IF TREES FALL ON KAUA`I WILL DEVELOPERS COMPREHENSIVELY ZONE IT?: The first step in what will arguably be the most important process taken up by the county council in recent memory was taken today after more than 20 years of discussion.
And most likely no one will notice. Or care.
The long delayed "CZO update" passed "first reading" today and will be going to a public hearing soon. But the measure, designed to clarify and simplify zoning on the island will probably do more to confuse and complicate matters than anything else.
According to the purpose statement of the bill (#2433) this "first phase" of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) update is "focusing on organizational and format changes," and said to be "non-substantive" by council staffer Peter Morimoto.
It's 166 pages long... and that's the short version. The full "Ramseyered" version- with underlines and brackets to denote additions and deletions, respectively- is a thick monster of a document which was waved in the air at today's meeting. But since it replaces the entire CZO it has been introduced in the "short" form.
But just wait. The second "substantive bill" will no doubt be even longer and more complicated because it contains all the changes that the council and planning department have been putting off ever since the original CZO was passed in 1972.
Prior to then Kaua`i was "anything goes" when it came to building anything at all, anywhere one desired. That's why you see structures over 40 years old that make you ask "how did they ever allow that to be built?"--not just for the construction itself but for the location.
The 1972 CZO established standards for the first time on Kaua`i and has been amended in dribs and drabs over the years to form what one council member called a "hodgepodge" of a document that has plagued everyone who's tried to use it for decades.
Many "general" amendments were delayed or just blown off because no one knew where to put them or what precisely needed to change. And the ones that did get passed were just stuck in anywhere.
Since the mid 80's, every time the council came up against a problem with the document they would inevitably throw up their hands and say, "well- that's another one for the 'CZO update'." But of course that update never happened- until now.
Former Mayor from 1988-94 and now Council member JoAnn Yukimura told the council at today's "extended" meeting (after yesterday's power outage caused the meeting to be re-convened this morning) that her administration had worked on getting it done. And Council Chair Jay Furfaro said that when he served as Chair of the Planning Commission in 1997 he was promised by the planning department that it would be ready for commission scrutiny "by the end of the year."
Over the past decade-plus the council has appropriated money at least twice (some say three times but who's counting?) to allow the planning department to hire a consultant as the process became longer and more complicated.
That was during the reign of Planning Director Ian Costa whose use of what we've called "the fog" managed to bamboozle the council with promises of "soon" followed by requests for more money, followed by more promises of "soon" and more requests for more money.
Anyway, according to the purpose section of this first "housekeeping" bill:
The County of Kaua`i adopted the first General Plan in 1971 (updated in 1984 and 2000).
Subsequently, the County of Kaua`i adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) in 1972. Since its adoption, the County of Kaua`i has approved several amendments to specific provisions of the CZO. However, the CZO has not been updated in a comprehensive manner since its adoption.
In order to present the CZO update in a more orderly fashion, the CZO Update has been divided into two phases, with the first phase focusing on organizational and format changes. This involves mainly moving or relocating existing provisions to more appropriate locations in the code. The first phase also includes the re-codification of ordinance amendments made to the CZO. The second phase will show the newly reformatted document with recommended substantive changes to the code in a Ramseyered format which will be forthcoming after the first phase has been completed.
Thus, the purpose of this ordinance is to complete the first phase of the CZO update by adopting all organizational, format changes, and to re-codify ordinance amendments made to the CZO to date.
The "second phase" will supposedly contain all the changes that people have sought over the years. But that, in and of itself, is going to be much longer and much, much more complicated.
And of course controversial.
You can count on the fact that developers will want certain measures to be amenable to development while the public interest will be to maintain control over that very development.
The devil will be in the details. With hundreds of pages of old and new provisions all up for grabs you can bet that the monied side will have banks of attorneys scrutinizing each "shall," "will" and "may" for an advantage- that all important "technicality" that will make a judge take notice.
Add to that the recent cap on development that was instituted after a petition-derived charter amendment limited growth to an amount determined in the general plan. And add to that the fact that another general plan update is due to commence any time now with the last one having been completed in 2002 and a charter mandate that they occur once every 10 years.
You can bet that the "development community" will be seeking to water down slow growth and "keep Kaua`i, Kaua`i" forces at bay at every step of the process.
The second phase will not be introduced until this first phase is done according to council staff and the content will come from the planning department where it will go though public hearings and planning commission approval before it eventually reaches the council.
If regular citizens want to participate in that process, the time to organize is not when the bill hits the council floor, but now while there is still time to formulate positions and get ready for those first planning commission hearings.
What the timeline is for all of this is anyone's guess. But those who are concerned about growth on Kaua`i can't start paying attention to this one too soon because there is no doubt the other side is already at work, having waited many years for this "opportunity."
As an aside, the actual text of the bill is available on-line, although apparently council members weren't aware of that today. That's probably because it's not at the council's page at the county web site but as part of the "Granicus" site, which is the company that does the video of the council meetings and where items are both streamed live and archived.
It's also where the "paperwork" accompanying each item on the council's agenda is now being posted.
A couple of weeks ago we wrote about the appearance of this "paperwork" for council agenda items on-line after years of delay- much of the delay, as we said, apparently intentional. At the time we complained that although Granicus was finally posting the material it was not in "text" form but rather as a scanned document.
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/03/now-you-dont-see-it-now-you-still-dont.html
This week, however, many of the documents- including bills, resolutions and other communications- started to appear in text form, allowing the words to be copied and pasted from the document.
That's where the CZO update bill is posted and since the "new" CZO will replace the old one in its entirety, the new one is simply posted in its entirety.
