SMOKIN’: The state Office of Information Practices (OIP) has “opened (a) file relating to (PNN’s) request for an investigation regarding the Kauai County Council under the Sunshine Law, part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes.”
The complaint alleges that then council chair, now council Vice Chair Jay Furfaro and Planning Committee Chair illegally circulated a draft of a bill to allow transient vacation rentals (TVRs) on agriculturally zoned land and actually solicited support for the bill. as PNN described last December 19.
A letter from OIP attorney Jennifer Z. Brooks to Furfaro reads
January 13, 2009
The Honorable Jay Furfaro, Chair
Kauai County Council
4396 Rice Street, Room 206
Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii 96766-1371
Re: Request for Investigation (S INVES-P 09-5)
Dear Chair Furfaro:
The Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) has received a complaint from Mr. Andy Parx, concerning the Kauai County Council (“the Council”). Specifically, Mr. Parx asks whether the distribution of a letter from you dated November 28, 2008, which was sent to all Kauai County Councilmembers violated part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (the “Sunshine Law”). A copy of Mr. Parx’s complaint is enclosed for your information.
We ask for your assistance in our review of this complaint. Please provide us with a detailed explanation, including any relevant legal citations, setting forth the Council’s position on this matter and any other information you deem relevant to this inquiry. We request that the Council provide this response to OIP no later than ten business days from receipt of this letter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned attorney.
Very truly yours,
Jennifer Z. Brooks, Staff Attorney
In our December 19 piece we wrote that
PNN is in receipt of a letter apparently from then County Council Chair (now vice chair) Jay Furfaro addressed to “Members of the County Council” asking for support for a bill that was never formally agendaed and certainly not in an open meeting, in blatant violation of the law.
Though we have heard about proposed bills being improperly “circulated” for many years we’ve never had the goods before.
The bill is the one we discussed Tuesday (Dec. 16) after Joan Conrow discovered it at Realtor Ronnie Margolis’ blog and the letter is the one that Margolis referred to and published a portion of in a recent post regarding setting up “non-enforcement agreements” for people who have vacation rentals on agricultural land in clear violation of state law HRS 205.
While PNN is unable to confirm that the letter was actually sent or received, if indeed it was it could lead to criminal penalties including jail time for Furfaro.
Just circulating communications that are likely to be discussed or introduced before they are actually on the agenda is forbidden but even more troubling in the letter is the actual solicitation for support of the measure which is doubly prohibited.
The post goes on from there with a lengthy exposition of the legalities along with Sunshine Law and OIP opinion citations. But the gist is that it is illegal for more than two councilmembers to discuss council business- including any matter likely to be on future a agenda- outside of a duly agendaed, open meeting (with 8 “executive session” exceptions). And in any case any solicitation of support for a measure is forbidden
Coincidentally the “bill” has now been placed on the agenda for today’s county council meeting and is up for “first reading”.
It is listed as Bill 2298 and introduced by Furfaro and if approved it could go to a public hearing most likely at the council’s January 28 meeting unless it is sent to the Planning Department for comment- as all planning related bills are supposed to do according to the county charter.
In this case it may not because the Planning Department has already reviewed multiple TVR bills during the last year and it may be deemed by the council that the department and Planning Commission has already opined on the matter, rejecting such a measure in the past as being in opposition to state law.
The original draft was distributed by Furfaro to the members of the last county council but it is a new council which will be voting on how or whether to allow the bill to proceed.
While “first reading” votes are usually perfunctory in order to get the bill to a public hearing it will be interesting to see if that’s the case today.
Councilmember Tim Bynum was quoted as supporting the bill in the local newspaper last Thursday. And Furfaro has been vociferous in his support.
But the rest may be reluctant to direct the Planning Department to sign the “non-enforcement agreements” the bill calls for with those that have ag-land vacation rentals in defiance of state law (HRS 205) which forbids overnight accommodation.
Our speculation is that support or lack thereof may go as follows.
Rancher Darryl Kaneshiro has indicated he would not support such a bill during discussion of the bill which passed last summer to allow the “grandfathering” of current TVRs in non “visitor destination areas” (as defined in the general plan) as has Council Chair Kaipo Asing.
While new councilmember Lani Kawahara didn’t specifically address the issue during the recent campaign her support for use of ag land for legitimate farming indicates she will probably oppose the measure.
On the other hand, in his role as a man who never met a tourism development he didn’t like Dickie Chang can probably be counted on to support the bill.
That leaves Derek Kawakami as the swing vote and his position is anyone’s guess.
But due to Furfaro’s actions previously on this matter we would hope that he would recuse himself from voting on the measure while a cloud hangs over his actions in illegally soliciting support for the bill.
Some have asked “why is PNN going after Mr. Furfaro” and whether we have spoken to him on this matter.
PNN did send an email to Mr. Furfaro on the same day as the OIP complaint was filed saying that it was not a personal matter and speculating that this type of activity has been routine behind the scenes during his tenure on the council.
We said we have often suspected that that is the case but have just never had a “smoking gun” until now..
Often it is obvious that these types of activates routinely occur. Anyone who watches the council in action sees evidence that discussions have taken place and that commitments to vote a certain way would have to have taken place such as sessions where confusion and disagreement reign and then, following a recess, miraculously everyone is suddenly and silently on the same page as to an amendment or an action to be taken.
We suspect that it was Mr. Furfaro’s experience in getting away with it for so long that led him to be open enough about the matter to send the letter soliciting support and the bill itself to Realtor Ronnie Margolis who posted them at his web site.
Mr. Furfaro did not respond to our email.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
GIFT HORSE
GIFT HORSE: A rather routine communication on tomorrow’s county council agenda will probably be approved without any discussion or debate but that doesn’t mean that similar requests in the past haven’t been challenged by councilmembers.
