supposed to end in five years. But that sunset date has been extended by the council at least five times over the past 25 years according to a planning department staff report on the bill.

Yes the boo-hoo, poor-little-rich-turd, fake-farm crowd once again turned up en masse to ask that the council give them at least five more years- most asking for 10 or 15 or no limit at all- to build these doubly or triply illegal houses because of the “hard times” and difficulty in getting financing. Most of them bemoaned how their speculatory investment they “locked in” last year will go down the drain if the are forced to immediately build what many admitted were rental units, as a “final” sunset bill passed last year required.

For those who haven’t heard about this bit of multi-compounded decades-old blunder, in the early 80’s when the legislature required the counties to grant these “ohana dwellings”- as ADUs were euphemistically called- on certain larger residential lots, then-Councilperson Jimmy Tehada and the development-wild council had the brilliant idea of granting them on ag land even though state law required (and still requires) that all those who build residences on ag land build “farm dwellings” as part of a legitimate farming operation.

But instead of enforcing the state law the council falsely claimed that the “ag condo” problem was a state issue upon which their hands were tied all the while compounding the problem by allowing twice the already finagled “density”.

That density is granted by the council under the county’s comprehensive zoning ordinance (CZO) which gives density to open zoned lands and allows that to be combined with ag land to permit residences on otherwise density-free ag land.

The original ag land ADU law was supposed to “sunset” after five years but every time the deadline came near the council extended it until last year when they finally made all those who wanted to build ADUs on ag land file certain paperwork with the planning department and build the house post haste in the hopes of finally ending the idiocy.

But Furfaro seems hell bent lately on ignoring the requirements for “farm dwellings” and has introduced this third bill to increase density, further driving up ag land prices allowing those non-farmers who have gotten in their paperwork to have five more years to build... or sell it to someone who will before the entitlement disappears.

Yet for many of those who testified, five years weren’t enough- they wanted to lift the time restriction entirely, something the council seemed reticent to do... although who knows. We’ve seen these clowns pander to the moneyed classes in last minute giveaways way to often to trust their mealy-mouthed assertions early in the process.

Unbelievably the stream of owners- all admitting they had bought as an investment or for retirement or for any number of non-farm related reasons- ended with real estate agent Phil Fudge who shed his crocodile tears over losing this absurd little entitlement giveaway and the profits he would make selling it.

Only one person who testified said she wanted to build an additional house for her brother so they could both live and work on their organic farm. The words “farm dwelling”– in fact, other than her, the word “farm”- were not uttered at the hearing.

Meanwhile the farm worker housing bill- a developer’s wet dream with so many loopholes that it could well double the density of ag land- is still in the planning committee awaiting some “tightening up” of the restrictions despite the push by ag condo owner Councilperson Tim Bynum to ram it through and ignore provisions that would allow fake farmers to build who knows how many extra houses on their ag land.

And of course there’s still the almost-impossible-to-count-how-many-ways-it’s-illegal “transient vacation rental on ag land” bill instructing the planning department not to enforce the state law (HRS 205) that clearly mandates that “no overnight accommodations shall be permitted” as part of any “ag tourism plan”- a plan the council has failed to enact.

Furfaro stated that he hopes to rush through the bill with a one-off committee meeting next Wednesday Oct. 14 and final passage the following week on Wed. Oct 21.

And unless people show up and denounce this ugly giveaway that’s most likely exactly what he’s going to do.