We point this out because the council seemed blissfully unaware of the posting, even through apparently someone on their staff provided Granicus with the documents in the text format.
During the meeting council members kept asking their staff to "scan" and post a copy, seemingly unaware of the fact that it was available to the public in a text format through Granicus, although not in the Ramseyer format. But if Granicus could post the one they have there now, couldn't they also have put up a text-format copy of the Ramseyered document? (Unless the purpose is to cut down thousands of trees to provide paper to print everything out.)
Did anyone ever check to see if Kaipo Asing or Peter Nakamura had stock in either Georgia Pacific or Weyerhauser?
Well, we wouldn't be happy if we didn't have something to complain about.
Showing posts with label General Plan Charter Amendments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Plan Charter Amendments. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
MEET THE NEW BOSS
MEET THE NEW BOSS: The Charter Commission continues its work without much public oversight except when they bring their work before the county council to ask permission to do it- a very strange obsession since the council can put charter amendments on the ballot all on their lonesome.
But it hasn't escaped our attention that Mayor Bernard Carvalho has been on a crusade to use the commission to consolidate power in the mayor's office.
Using his crony Boards and Commissions chief John Isobe as a cudgel, he has sought amendments to the charter that would take away the appointing power of the few boards and commissions that appoint their respective department directors, such as the Police, Fire, Planning and Civil Service Commissions.
But we've gotta ask why he bothers because he and his predecessors been able to evade the law so successfully for decades.
Case in point? Yesterday's thus far unreported Planning Commission (PC) vote to remove the term "Interim" from the title of now permanent Planning Director (PD) Michael Dahilig.
As many may remember when former PD Ian Costa went up in flames amidst an FBI investigation, Dahilig was whisked from the county attorney's office and dispatched to the top planning spot by Carvalho amidst much hoopla over the usurping of the commission's prerogative to appoint their own director.
Of course the same thing had happened when Costa himself was installed over a decade ago when former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka installed then acting County Engineer Costa with only a pro-forma vote by the commission.
This time however many thought the opportunity to initiate a search for a real live professional with experience might be in store, maybe even one that would be a good fit for the island's controlled growth paradigm, as demanded by voters, who approved the charter amendment to put some teeth into the general plan growth numbers in 2008.
But a search of the last six months of PC agendas shows only regular executive sessions to evaluate Dahilig and nothing whatsoever dealing with any search.
So it shouldn’t have been any surprise when this week's PC meeting agenda came out and the first item of business was the "(a)ppointment of the Planning Director pursuant to Section 14.04 of the Charter of the County of Kaua'i."
And since there had been no search, no one could be surprised when Carvalho's hand picked PD Dahilig was permanently installed in the planning department’s top job.
Well, there has never, in our memory, been a planning director actually appointed by the PC without having been hand selected by the mayor, so why start now?
But it hasn't escaped our attention that Mayor Bernard Carvalho has been on a crusade to use the commission to consolidate power in the mayor's office.
Using his crony Boards and Commissions chief John Isobe as a cudgel, he has sought amendments to the charter that would take away the appointing power of the few boards and commissions that appoint their respective department directors, such as the Police, Fire, Planning and Civil Service Commissions.
But we've gotta ask why he bothers because he and his predecessors been able to evade the law so successfully for decades.
Case in point? Yesterday's thus far unreported Planning Commission (PC) vote to remove the term "Interim" from the title of now permanent Planning Director (PD) Michael Dahilig.
As many may remember when former PD Ian Costa went up in flames amidst an FBI investigation, Dahilig was whisked from the county attorney's office and dispatched to the top planning spot by Carvalho amidst much hoopla over the usurping of the commission's prerogative to appoint their own director.
Of course the same thing had happened when Costa himself was installed over a decade ago when former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka installed then acting County Engineer Costa with only a pro-forma vote by the commission.
This time however many thought the opportunity to initiate a search for a real live professional with experience might be in store, maybe even one that would be a good fit for the island's controlled growth paradigm, as demanded by voters, who approved the charter amendment to put some teeth into the general plan growth numbers in 2008.
But a search of the last six months of PC agendas shows only regular executive sessions to evaluate Dahilig and nothing whatsoever dealing with any search.
So it shouldn’t have been any surprise when this week's PC meeting agenda came out and the first item of business was the "(a)ppointment of the Planning Director pursuant to Section 14.04 of the Charter of the County of Kaua'i."
And since there had been no search, no one could be surprised when Carvalho's hand picked PD Dahilig was permanently installed in the planning department’s top job.
Well, there has never, in our memory, been a planning director actually appointed by the PC without having been hand selected by the mayor, so why start now?
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
DIVIDING BY ZERO
DIVIDING BY ZERO: Is it possible that the pablum that passes for the product of the press on Kaua`i is actually getting less informative? It's kind of like asking whether the sound of zero hands clapping is quieter than the sound of one.
We expected to get shafted with KIUC-spun articles in the FERC vote debacle, given that the electric co-op remains one of the local newspaper's biggest advertisers... that and the fact that it was made abundantly clear to the current business editor- who covered the story- that the last business editor was fired for not toeing the Chamber of Commerce line.
Coverage of the planning commission's wholesale permitting of the new transient vacation rentals on ag land shouldn't have to fall to Joan Conrow whose KauaiEclectic blog told the sad tale Monday of how "county planner Mike Laureta prepared Bruce Fehring’s TVR application" as well as other eyebrow raising horror stories from last Tuesday's meeting.
But in reading her exclusive report we could not help but ask how the planning commission is able to get away with violating the now-not-so-new, citizen-petitioned charter amendment that was supposed to give "teeth" to the growth numbers contained in the general plan.