Communication C 2009-41 is a standard request from Fire Chief Bob Westerman
requesting Council approval to accept a $500 monetary donation from Mrs. Clorinda Nakashima for the efforts of the Fire Department in trying to find her husband which funds will be deposited into a grant account for future use in recognizing firefighters.
But a similar “gift” came before the council back on 2002 in the lead-up to the mayoral election and then Council Chair Ron Kouchi seized on it to ask about the legitimacy of allowing the Fire Department to deposit gifts that are given “in appreciation” of their work into special Fire Department accounts rather than in the general fund.
Kouchi’s thinking was that the county funds the fire department’s activities and that money is what allows the department to do their job. So if someone is appreciative of their efforts and wants to give the county what in essence is a “tip for their services that money should go into the general fund where the council- not the department- can appropriate it with a view toward the yearly budget as a whole.”
In the 2002 case a Hollywood production company wanted to donate quite a handsome sum in appreciation for the assistance of the Fire Department which stood by and assisted with elements of their production and wanted to deposit the check in a special Fire Department account.
Kouchi- who was running for Mayor against two fellow councilmembers at the time raised eyebrows among political observers because when it comes to elections support from the KFD has always been uniquely essential in any winning effort.
But the thinking was that one of his opponents, eventual winner Bryan Baptiste, had all but locked up the coveted endorsement and this was Kouchi’s way of “sticking it to” the department by taking away a traditional source of a KFD “slush fund”..
But although the impetus might have been purely political on Kouchi’s part the idea at the heart of it made sense to many at the time, as it does now.
Although there are no allegations of irregularities in this case it’s not much of a leap to see the possibility that the department could bestow it’s “favors” on a certain people and businesses based on their likelihood to “donate” to a fund for “for future use in recognizing firefighters” while withholding them from others who might not.
Even though in this case the $500 came to “express our heartfelt thanks...for their tireless efforts in trying to find my husband’s body (who) lost his life when he want fishing on September 15 and never came home” according to Nakashima’s letter of gratitude the way our county government is set up it is the council who makes the tough decisions on how and where to spend taxpayer money.
When those decisions result in a department doing their job and a gift comes out of it, the money should rightly go to the general fund to be re-appropriated as the dictates of the county’s fiscal situation allow.
The process is what’s important here. Last month the Kaua`i Police Department accepted $14,790.57 worth of brand new equipment including a $1500, 42” Sony flat screen TV, furniture, keyless entry and gun locks, and a storage shed for its Hanalei Substation from David and Gina Moore of Princeville.
Although Communication C2009-22 didn’t say why the generous gift was bestowed when the county allows gifts to go directly to a department without the regular budgetary process the gift horse can easily be a Trojan horse if it’s used to benefit the giver or if the department gives out special favors in appreciation of the gift.
It’s not a matter of whether that scenario plays out but department personnel shouldn’t be put in a position where there is even the temptation to show favoritism or effectuate a quid pro quo..
And one more note on tomorrow’s meeting.
We’ve given extensive "ink" (as it were) to Bill 2294, regarding adding signage and notification provisions to the “grandfathering” of transient vacation rentals ordinance passed this year and an amendment to it passed in committee last week regarding the public availability of the names of those applying for the grandfathering.
So twice- on Friday and again yesterday we trudged down to the Council Services office to pick up a copy of the “Draft 1” version of the bill, as amend versions of the bill are called.
And both times we were told it “isn’t ready yet” with no explanation of how or why a bill amended in committee- a process that requires the amendment to be in writing and passed by a majority of members of the committee- can be unavailable.
It’s especially irksome given the six day notification provisions of the state Sunshine law.
By all rights, as we said yesterday, the amendment shouldn’t have been put into this bill because, in violation of the charter, it isn’t encompassed in the “purpose” section of the bill.
But if the public can’t see the bill that’s up for final passage tomorrow in advance of the meeting how can the public possibly be able to speak intelligently on the matter?
We don’t expect the council to do the right- and legal- thing tomorrow anyway but they could at least not make it so easy for us to again compel our perennial query of “can’t anyone here play this game?”
Communication C 2009-41 is a standard request from Fire Chief Bob Westerman
requesting Council approval to accept a $500 monetary donation from Mrs. Clorinda Nakashima for the efforts of the Fire Department in trying to find her husband which funds will be deposited into a grant account for future use in recognizing firefighters.
But a similar “gift” came before the council back on 2002 in the lead-up to the mayoral election and then Council Chair Ron Kouchi seized on it to ask about the legitimacy of allowing the Fire Department to deposit gifts that are given “in appreciation” of their work into special Fire Department accounts rather than in the general fund.
Kouchi’s thinking was that the county funds the fire department’s activities and that money is what allows the department to do their job. So if someone is appreciative of their efforts and wants to give the county what in essence is a “tip for their services that money should go into the general fund where the council- not the department- can appropriate it with a view toward the yearly budget as a whole.”
In the 2002 case a Hollywood production company wanted to donate quite a handsome sum in appreciation for the assistance of the Fire Department which stood by and assisted with elements of their production and wanted to deposit the check in a special Fire Department account.
Kouchi- who was running for Mayor against two fellow councilmembers at the time raised eyebrows among political observers because when it comes to elections support from the KFD has always been uniquely essential in any winning effort.
But the thinking was that one of his opponents, eventual winner Bryan Baptiste, had all but locked up the coveted endorsement and this was Kouchi’s way of “sticking it to” the department by taking away a traditional source of a KFD “slush fund”..
But although the impetus might have been purely political on Kouchi’s part the idea at the heart of it made sense to many at the time, as it does now.
Although there are no allegations of irregularities in this case it’s not much of a leap to see the possibility that the department could bestow it’s “favors” on a certain people and businesses based on their likelihood to “donate” to a fund for “for future use in recognizing firefighters” while withholding them from others who might not.
Even though in this case the $500 came to “express our heartfelt thanks...for their tireless efforts in trying to find my husband’s body (who) lost his life when he want fishing on September 15 and never came home” according to Nakashima’s letter of gratitude the way our county government is set up it is the council who makes the tough decisions on how and where to spend taxpayer money.
When those decisions result in a department doing their job and a gift comes out of it, the money should rightly go to the general fund to be re-appropriated as the dictates of the county’s fiscal situation allow.
The process is what’s important here. Last month the Kaua`i Police Department accepted $14,790.57 worth of brand new equipment including a $1500, 42” Sony flat screen TV, furniture, keyless entry and gun locks, and a storage shed for its Hanalei Substation from David and Gina Moore of Princeville.
Although Communication C2009-22 didn’t say why the generous gift was bestowed when the county allows gifts to go directly to a department without the regular budgetary process the gift horse can easily be a Trojan horse if it’s used to benefit the giver or if the department gives out special favors in appreciation of the gift.
It’s not a matter of whether that scenario plays out but department personnel shouldn’t be put in a position where there is even the temptation to show favoritism or effectuate a quid pro quo..
And one more note on tomorrow’s meeting.
We’ve given extensive "ink" (as it were) to Bill 2294, regarding adding signage and notification provisions to the “grandfathering” of transient vacation rentals ordinance passed this year and an amendment to it passed in committee last week regarding the public availability of the names of those applying for the grandfathering.
So twice- on Friday and again yesterday we trudged down to the Council Services office to pick up a copy of the “Draft 1” version of the bill, as amend versions of the bill are called.
And both times we were told it “isn’t ready yet” with no explanation of how or why a bill amended in committee- a process that requires the amendment to be in writing and passed by a majority of members of the committee- can be unavailable.
It’s especially irksome given the six day notification provisions of the state Sunshine law.
By all rights, as we said yesterday, the amendment shouldn’t have been put into this bill because, in violation of the charter, it isn’t encompassed in the “purpose” section of the bill.
But if the public can’t see the bill that’s up for final passage tomorrow in advance of the meeting how can the public possibly be able to speak intelligently on the matter?
We don’t expect the council to do the right- and legal- thing tomorrow anyway but they could at least not make it so easy for us to again compel our perennial query of “can’t anyone here play this game?”
Monday, January 12, 2009
HOW MUCH IS THAT CRONY IN THE WINDOW REDUX
HOW MUCH IS THAT CRONY IN THE WINDOW REDUX: The absurd lawlessness of the bill to allow transient vacation rentals on Ag land- as we described on Friday- will be front and center at Wednesday’s council meeting but if past is prologue we fully expect another bit of illegal activity to emanate from the testimony seat..
Attorney Jonathan Chun should be parking his butt in that little chair sometime in the afternoon and by doing so will violate a county charter provision that Kaua`i voters refused to remove in November.
Chun, a lobbyist for the Kaua`i Board of Realtors who was extremely influential in passing the bill last summer that grandfathered illegal TVRs, is also a member of the Kaua`i Charter Commission that, believe it or not, tried to slip the provision past voters so that Chun could continue to lobby the council while serving on a board or commissions.
The charter passage in question, 20.02(d) is quite simple and reads
Section 20.02. No officer or employee of the county shall:...
D. Appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency.
We’ve covered this absurd little dance extensively in the past along with the machinations of both Chun and Ethic’s Board Chair Mark Hubbard and detailed their places high up on the flow chart of Kaua`i cronyism and revolving-door paternalism that characterizes Kaua`i county government.
But while we’ve come to expect this kind of behavior from Chun, this Wednesday will also see a similar violation of 20.02(D) by one of the most selfless, truly-bighearted individuals in pubic service on Kaua`i- Food Bank Executive Director and also a member of the Ethics Board, Judy Lenthall.
Communication C2009-38 is a letter from Lenthall asking for agenda time “to provide a mid-year status report concerning the $58,000 grant authorized by the Kaua`i county Council for the Kaua`i Food Bank’s Food Stamp Outreach Program (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009)”.
She goes on in the letter to advocate for making sure that hungry eligible people- many who are seniors and many who are reluctant to take government assistance- to sign up for the Food Stamp program.
She also talks about lobbying the legislature this year to eliminate the “assets-testing” provisions that are in our state food stamp law- as most other states have done- which often ban homeowners from the program... as if they could eat their house.
While all are laudable goals and her work is some of the most important on the island, she none-the-less is in blatant violation of the law by “(a)ppear(ing) in behalf of private interests before a... county board, commission or agency.” while serving on the Board of Ethics.
The solution to all these kinds of conflicts of interest are obvious- if your job involved lobbying county boards and commissions, don’t serve on one.
But although we pointed this conflict out to Lenthall this year she continues to serve two masters.
We all appreciate Lenthall’s tireless work feeding the hungry and there could be no better fit for the Food Bank’s ED position. But it’s about time for her- and more so Chun- to resign from their county volunteer positions if they are going to continue to appear before the council hat in hand or advocate for changes in law.
It’s up to the council which approves board and commission members and whose members routinely appear before the Ethics Board as well as other boards and commissions, to put a stop to these blatant violation of the law by either confronting these people when they come to testify or, if they refuse to abide by the law, removing them from their county positions.
Attorney Jonathan Chun should be parking his butt in that little chair sometime in the afternoon and by doing so will violate a county charter provision that Kaua`i voters refused to remove in November.