The amendment essentially put a hold on the processing of any new tourist accommodations by the planning commission and gave that job to the county council unless and until the council enacts an ordinance delineating the nuts and bolts of how the limitations are to work and then and only then return the power to the planning commission.
At the last full council meeting just such a proposed ordinance finally returned from the scrutiny of the planning department and commission- albeit in the form of a totally new bill- which passed first reading and is headed for a public hearing on August 3 at 1:30 p.m.
Bill 2140- which, along with all the other documents accompanying council agendas, is still not on-line even though a year has gone by since they were supposed to be made available there- is apparently still a long way from being a legitimate reflection of the intent of the amendment, with some of the "creative interpretations" of the starting point that were contained in the previous version of the bill, still being a point of contention.
The point is that the pointed disregard of the charter shown in the planning commission's approval of these TVRs is just another example of the predictable results of the lack of effective media scrutiny of county government on Kaua`i.
Rote regurgitation of press releases and unquestioned repetition of officials' political talking points does not a watchdog make.
Our local newspaper is bought and paid for, there is no local TV and there are enough shenanigans in Honolulu to keep both the Honolulu newspaper and the on-line "Civil Beat" busy over there, eight days a week, thank you very much.
That has left Kaua`i citizen's with no recourse but to file expensive lawsuits in order to put a stop to these violations of the law, especially those dealing with land use where the big money interests have sewed up just about every attorney in town.
That makes the lack of funding secondary to the availability of a lawyer to take the case- and don't think they don't know and count on that.
Because when it comes enumerating potentially effective opposition to rampant lawlessness, it doesn't take very long to count to zero.
We expected to get shafted with KIUC-spun articles in the FERC vote debacle, given that the electric co-op remains one of the local newspaper's biggest advertisers... that and the fact that it was made abundantly clear to the current business editor- who covered the story- that the last business editor was fired for not toeing the Chamber of Commerce line.
Coverage of the planning commission's wholesale permitting of the new transient vacation rentals on ag land shouldn't have to fall to Joan Conrow whose KauaiEclectic blog told the sad tale Monday of how "county planner Mike Laureta prepared Bruce Fehring’s TVR application" as well as other eyebrow raising horror stories from last Tuesday's meeting.
But in reading her exclusive report we could not help but ask how the planning commission is able to get away with violating the now-not-so-new, citizen-petitioned charter amendment that was supposed to give "teeth" to the growth numbers contained in the general plan.
The amendment essentially put a hold on the processing of any new tourist accommodations by the planning commission and gave that job to the county council unless and until the council enacts an ordinance delineating the nuts and bolts of how the limitations are to work and then and only then return the power to the planning commission.
At the last full council meeting just such a proposed ordinance finally returned from the scrutiny of the planning department and commission- albeit in the form of a totally new bill- which passed first reading and is headed for a public hearing on August 3 at 1:30 p.m.
Bill 2140- which, along with all the other documents accompanying council agendas, is still not on-line even though a year has gone by since they were supposed to be made available there- is apparently still a long way from being a legitimate reflection of the intent of the amendment, with some of the "creative interpretations" of the starting point that were contained in the previous version of the bill, still being a point of contention.
The point is that the pointed disregard of the charter shown in the planning commission's approval of these TVRs is just another example of the predictable results of the lack of effective media scrutiny of county government on Kaua`i.
Rote regurgitation of press releases and unquestioned repetition of officials' political talking points does not a watchdog make.
Our local newspaper is bought and paid for, there is no local TV and there are enough shenanigans in Honolulu to keep both the Honolulu newspaper and the on-line "Civil Beat" busy over there, eight days a week, thank you very much.
That has left Kaua`i citizen's with no recourse but to file expensive lawsuits in order to put a stop to these violations of the law, especially those dealing with land use where the big money interests have sewed up just about every attorney in town.
That makes the lack of funding secondary to the availability of a lawyer to take the case- and don't think they don't know and count on that.
Because when it comes enumerating potentially effective opposition to rampant lawlessness, it doesn't take very long to count to zero.
Monday, November 22, 2010
WITH A BANG, NOT A WHIMPER
WITH A BANG, NOT A WHIMPER: The future begins this week on Kaua`i and it has little to do with the new council’s makeup or leadership, which will be determined today according to a “notice” that appears nowhere but on the wall at the temporary council chambers.
But it all may be just business as usual if none of the people who claim to care about land use show up and force these upcoming changes to be positive ones.
As we said Friday, with Planning Director Ian Costa being told not to let the door hit him on the ass on his way out at tomorrow’s planning commission meeting, there is a once-in-a-decade chance to convince the commission to conduct an open process- one devoid of administration interference- in their search for a new director... one who understands controlled growth principles and is attenuated to rural- as opposed to urban- planning.
Too often when we hear “smart growth” mentioned on Kaua`i these days it is linked to California-style “walking communities” as an answer to suburban sprawl and other concepts that don’t really fit the truly rural nature of Kaua`i- a character that a vast majority of island residents say they want to protect.
The term “smart growth” is really rooted in a process of true citizen directed growth where an open process first determines whether a certain type of growth is currently appropriate and then considers where that growth should go. Then, rather than let developers who have money determine which areas will be used for growth and allow them to submit plans for rubberstamping, they compete for the right to develop the pre-citizen-determined locations, also through an open process.
We need a planning director who understands this process, especially since the first thing he or she will be doing will be to start a new charter-mandated General Plan Update process, since 10 years have passed since the last one was completed in December of 2000.
Actually, that may be the second thing the new planning director will be doing because the petition created charter amendment passed in 2008- the one that links the actual number of planning commission approved visitor accommodation units to specific growth standards set in the general plan- has finally been given form and substance in a bill set for introduction at Wednesday’s lame duck council meeting.