Chun, a lobbyist for the Kaua`i Board of Realtors who was extremely influential in passing the bill last summer that grandfathered illegal TVRs, is also a member of the Kaua`i Charter Commission that, believe it or not, tried to slip the provision past voters so that Chun could continue to lobby the council while serving on a board or commissions.
The charter passage in question, 20.02(d) is quite simple and reads
Section 20.02. No officer or employee of the county shall:...
D. Appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency.
We’ve covered this absurd little dance extensively in the past along with the machinations of both Chun and Ethic’s Board Chair Mark Hubbard and detailed their places high up on the flow chart of Kaua`i cronyism and revolving-door paternalism that characterizes Kaua`i county government.
But while we’ve come to expect this kind of behavior from Chun, this Wednesday will also see a similar violation of 20.02(D) by one of the most selfless, truly-bighearted individuals in pubic service on Kaua`i- Food Bank Executive Director and also a member of the Ethics Board, Judy Lenthall.
Communication C2009-38 is a letter from Lenthall asking for agenda time “to provide a mid-year status report concerning the $58,000 grant authorized by the Kaua`i county Council for the Kaua`i Food Bank’s Food Stamp Outreach Program (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009)”.
She goes on in the letter to advocate for making sure that hungry eligible people- many who are seniors and many who are reluctant to take government assistance- to sign up for the Food Stamp program.
She also talks about lobbying the legislature this year to eliminate the “assets-testing” provisions that are in our state food stamp law- as most other states have done- which often ban homeowners from the program... as if they could eat their house.
While all are laudable goals and her work is some of the most important on the island, she none-the-less is in blatant violation of the law by “(a)ppear(ing) in behalf of private interests before a... county board, commission or agency.” while serving on the Board of Ethics.
The solution to all these kinds of conflicts of interest are obvious- if your job involved lobbying county boards and commissions, don’t serve on one.
But although we pointed this conflict out to Lenthall this year she continues to serve two masters.
We all appreciate Lenthall’s tireless work feeding the hungry and there could be no better fit for the Food Bank’s ED position. But it’s about time for her- and more so Chun- to resign from their county volunteer positions if they are going to continue to appear before the council hat in hand or advocate for changes in law.
It’s up to the council which approves board and commission members and whose members routinely appear before the Ethics Board as well as other boards and commissions, to put a stop to these blatant violation of the law by either confronting these people when they come to testify or, if they refuse to abide by the law, removing them from their county positions.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
KPD Blue- Chapter 23: KPD Time Bombs
KPD Blue
By Anthony Sommer
Chapter 23: KPD Time Bombs
While Baptiste played king and Rapozo pretended he was Joe McCarthy, new lawsuits were stacking up against the Kauai Police Department alleging incompetent and unethical cop conduct.
Both Baptiste and Rapozo were posing as KPD “reformers” but the fact was that when the local officers on KPD were burned, neither made any speeches about the lack of discipline or professionalism on the department.
Their “reforms” were limited to getting K.C. Lum out of office.
(The author had retired and moved from Kauai before these events took place. The information on these cases came from published news reports.)
In January 2006, an elderly couple filed a lawsuit against two KPD officers and Kauai County for allegedly throwing them to the floor and pointing guns at their heads in a marijuana raid on March 15, 2005.
Problem was, officers Scott Kaui and Damien Mendiola had the wrong house.
They then raided a second house, which also turned out to be the wrong house. The occupants of that house filed a claim for damages with Kauai County.
At the third house, they finally got the right place and arrested three men.
William and Sharon McCulley of Omao claimed in their lawsuit that Kaui and Mendiola watched a man in a Toyota truck pick up a box believed to contain marijuana from the post office and drive to a private road that has access to seven different houses.
The KPD officers didn’t actually see the box being delivered, so they guessed the box was delivered to the house where the McCulleys were babysitting their grandchildren.
They guessed wrong.
Sharon McCulley claimed the officers burst into the house and Mendiola threw her to the ground, handcuffed her and pressed his gun to her head.
William McCulley, who walks with the aid of a walker, was thrown to the floor by Kaui. That set off an implanted device that is supposed to alleviate his back pain by sending an electric shock to his spine. The device went off repeatedly sending McCulley into uncontrollable spasms.
The two KPD officers then tried the second of the seven houses on the road and guessed wrong again.
The third time was the charm. They found the box and arrested David Hibbit who later pleaded guilty to first-degree promotion of marijuana, according to press accounts.
In November 2006, the Kauai County attorney asked the County Council for yet another $200,000 to hire outside lawyers to defend the county and the KPD in two separate cases.
The Council took up the request in executive session because the lawsuit involved a county employee and the matter thus qualified as a personnel matter, under the county attorney’s logic.
The lawsuit stems from one of two similar cases in which the KPD allegedly planted drugs and drug paraphernalia on innocent people.
Prosecutors dropped the criminal charges in both cases after acknowledging KPD Sgt. Danilo Abadilla planted crystal methamphetamines in a car and two separate homes.
According to The Garden Island, the local newspaper on Kauai, Abadilla had been demoted but was still working as a patrolman on Kauai in 2006. The drug planting incidents took place in 2004 and 2005.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in June 2006 by Dominador Lopez, Anastacia Lopez, and the estates of Jovencio Lopez and Analyn Manzano.
The lawsuit claims KPD searched the home of Rizal Balgos in July 2003 and seized crystal methamphetamines and drug paraphernalia.
Balgos then agreed to become a confidential informant for the KPD and worked for Abadilla, a member of the vice squad.
According to the press account of the lawsuit, in April, 2004, Abadilla ordered Balgos to plant drugs in Michael Olivas’ car and then executed a search warrant for Olivas’ vehicle and home.