That means it will be going to the planning commission for analysis and approval and then returned to the council for first reading, hopefully within 60 days.
Bill 2386 (scroll down to page 40) sets up a standard for “Transient Accommodation Units” and proposes a one-and-a-half percent (1½ %) per-year growth rate with a lottery each year to determine who gets those rights to build them.
It also calls for a four-year time limit for “commenc(ing) actual construction of 20%” with one year extensions available “upon a showing of good cause by the (transient accommodation unit) certificate holder”.
The commission can also use a five-year “average of growth rate” of the one-and-a-half percent if the planning commission decides to do so upon recommendation of the planning department.
One of the provisions that may raise eyebrows is that only 10% of the certificates are reserved for developments of five units or less while the other 90% are reserved for those of six or more. This give preference to large resorts and hotels rather than “mom and pop” operations including potentially single-family vacation rentals and bed-and-breakfasts in designated visitor destination areas.
There are also exemptions for existing resorts and those who started the process- or were approved- before December 5, 2008 (when the charter amendment took effect), provided they file for one within a year of the effective date of the ordinance.
And we all remember how well it worked- or more precisely, didn’t work- the last time the planning department was given a year to certify past use of transient visitor accommodations.
The bill leaves an awful lot of discretion to the planning commission and department in areas where it could make the ordinance a joke, especially a lot of those pesky “may” instead of “shall” do such-and-such phrases.
And the “five year average” could turn into just what many feared- a free for all for well connected developers who get their ducks in a row early on. Perhaps a small percentage of deviation from the one-and-a-half percent rate would be appropriate.
There is a chance for public input at Wednesday’s council meeting for the bill, as well as at Tuesday’s planning commission meeting for the opening of the planning director’s job.
It’s now or never for all those who like to kvetch and moan about unfettered growth and those who worked so hard to get the amendment on the ballot in 2008.
As usual, the spoils will go to those who show up and you can bet those who stand to make a buck off these two decisions will be there.
------
Update: It only took us an hour to find the new page for the Kaua`i County Charter. If you want to “bookmark” the page you need to go to the Public Documents page and right click and then click the appropriate line for your browser (“add to Favorites” for Internet Exploder).
But it all may be just business as usual if none of the people who claim to care about land use show up and force these upcoming changes to be positive ones.
As we said Friday, with Planning Director Ian Costa being told not to let the door hit him on the ass on his way out at tomorrow’s planning commission meeting, there is a once-in-a-decade chance to convince the commission to conduct an open process- one devoid of administration interference- in their search for a new director... one who understands controlled growth principles and is attenuated to rural- as opposed to urban- planning.
Too often when we hear “smart growth” mentioned on Kaua`i these days it is linked to California-style “walking communities” as an answer to suburban sprawl and other concepts that don’t really fit the truly rural nature of Kaua`i- a character that a vast majority of island residents say they want to protect.
The term “smart growth” is really rooted in a process of true citizen directed growth where an open process first determines whether a certain type of growth is currently appropriate and then considers where that growth should go. Then, rather than let developers who have money determine which areas will be used for growth and allow them to submit plans for rubberstamping, they compete for the right to develop the pre-citizen-determined locations, also through an open process.
We need a planning director who understands this process, especially since the first thing he or she will be doing will be to start a new charter-mandated General Plan Update process, since 10 years have passed since the last one was completed in December of 2000.
Actually, that may be the second thing the new planning director will be doing because the petition created charter amendment passed in 2008- the one that links the actual number of planning commission approved visitor accommodation units to specific growth standards set in the general plan- has finally been given form and substance in a bill set for introduction at Wednesday’s lame duck council meeting.
That means it will be going to the planning commission for analysis and approval and then returned to the council for first reading, hopefully within 60 days.
Bill 2386 (scroll down to page 40) sets up a standard for “Transient Accommodation Units” and proposes a one-and-a-half percent (1½ %) per-year growth rate with a lottery each year to determine who gets those rights to build them.
It also calls for a four-year time limit for “commenc(ing) actual construction of 20%” with one year extensions available “upon a showing of good cause by the (transient accommodation unit) certificate holder”.
The commission can also use a five-year “average of growth rate” of the one-and-a-half percent if the planning commission decides to do so upon recommendation of the planning department.
One of the provisions that may raise eyebrows is that only 10% of the certificates are reserved for developments of five units or less while the other 90% are reserved for those of six or more. This give preference to large resorts and hotels rather than “mom and pop” operations including potentially single-family vacation rentals and bed-and-breakfasts in designated visitor destination areas.
There are also exemptions for existing resorts and those who started the process- or were approved- before December 5, 2008 (when the charter amendment took effect), provided they file for one within a year of the effective date of the ordinance.
And we all remember how well it worked- or more precisely, didn’t work- the last time the planning department was given a year to certify past use of transient visitor accommodations.
The bill leaves an awful lot of discretion to the planning commission and department in areas where it could make the ordinance a joke, especially a lot of those pesky “may” instead of “shall” do such-and-such phrases.
And the “five year average” could turn into just what many feared- a free for all for well connected developers who get their ducks in a row early on. Perhaps a small percentage of deviation from the one-and-a-half percent rate would be appropriate.
There is a chance for public input at Wednesday’s council meeting for the bill, as well as at Tuesday’s planning commission meeting for the opening of the planning director’s job.
It’s now or never for all those who like to kvetch and moan about unfettered growth and those who worked so hard to get the amendment on the ballot in 2008.
As usual, the spoils will go to those who show up and you can bet those who stand to make a buck off these two decisions will be there.
------
Update: It only took us an hour to find the new page for the Kaua`i County Charter. If you want to “bookmark” the page you need to go to the Public Documents page and right click and then click the appropriate line for your browser (“add to Favorites” for Internet Exploder).
Thursday, March 25, 2010
DISBELIEVING IS SEEING
DISBELIEVING IS SEEING: We actually enjoy ridiculing the all too easy to mock Kaua`i administration and council for their ability to keep us guessing whether they are just totally incompetent or simply so addicted to secrecy that it just seems that way.
Once again the ability to play the game of public policy and related public relation has taken a pie in the face with the county’s press release announcing “County Charter now available online”
Actually it’s always been there but as anyone who has gone to the now defunct- without a redirect- on-line version of the charter knows it’s been woefully out of date with recent charter amendments not just missing from the charter but unavailable anywhere at the county’s web site.
So it was with hope we that we read:
In response to numerous requests, the codified version of the County Charter is now available online.
To access the charter, please go to www.kauai.gov/CountyCharter.
Originally adopted by voters in 1969, there have been many amendments to the County Charter over the years.
Codified? Sounds good. Sounds like it might just be the actual words passed by the voters- all of them up through those passed in 2008.
So will the real charter final please stand up? Will we be able to cease having to do a search of our own files in order to find the language of, oh say, the seemingly forgotten, still unenforced, citizen-petitioned, general plan enforcement amendment and others passed recently?
Yeah, right- just read the penultimate line for a clue:
The official document remains in the County Clerk’s office.
And it was worse when we went to the new and improved posting where it says
Disclaimer: This is the Unofficial Charter of the County of Kaua`i, and as such MAY NOT represent the law in its current form (no warranties are made regarding its accuracy or completeness). It is being provided as a courtesy while the official edition is being finalized.
Please Note: This information is being provided as a public service. Users should confirm the accuracy of the information with the handcopy available at the Office of the County Clerk. While the County of Kaua`i will strive to keep this material accurate and up-to-date, those people needing an official, accurate, and up-to-date edition of the Charter will be able to obtain hard copies of those documents and other pertinent information from the Office of the County Clerk.
So the first result of the change is that no one who previously bookmarked the charter and never saw the release or the newspaper regurgitation story will be able to find it without jumping through who knows how many hoops.
But if you do find it what you’ll find is the long missing index (inaccurate when used with the pdf pages) but just the same tired old lack of amendments- with the exception of the addition of the “County Auditor” amendment but without any of the other 2008 changes and sans some earlier ones- notable the general plan amendment.
It’d be nice if it was even one step forward two steps backward with these dolts now and again but instead we have three steps sideways with a moonwalk thrown in to boot.
No wonder we ask so often “can’t anyone here play this game?”
Once again the ability to play the game of public policy and related public relation has taken a pie in the face with the county’s press release announcing “County Charter now available online”
Actually it’s always been there but as anyone who has gone to the now defunct- without a redirect- on-line version of the charter knows it’s been woefully out of date with recent charter amendments not just missing from the charter but unavailable anywhere at the county’s web site.
So it was with hope we that we read:
In response to numerous requests, the codified version of the County Charter is now available online.
To access the charter, please go to www.kauai.gov/CountyCharter.
Originally adopted by voters in 1969, there have been many amendments to the County Charter over the years.
Codified? Sounds good. Sounds like it might just be the actual words passed by the voters- all of them up through those passed in 2008.
So will the real charter final please stand up? Will we be able to cease having to do a search of our own files in order to find the language of, oh say, the seemingly forgotten, still unenforced, citizen-petitioned, general plan enforcement amendment and others passed recently?
Yeah, right- just read the penultimate line for a clue:
The official document remains in the County Clerk’s office.
And it was worse when we went to the new and improved posting where it says
Disclaimer: This is the Unofficial Charter of the County of Kaua`i, and as such MAY NOT represent the law in its current form (no warranties are made regarding its accuracy or completeness). It is being provided as a courtesy while the official edition is being finalized.
Please Note: This information is being provided as a public service. Users should confirm the accuracy of the information with the handcopy available at the Office of the County Clerk. While the County of Kaua`i will strive to keep this material accurate and up-to-date, those people needing an official, accurate, and up-to-date edition of the Charter will be able to obtain hard copies of those documents and other pertinent information from the Office of the County Clerk.
So the first result of the change is that no one who previously bookmarked the charter and never saw the release or the newspaper regurgitation story will be able to find it without jumping through who knows how many hoops.
But if you do find it what you’ll find is the long missing index (inaccurate when used with the pdf pages) but just the same tired old lack of amendments- with the exception of the addition of the “County Auditor” amendment but without any of the other 2008 changes and sans some earlier ones- notable the general plan amendment.
It’d be nice if it was even one step forward two steps backward with these dolts now and again but instead we have three steps sideways with a moonwalk thrown in to boot.
No wonder we ask so often “can’t anyone here play this game?”
Friday, June 19, 2009
FOOL ME TWICE I’LL BITE YOUR HEAD OFF
FOOL ME TWICE I’LL BITE YOUR HEAD OFF: Yesterday, in wondering what the heck the council was doing meeting behind closed doors in order to discuss the public policy regarding what we called “implementation” of the citizens’ petitioned charter amendment to enforce the general plan’s growth parameters, we noted that the notice for the June 16 meeting read:
(T)he purpose of this executive session is to consult with the Council’s attorney regarding the charter amendments adopted in the 2008 General Election and other related matters.
In addition we noted that $150,000 had been appropriated and approved to hire a special outside attorney for whatever they were doing.
We stand corrected- the amount is actually $220,000 according to Councilmember Tim Bynum who had complained publicly before the executive session (ES) on Tuesday that he was dissatisfied with the “work product” so far especially for the money they were spending.