Olivas was charged with second-degree promotion of a dangerous drug and possession and use of drug paraphernalia.
The case was continued at the request of prosecutors until November 2004 when county prosecutors offered Olivas a plea bargain in which he would admit guilt to a reduced charge of third-degree promotion of a dangerous drug.
Olivas rejected the deal and requested a preliminary hearing but the court session never took place. Instead, prosecutors suddenly dropped all the charges against him.
The second instance of Abadilla allegedly planting drugs and then exercising a search warrant to seize them came in June 2004, according to the press account of the lawsuit.
Again, Abadilla allegedly used Balgos to plant drugs and paraphernalia in a vehicle and the home of Dominadar Lopez and then signaled KPD officers to execute the search warrant they already had obtained.
The lawsuit claims KPD officers went into the home with guns drawn and seized the drugs that allegedly were planted.
As in the Olivas case, Lopez was offered a plea bargain in which he would admit to third-degree promotion of a dangerous drug but Lopez, like Olivas, demanded a trial.
A week before the trial, the charges suddenly were dropped. According to the lawsuit, a prosecutor told the Lopez family the drugs had been planted by Balgos.
The lawsuit contends the KPD knew of this and other cases where officers had illegally planted drugs but failed to discipline the officers involved.
Balgos, meanwhile, disappeared. Sources said he was a major drug dealer himself and had fled to the Philippines.
Once again, the Lap Dancing Incident was connected.
Abadilla was a defense witness for Randy Machado in his 1996 trial.
Friday, January 9, 2009
HE CAN’T DREAM WELL BECAUSE OF HIS HORNS
HE CAN’T DREAM WELL BECAUSE OF HIS HORNS: The new Kaua`i County Council will have their hands full next Wed with a jam-packed agenda that will include one - not two as the local newspaper reported- bill up for final passage with an illegal, although really good, amendment and a new bill to direct the planning department to not enforce the law against transient vacation rentals (TVRs) on agricultural lands.
As we described Wednesday, the one that is up for passage on second reading was originally supposed to deal with signage and local contact persons for the newly-legal “grandfathered” TVRs outside of visitor destination areas according to the purpose section of the bill
But where we speculated that perhaps the bill might be illegally amended to include those “non-enforcement agreements” for the state-forbidden ag land TVRs, while it doesn’t do that it does attempt to put the important provision to make public the names of those applying for the grandfathered TVRs into the signage and contact info bill.
The Kauai County Charter states that “(n)o bill shall be so amended as to change its original purpose”.
That means that the provision needs a whole new and separate bill for it to become law.... if the council cared about legalities.
Although the public notification measure is a good one and deserves passage the question is one that we tire of asking: why must the council chair in the persons of Chair Asing- and recent "temporary" Chair Jay Furfaro- do these things illegally as a matter of routine..
But if this Minotaur “do what’s wrong as long as he can” behavior is made slightly palatable by the positive nature of the illegal amendment in Bill 2294 Draft 1, Chair Asing has done it again- no “oops" about it- with a request on the agenda to take the first discussion of the new “citizen’s charter amendment” behind closed doors for it’s first discussion among the new councilmembers
Down at the bottom of this week’s agenda is the following notice
ES-369 Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. §§92-4, 92-5(a)(4) and (8), and Kaua`i County Charter section 3.07(E), the 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.
Here we go again. While the State Sunshine Law strictly prohibits closed meetings in order to discuss public policy it does have a provision to allow the council to
To consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities;
and one that says
To deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to a state or federal law, or a court order.
So in his usual vestigial paternalistic plantation mentality way Asing has used this as a guise to discuss politically sensitive public policy behind closed doors by dragging in an attorney and claiming “attorney-client privilege”.
This mockery of the law makes anything Asing wants to hide from the public a subject to discuss with the new County Attorney who, by “requesting” this executive session- presumably at Asing’s request that he request it- has let us all know it will be business as unusual unless the rest of the council stops him by refusing to meet illegally.
As we detailed both before and after the election, the “monkey-wrench” charter amendment, put on the ballot via petition, would restrict tourism-accommodation zoning permits to a number consistent with the projection in the General Plan (GP). It forces the council to process those zoning permits unless they return that function to the Planning Department with a law restricting the number of permits the to the GP’s numbers.
Currently the Planning Department is way past the numbers in the 2000 update with some estimates that they have approved as many as 500% more than what would be allowed if the GP had “teeth”..
Of course, as we mentioned previously, the Planning Department employs dozens of planners, clerks and assorted personnel to process and make recommendations to the commission on these zoning permits and the council has... well, none.
This presumably means that the charter provision requiring the processing of zoning permits be done by the council- a separate branch of government forbidden by the charter from performing or directing administrative functions- would require the establishment of a mirror mini-planning department in Council Services.
That would at least require appropriations, legislation and HRS Chapter 91 administrative rules... if not another charter amendment to allow the council to perform an administrative function.
But until the council or the Planning Department drafts a bill to properly transfer the permitting power back to the Planning Department- and it is introduced and goes through it’s public hearing committee meetings and final passage- it remains illegal according to the new charter amendment for any action on zoning permitting by the Planning Commission.
And a discussion by the council regarding what to do about that sticky wicket is what Asing seeks to hide from the public.
For their part, the Planning Department seems to be oblivious to the new law and continues to process Class IV zoning permits even after December 4 when the charter provision became law.
On the Planning commission agenda for its January 13 meeting are no less than three items dealing with Class IV zoning permits for
1) Coconut Plantation Holdings, LLC. To allow the construction of an apartment hotel complex with 192 multi-family units, 6 hotel rooms (in) Waipouli.