And that got us to thinking- always a dangerous proposition.
It led us to wonder why we had characterized the ES as relating to “implementation” of the amendment and presume it was to conduct public policy.
We had seen them do it so often in the past we had to assume, illegal or not, they were doing it again. And when you assume, as the saying goes, you make an ass(of)u(and)me.
So after a little searching we discovered that the term “implement” was never used in the notices for the two previous ES’s on the subject since the ballot measure passed last November.
Our bad-, although we could have sworn the previous notices contained the word it was most likely referred to that way during the meeting and/or in various interviews we conducted while trying to find out why the planning department was continuing to process permitting for visitor accommodations... even though a search of our notes turns up a blank.
The amendment plainly banned the department from doing this and requires the council to do the permitting until they pass legislation forcing the department to enforce the growth limits stated in the general plan.
The working of the amendment raises all sorts of questions as to how this all would work, as we detailed both before and after the election in describing it as a “monkey wrench” provision which we opposed at first but later endorsed fully since the council didn’t seem to be doing anything about out of control growth and this would force them to deal with it.
One thing we didn’t report yesterday was that actually the previous council had met in ES prior to the election and appropriated some of the $220,000- presumably $145,000- for special council at that time according to statements made by Bynum at Tuesday’s meeting.
The other $75,000 was appropriated on June 10 at a “special” council meeting where the appropriation and an ES regarding the matter were the only thing on the agenda other than a routine approval of a state grant.
Questions about why the planning department is still processing zoning permits for visitor accommodation aside, as complicated as it might seem, why would it take six months and $220,000 to figure out how to write the bill to return the permitting power to the Planning Department by restricting growth numbers to those in the general plan?
Councilperson Jay Furfaro, saying the amendment took effect 50 days after the election, also said during the discussion preceding the ES that “some departments are having applicants sign affidavits” when filing for permits but did not elaborate as to which departments and what they signed.
The only possible answer is that, although the agenda notices are carefully worded to avoid saying so, the council is gearing up to file suit to block implementation of the amendment.
Here the what the notice for the January 14. 2009 ES said
(T)he purpose of this executive session is to provide the Council a briefing on the legal ramifications and/or requirements and/or claims and/or potential claims relating to charter amendments adopted in the 2008 general election and other related matters. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to legal ramifications and/or requirements and/or claims and/or potential claims relating to this agenda item.
That should have alerted us to the what was happening but at the time many thought that the wording was just there so they could have a plausible excuse to meet in executive session and hold a discussion of public policy behind closed doors by saying there could be “potential claims” involved.
After all, that was the excuse used last summer when similar closed door discussions of the bill permitting then-illegal vacation rental in residential areas were conducted outside the public purview
Later, on the June 10 agenda it had morphed to say:
(T)he purpose of this executive session is to provide the Council a briefing on the Charter amendments adopted in the 2008 General Election and other related matters. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to legal ramifications and/or requirements and/or claims and/or potential claims relating to this agenda item.
Although the change is subtle it makes it actually further disguises an intent to block implantation and confirm the scuttlebutt that the council was meeting in ES to discuss public policy rather than legal matters.
Misdirection accomplished, both here and among the supporters some of whom told us they were anticipating the council implementing the provision.
Of course that was fine with the council assuming they are trying to get a leg up by filing suit before anyone realizes they are meeting to stop the amendment from taking effect rather than figuring out how to make it work.
The last time they successfully tried to block a citizens' petitioned charter amendment- the so called “`Ohana” amendment to restrict property taxes- they announced their intention and the proponents were ready with a California property rights law firm at the pro bono ready.
Fool them once.....
It should be noted that we have absolutely no direct knowledge that this is the case but this would certainly explain a lot.
That said, one possibly telling statement came from Councilperson Lani Kawahara who, despite an attempt by Castillo to stop any discussion in open session said “I want to assure the public that my main goal is to enact the amendment... aligning our growth with the general plan”.
Also, Bynum in fact did use the word “implementation and other aspects” at one point in referring to the goal of hiring the outside consultant and holding the ES.
It would apparently behoove those who worked so hard to throw this monkey wrench into planning commission and department’s rubber-stamping “dumb growth” program, to gear up for a fight or perhaps file for their own injunction to block zoning permits from being issued before the council files one to block the whole shebang.
Forewarned is forearmed.
(T)he purpose of this executive session is to consult with the Council’s attorney regarding the charter amendments adopted in the 2008 General Election and other related matters.
In addition we noted that $150,000 had been appropriated and approved to hire a special outside attorney for whatever they were doing.
We stand corrected- the amount is actually $220,000 according to Councilmember Tim Bynum who had complained publicly before the executive session (ES) on Tuesday that he was dissatisfied with the “work product” so far especially for the money they were spending.
And that got us to thinking- always a dangerous proposition.
It led us to wonder why we had characterized the ES as relating to “implementation” of the amendment and presume it was to conduct public policy.
We had seen them do it so often in the past we had to assume, illegal or not, they were doing it again. And when you assume, as the saying goes, you make an ass(of)u(and)me.
So after a little searching we discovered that the term “implement” was never used in the notices for the two previous ES’s on the subject since the ballot measure passed last November.
Our bad-, although we could have sworn the previous notices contained the word it was most likely referred to that way during the meeting and/or in various interviews we conducted while trying to find out why the planning department was continuing to process permitting for visitor accommodations... even though a search of our notes turns up a blank.
The amendment plainly banned the department from doing this and requires the council to do the permitting until they pass legislation forcing the department to enforce the growth limits stated in the general plan.
The working of the amendment raises all sorts of questions as to how this all would work, as we detailed both before and after the election in describing it as a “monkey wrench” provision which we opposed at first but later endorsed fully since the council didn’t seem to be doing anything about out of control growth and this would force them to deal with it.
One thing we didn’t report yesterday was that actually the previous council had met in ES prior to the election and appropriated some of the $220,000- presumably $145,000- for special council at that time according to statements made by Bynum at Tuesday’s meeting.
The other $75,000 was appropriated on June 10 at a “special” council meeting where the appropriation and an ES regarding the matter were the only thing on the agenda other than a routine approval of a state grant.
Questions about why the planning department is still processing zoning permits for visitor accommodation aside, as complicated as it might seem, why would it take six months and $220,000 to figure out how to write the bill to return the permitting power to the Planning Department by restricting growth numbers to those in the general plan?
Councilperson Jay Furfaro, saying the amendment took effect 50 days after the election, also said during the discussion preceding the ES that “some departments are having applicants sign affidavits” when filing for permits but did not elaborate as to which departments and what they signed.
The only possible answer is that, although the agenda notices are carefully worded to avoid saying so, the council is gearing up to file suit to block implementation of the amendment.
Here the what the notice for the January 14. 2009 ES said
(T)he purpose of this executive session is to provide the Council a briefing on the legal ramifications and/or requirements and/or claims and/or potential claims relating to charter amendments adopted in the 2008 general election and other related matters. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to legal ramifications and/or requirements and/or claims and/or potential claims relating to this agenda item.
That should have alerted us to the what was happening but at the time many thought that the wording was just there so they could have a plausible excuse to meet in executive session and hold a discussion of public policy behind closed doors by saying there could be “potential claims” involved.
After all, that was the excuse used last summer when similar closed door discussions of the bill permitting then-illegal vacation rental in residential areas were conducted outside the public purview
Later, on the June 10 agenda it had morphed to say:
(T)he purpose of this executive session is to provide the Council a briefing on the Charter amendments adopted in the 2008 General Election and other related matters. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to legal ramifications and/or requirements and/or claims and/or potential claims relating to this agenda item.
Although the change is subtle it makes it actually further disguises an intent to block implantation and confirm the scuttlebutt that the council was meeting in ES to discuss public policy rather than legal matters.
Misdirection accomplished, both here and among the supporters some of whom told us they were anticipating the council implementing the provision.
Of course that was fine with the council assuming they are trying to get a leg up by filing suit before anyone realizes they are meeting to stop the amendment from taking effect rather than figuring out how to make it work.
The last time they successfully tried to block a citizens' petitioned charter amendment- the so called “`Ohana” amendment to restrict property taxes- they announced their intention and the proponents were ready with a California property rights law firm at the pro bono ready.
Fool them once.....
It should be noted that we have absolutely no direct knowledge that this is the case but this would certainly explain a lot.
That said, one possibly telling statement came from Councilperson Lani Kawahara who, despite an attempt by Castillo to stop any discussion in open session said “I want to assure the public that my main goal is to enact the amendment... aligning our growth with the general plan”.
Also, Bynum in fact did use the word “implementation and other aspects” at one point in referring to the goal of hiring the outside consultant and holding the ES.
It would apparently behoove those who worked so hard to throw this monkey wrench into planning commission and department’s rubber-stamping “dumb growth” program, to gear up for a fight or perhaps file for their own injunction to block zoning permits from being issued before the council files one to block the whole shebang.
Forewarned is forearmed.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
MAYBE THE DINGO ATE YOUR BOOK
MAYBE THE DINGO ATE YOUR BOOK: One aspect of yesterday’s discussion of the, if not censorship at least apparent, reticence on the part of Borders book store to carry the book KPD Blue - and their slew of questionable excuses as to why they won’t- drew a phone call within moments of pushing the publish button.
It was librarian/councilmember Lani Kawahara at Kapa`a library calling with the news that, despite Sommer’s contention that “Hawaii public libraries are ignoring the book as well”, she had ordered and received copies for the Kapa`a library- where there is a waiting list of seven people as of yesterday- and facilitated getting copies over to Koloa and other libraries on Kaua`i.
David Thorpe at the Koloa Branch conformed that and told us that
When (Lani) received it she sent it to our Cataloging Section in Honolulu for original cataloging. That process does take a little while, but it is the only way to enable to book to be circulated by the Hawaii State Public Library System. When there seemed to be a growing interest in the book (as evidenced by an GI editorial by Walter Lewis last week), I asked the Friends of Koloa Library to order 2 copies for each branch on Kauai. The order came in today and the books have been sent out to the branches. The books should be available for borrowing soon.
But more importantly we understand there is a new and final reason why Borders will not be carrying KPD Blue- they apparently can’t get a decent wholesale price.
We finally got a call from Borders manager Helaine Perel who told us that despite what the publisher had told author Anthony Sommer book stores cannot apparently get a decent wholesale price from the distributor and would not only have to take the books on a “no-return” basis but would only get a 5% discount off retail and have to pay for shipping.
“In no way did I ever try to keep the book out of the store. It’s completely mercenary- we just couldn’t make any money on it” said Perel.
Sommer said in a phone call today that he can get them at a reasonable wholesale price but it would take 90 days or more because “it’s the holiday season” as the publisher warned him months ago. Even then Borders would have to pay for them up front, which he says Perel told him would take her 90 days clear.
Perel confirmed that and said she could order them from Sommer now with a credit card but Sommer says he’s certainly not set up to do that.
“Print on demand is a bad way to go for writers- there’s just too many problems” for the anyone who also want their book in book stores in addition to on-line orders. Perel added
Interestingly Perel said she spoke to former councilmember and mayoral candidate Mel Rapozo about the book and his role in it and the “lap dancing at the station house” episode the book begins with “
“You probably lost the election because of the book” she told him,
“You’re probably right” he said.