2) Coconut Beach Development, LLC. To allow the construction of an apartment hotel resort complex with 343 multi-family units, 6 hotel rooms (in)Waipouli.
3) Waimea Plantation Cottages,... Zoning Amendment ZA-2001-3 relating to an extension of time to complete the master planned resort-residential development of Waimea.
The lawlessness of Kaua`i government apparently knows no bounds whether it’s the legislative or administrative branch. To try to take this matter behind closed doors and deny the public their right to know what has gone into the deliberation on this public policy matter violates the spirit, intent and very letter state Sunshine Law in the most fundamental of ways.
But there is hope. There are three new council members who will have to show their card this week and let the public know if their pledges during the campaign to support open governance were just a lot of bunk or whether they will- possibly with the support councilperson Tim Bynum who has not hidden his exasperation with “Uncle Chair” Asing’s penchant for secrecy- strike a blow for the open governance by refusing to meet in secret to discuss public policy.
We’ll take a gander at last Wednesday's meeting and look closer at some of the other council agenda items over the weekend and have a pre-meeting round-up of some high and low lights on Monday.
As we described Wednesday, the one that is up for passage on second reading was originally supposed to deal with signage and local contact persons for the newly-legal “grandfathered” TVRs outside of visitor destination areas according to the purpose section of the bill
But where we speculated that perhaps the bill might be illegally amended to include those “non-enforcement agreements” for the state-forbidden ag land TVRs, while it doesn’t do that it does attempt to put the important provision to make public the names of those applying for the grandfathered TVRs into the signage and contact info bill.
The Kauai County Charter states that “(n)o bill shall be so amended as to change its original purpose”.
That means that the provision needs a whole new and separate bill for it to become law.... if the council cared about legalities.
Although the public notification measure is a good one and deserves passage the question is one that we tire of asking: why must the council chair in the persons of Chair Asing- and recent "temporary" Chair Jay Furfaro- do these things illegally as a matter of routine..
But if this Minotaur “do what’s wrong as long as he can” behavior is made slightly palatable by the positive nature of the illegal amendment in Bill 2294 Draft 1, Chair Asing has done it again- no “oops" about it- with a request on the agenda to take the first discussion of the new “citizen’s charter amendment” behind closed doors for it’s first discussion among the new councilmembers
Down at the bottom of this week’s agenda is the following notice
ES-369 Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. §§92-4, 92-5(a)(4) and (8), and Kaua`i County Charter section 3.07(E), the 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.
Here we go again. While the State Sunshine Law strictly prohibits closed meetings in order to discuss public policy it does have a provision to allow the council to
To consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities;
and one that says
To deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to a state or federal law, or a court order.
So in his usual vestigial paternalistic plantation mentality way Asing has used this as a guise to discuss politically sensitive public policy behind closed doors by dragging in an attorney and claiming “attorney-client privilege”.
This mockery of the law makes anything Asing wants to hide from the public a subject to discuss with the new County Attorney who, by “requesting” this executive session- presumably at Asing’s request that he request it- has let us all know it will be business as unusual unless the rest of the council stops him by refusing to meet illegally.
As we detailed both before and after the election, the “monkey-wrench” charter amendment, put on the ballot via petition, would restrict tourism-accommodation zoning permits to a number consistent with the projection in the General Plan (GP). It forces the council to process those zoning permits unless they return that function to the Planning Department with a law restricting the number of permits the to the GP’s numbers.
Currently the Planning Department is way past the numbers in the 2000 update with some estimates that they have approved as many as 500% more than what would be allowed if the GP had “teeth”..
Of course, as we mentioned previously, the Planning Department employs dozens of planners, clerks and assorted personnel to process and make recommendations to the commission on these zoning permits and the council has... well, none.
This presumably means that the charter provision requiring the processing of zoning permits be done by the council- a separate branch of government forbidden by the charter from performing or directing administrative functions- would require the establishment of a mirror mini-planning department in Council Services.
That would at least require appropriations, legislation and HRS Chapter 91 administrative rules... if not another charter amendment to allow the council to perform an administrative function.
But until the council or the Planning Department drafts a bill to properly transfer the permitting power back to the Planning Department- and it is introduced and goes through it’s public hearing committee meetings and final passage- it remains illegal according to the new charter amendment for any action on zoning permitting by the Planning Commission.
And a discussion by the council regarding what to do about that sticky wicket is what Asing seeks to hide from the public.
For their part, the Planning Department seems to be oblivious to the new law and continues to process Class IV zoning permits even after December 4 when the charter provision became law.
On the Planning commission agenda for its January 13 meeting are no less than three items dealing with Class IV zoning permits for
1) Coconut Plantation Holdings, LLC. To allow the construction of an apartment hotel complex with 192 multi-family units, 6 hotel rooms (in) Waipouli.
2) Coconut Beach Development, LLC. To allow the construction of an apartment hotel resort complex with 343 multi-family units, 6 hotel rooms (in)Waipouli.
3) Waimea Plantation Cottages,... Zoning Amendment ZA-2001-3 relating to an extension of time to complete the master planned resort-residential development of Waimea.
The lawlessness of Kaua`i government apparently knows no bounds whether it’s the legislative or administrative branch. To try to take this matter behind closed doors and deny the public their right to know what has gone into the deliberation on this public policy matter violates the spirit, intent and very letter state Sunshine Law in the most fundamental of ways.
But there is hope. There are three new council members who will have to show their card this week and let the public know if their pledges during the campaign to support open governance were just a lot of bunk or whether they will- possibly with the support councilperson Tim Bynum who has not hidden his exasperation with “Uncle Chair” Asing’s penchant for secrecy- strike a blow for the open governance by refusing to meet in secret to discuss public policy.
We’ll take a gander at last Wednesday's meeting and look closer at some of the other council agenda items over the weekend and have a pre-meeting round-up of some high and low lights on Monday.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
FERRETING OUT THE TRUTH
FERRETING OUT THE TRUTH: Leave it to a mainland outsider to come in and start asking questions to raise some hackles and renew some old, ahem, disagreements.
Seems that a student from New York City is here in the island nosing around about a question that caused some fierce disagreements during the run up to the Superferry operation on Maui and the lack thereof here on Kaua`i- why is the ferry running to Maui and not Kaua`i and what happened to make the difference?
Yesterday Joan Conrow published- pretty much in whole- the perspective of Karen Chun of Maui which is an interesting read. But it barely addresses what the student, Michelle Nitafan of the Department of Geography at NYC’s Hunter College really wants to know about for her master’s thesis (and an article by her professor).
Chun gives a perspective that more or less makes it seem like it was just a matter of two different circumstances on two different islands. citing culture, demographics and the differences in legal approaches with a lawsuit filed on Maui but not here
We won’t repeat the letter here but urge anyone reading this to read Chun’s letter for a better understanding of what Nitafan is likely to hear if she speaks to the so-called “leaders” on Maui.
In fact what made the difference was a concerted effort on the part of those Maui “leaders” to ban all non-violent civil disobedience (NVCD) at “their” demonstrations when the ferry came to Maui.
Juxtapose that with the Kaua`i concerted effort by a few activists to not preclude NVCD and not tell people what to do or don’t do- and do it in the face of attempts to “lead” the protests in a “legal and respectful manner” by organizations a politicians here on Kaua`i
Seems Nitafan and her professor wrote to Superferry activist Jimmy Trujillo after finding his name prominently in newspapers from the time and wrote the following
My name is Michelle Nitafan. I'm a post-graduate student working with the Geography Department at Hunter College of the City University of New York. I'm currently doing some thesis work in regards to the recent Super Ferry issue there.
My research is concerned with the discussion (and if I'm lucky, with a resolution) of why the Environmental Assessment was waived why Kauai and Maui took different steps in opposing the Super Ferry (strike through a surfing blockade at sea and court petition, respectively) how the different islands felt about it, then and now... I'm interested in gaining insight into Kauai's position in all this.
But the problem is that she is apparently speaking with most of the very people who almost thwarted the non-violent civil disobedience and lack of respect for Governor Lingle’s “Unified Command” that made for the difference in outcomes between Kaua`i and Maui.
Although some would like to believe that it was through the efforts of people like Rich Hoepner of People for the Preservation of Kaua`i (PPK) and David Dinner of 1000 Friends and politicians like JoAnn Yukimura and Mina Motrita that the protesters stopped the Superferry, those are in fact the very people who tried hard- and fortunately failed- to corral Kaua`i people into keeping all protests “legal and respectful”.
It was no accident though that people like Trujillo, Katy Rose, PNN and a handful of others- including many actual members of PPK and 1000 friends who were less than happy about the direction their leaders were taking- that the “message” on Kaua`i was not to listen to self appointed “leaders” here who were publicly urging the “legal and respectful” protest and instead urge people, through email and the grassroots “coconut wireless”, to “do your own thing” by refusing to condemn or try to prohibit NVCD.
And that was the difference in turning back the ferry here. It wasn’t the people who spent months gathering petitions or meeting night after night to plot strategy but it was the people who just showed up and felt they had the freedom to put their lives on the line by physically blocking the big bad boat and thumbing their nose at the state’s militaristic threats.
Apparently, from emails sent to PNN, the people Nitafan is thus far scheduled to meet with are people like Dinner, Yukimura- who fiercely fought for legal and respectful protest, especially at the Convention Hall appearance when Lingle was cursed and shouted down- and Irene Bowie Executive Director of Maui Tomorrow who was the chief of the “no illegal or disrespectful activity” at `our’ protest” on that island
Was it just the circumstances that Chun- who actually did get into her canoe and try to block the boat on Maui along with people like Hannah Bernard and a small handful of others- cited that led to things just “happening” as they did?
Or did the concerted efforts of a handful of Kaua`i people- experienced organizers who saw early on the pent up hostility to the ferry on the streets of Kaua`i and saw the probably that an organized leadership could actually hurt the chances of involvement by an already agitated populace- pay off.
After reading Chun’s essay at Conrow’s KauaiEcletic blog Rose put it this way in an email today.
I'm a little concerned that Nitafan isn't talking to more grassroots people who have deeper roots on Kaua`i.
A lot of malahini (like me) like to get out front and get in the limelight when in reality the young folks with the deep roots were the ones who stopped the boat right there with their bodies. I just hope that some of the people she sought out to talk to have the humility to direct her to the real heroes and heroines of August 26 and 27...
The fact is, by a large margin, the folks in the water never came to any of our haole-dominated organizing meetings where people with big egos blathered on for hours! And it's the people [from] those meetings who are "interpreting" the struggle for this research assistant!"
Both Rose and we have attempted to contact Nitafan by phone in Rose’s case and email in ours and we have not heard back from her. She is scheduled to be on KKCR Radio to speak about her project as we go to press, at 4 p.m. today.
It’s nice to know that someone is questioning what the difference was between Kaua`i and Maui and why the outcomes were so different. It would be a shame to see history written so that no one would see the real story behind the blockade here and the lack of one on Maui.
Many see it as a matter of the fact that Maui took the legal approach with Maui Tomorrow and the Sierra Club’s lawsuit where there was no such suit at the time from Kaua`i.