Nothing was mentioned about how his actions had allowed Sommer to detail them in the book in the first place.... seems as usual in politics it’s getting caught that ruins everything.
“I would have loved to sell it- I could have sold a thousand copes but it would have cost more than I would have made on each book” she said.
Sommer said he’s satisfied with Perel’s explanation. Whether Borders will or won’t get them in is anyone’s guess.
---------------
To update and correct our projection last month of how the newly passed citizen’s charter amendment giving “teeth” to the general plan will effect the Planning Department’s processing of tourism accommodation projects, it seems that actually charter amendments don’t take effect until 30 days after they are passed according to the charter, as opposed to “immediately upon passage” as we reported.
And that would make tomorrow’s meeting of the Planning Commission the first where an illegal approval might take place.
According to Juan Wilson piece at his Island Breath web site
Well, those pesky developers continue to plague south Kauai. They have not dried up and blown away in the wind with all that phony money.
In fact they threaten another attack.
Two items come up before the County Planning Commission tomorrow. Both should be turned down. Kauai needs your voice there to help make that happen.
First is final approval for The Knudsen Trust (read Stacey Wong and lawyer Walter Hong) are going for a final approval on plans for Phase One of the Village at Poipu subdivision.
This, as you may know, is planned to stretch from Poipu to Koloa and displace and destroy much of the most significant Hawaiian settlement remaining on Kauai, or anywhere else. Knudsen Trust has not gotten a sign-off on this project from the State on this.
Whether anyone will raise the issue as to the jurisdiction of the planning commission in approving the project is anyone’s guess but what is apparent is that according to the county charter the county council, not the commission, is the only entity that has that power at present.
The meeting is scheduled for 8 a.m. at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A-2B
It was librarian/councilmember Lani Kawahara at Kapa`a library calling with the news that, despite Sommer’s contention that “Hawaii public libraries are ignoring the book as well”, she had ordered and received copies for the Kapa`a library- where there is a waiting list of seven people as of yesterday- and facilitated getting copies over to Koloa and other libraries on Kaua`i.
David Thorpe at the Koloa Branch conformed that and told us that
When (Lani) received it she sent it to our Cataloging Section in Honolulu for original cataloging. That process does take a little while, but it is the only way to enable to book to be circulated by the Hawaii State Public Library System. When there seemed to be a growing interest in the book (as evidenced by an GI editorial by Walter Lewis last week), I asked the Friends of Koloa Library to order 2 copies for each branch on Kauai. The order came in today and the books have been sent out to the branches. The books should be available for borrowing soon.
But more importantly we understand there is a new and final reason why Borders will not be carrying KPD Blue- they apparently can’t get a decent wholesale price.
We finally got a call from Borders manager Helaine Perel who told us that despite what the publisher had told author Anthony Sommer book stores cannot apparently get a decent wholesale price from the distributor and would not only have to take the books on a “no-return” basis but would only get a 5% discount off retail and have to pay for shipping.
“In no way did I ever try to keep the book out of the store. It’s completely mercenary- we just couldn’t make any money on it” said Perel.
Sommer said in a phone call today that he can get them at a reasonable wholesale price but it would take 90 days or more because “it’s the holiday season” as the publisher warned him months ago. Even then Borders would have to pay for them up front, which he says Perel told him would take her 90 days clear.
Perel confirmed that and said she could order them from Sommer now with a credit card but Sommer says he’s certainly not set up to do that.
“Print on demand is a bad way to go for writers- there’s just too many problems” for the anyone who also want their book in book stores in addition to on-line orders. Perel added
Interestingly Perel said she spoke to former councilmember and mayoral candidate Mel Rapozo about the book and his role in it and the “lap dancing at the station house” episode the book begins with “
“You probably lost the election because of the book” she told him,
“You’re probably right” he said.
Nothing was mentioned about how his actions had allowed Sommer to detail them in the book in the first place.... seems as usual in politics it’s getting caught that ruins everything.
“I would have loved to sell it- I could have sold a thousand copes but it would have cost more than I would have made on each book” she said.
Sommer said he’s satisfied with Perel’s explanation. Whether Borders will or won’t get them in is anyone’s guess.
---------------
To update and correct our projection last month of how the newly passed citizen’s charter amendment giving “teeth” to the general plan will effect the Planning Department’s processing of tourism accommodation projects, it seems that actually charter amendments don’t take effect until 30 days after they are passed according to the charter, as opposed to “immediately upon passage” as we reported.
And that would make tomorrow’s meeting of the Planning Commission the first where an illegal approval might take place.
According to Juan Wilson piece at his Island Breath web site
Well, those pesky developers continue to plague south Kauai. They have not dried up and blown away in the wind with all that phony money.
In fact they threaten another attack.
Two items come up before the County Planning Commission tomorrow. Both should be turned down. Kauai needs your voice there to help make that happen.
First is final approval for The Knudsen Trust (read Stacey Wong and lawyer Walter Hong) are going for a final approval on plans for Phase One of the Village at Poipu subdivision.
This, as you may know, is planned to stretch from Poipu to Koloa and displace and destroy much of the most significant Hawaiian settlement remaining on Kauai, or anywhere else. Knudsen Trust has not gotten a sign-off on this project from the State on this.
Whether anyone will raise the issue as to the jurisdiction of the planning commission in approving the project is anyone’s guess but what is apparent is that according to the county charter the county council, not the commission, is the only entity that has that power at present.
The meeting is scheduled for 8 a.m. at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A-2B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