As a matter of fact that the ruling that the lawsuit only covered Maui Harbor and not Kaua`i had not been determined in the Supreme Court ruling made two days before the ferry attempted to enter Nawiliwili harbor and wasn’t a “fact” until the circuit court ruled such on Maui after the SC sent it to them for adjudication..
Yet they mistakenly say that was a factor if not the main reason why many here chose to put their lives in danger, saying that Kaua`i had no lawsuit of its own and so were less inclined to “legal” protest.
But really it comes down to the fact that many of those who were less involved in “organizations” and “meetings” and more into an anarchical style of grassroots organizing saw the obstacle as being the timidity of those organized leaders and worked hard to counteract it by not condemning- and in fact in some cases encouraging- civil disobedience.
They refused to “join up” with those who sought to control of what happened at the Nawiliwili those two fateful nights and it was their efforts that gave “permission” for it to happen that way.
It’s one thing to rabble rouse and organize and whip up a frenzied protest. It’s quite another to just let it happen.
Seems that a student from New York City is here in the island nosing around about a question that caused some fierce disagreements during the run up to the Superferry operation on Maui and the lack thereof here on Kaua`i- why is the ferry running to Maui and not Kaua`i and what happened to make the difference?
Yesterday Joan Conrow published- pretty much in whole- the perspective of Karen Chun of Maui which is an interesting read. But it barely addresses what the student, Michelle Nitafan of the Department of Geography at NYC’s Hunter College really wants to know about for her master’s thesis (and an article by her professor).
Chun gives a perspective that more or less makes it seem like it was just a matter of two different circumstances on two different islands. citing culture, demographics and the differences in legal approaches with a lawsuit filed on Maui but not here
We won’t repeat the letter here but urge anyone reading this to read Chun’s letter for a better understanding of what Nitafan is likely to hear if she speaks to the so-called “leaders” on Maui.
In fact what made the difference was a concerted effort on the part of those Maui “leaders” to ban all non-violent civil disobedience (NVCD) at “their” demonstrations when the ferry came to Maui.
Juxtapose that with the Kaua`i concerted effort by a few activists to not preclude NVCD and not tell people what to do or don’t do- and do it in the face of attempts to “lead” the protests in a “legal and respectful manner” by organizations a politicians here on Kaua`i
Seems Nitafan and her professor wrote to Superferry activist Jimmy Trujillo after finding his name prominently in newspapers from the time and wrote the following
My name is Michelle Nitafan. I'm a post-graduate student working with the Geography Department at Hunter College of the City University of New York. I'm currently doing some thesis work in regards to the recent Super Ferry issue there.
My research is concerned with the discussion (and if I'm lucky, with a resolution) of why the Environmental Assessment was waived why Kauai and Maui took different steps in opposing the Super Ferry (strike through a surfing blockade at sea and court petition, respectively) how the different islands felt about it, then and now... I'm interested in gaining insight into Kauai's position in all this.
But the problem is that she is apparently speaking with most of the very people who almost thwarted the non-violent civil disobedience and lack of respect for Governor Lingle’s “Unified Command” that made for the difference in outcomes between Kaua`i and Maui.
Although some would like to believe that it was through the efforts of people like Rich Hoepner of People for the Preservation of Kaua`i (PPK) and David Dinner of 1000 Friends and politicians like JoAnn Yukimura and Mina Motrita that the protesters stopped the Superferry, those are in fact the very people who tried hard- and fortunately failed- to corral Kaua`i people into keeping all protests “legal and respectful”.
It was no accident though that people like Trujillo, Katy Rose, PNN and a handful of others- including many actual members of PPK and 1000 friends who were less than happy about the direction their leaders were taking- that the “message” on Kaua`i was not to listen to self appointed “leaders” here who were publicly urging the “legal and respectful” protest and instead urge people, through email and the grassroots “coconut wireless”, to “do your own thing” by refusing to condemn or try to prohibit NVCD.
And that was the difference in turning back the ferry here. It wasn’t the people who spent months gathering petitions or meeting night after night to plot strategy but it was the people who just showed up and felt they had the freedom to put their lives on the line by physically blocking the big bad boat and thumbing their nose at the state’s militaristic threats.
Apparently, from emails sent to PNN, the people Nitafan is thus far scheduled to meet with are people like Dinner, Yukimura- who fiercely fought for legal and respectful protest, especially at the Convention Hall appearance when Lingle was cursed and shouted down- and Irene Bowie Executive Director of Maui Tomorrow who was the chief of the “no illegal or disrespectful activity” at `our’ protest” on that island
Was it just the circumstances that Chun- who actually did get into her canoe and try to block the boat on Maui along with people like Hannah Bernard and a small handful of others- cited that led to things just “happening” as they did?
Or did the concerted efforts of a handful of Kaua`i people- experienced organizers who saw early on the pent up hostility to the ferry on the streets of Kaua`i and saw the probably that an organized leadership could actually hurt the chances of involvement by an already agitated populace- pay off.
After reading Chun’s essay at Conrow’s KauaiEcletic blog Rose put it this way in an email today.
I'm a little concerned that Nitafan isn't talking to more grassroots people who have deeper roots on Kaua`i.
A lot of malahini (like me) like to get out front and get in the limelight when in reality the young folks with the deep roots were the ones who stopped the boat right there with their bodies. I just hope that some of the people she sought out to talk to have the humility to direct her to the real heroes and heroines of August 26 and 27...
The fact is, by a large margin, the folks in the water never came to any of our haole-dominated organizing meetings where people with big egos blathered on for hours! And it's the people [from] those meetings who are "interpreting" the struggle for this research assistant!"
Both Rose and we have attempted to contact Nitafan by phone in Rose’s case and email in ours and we have not heard back from her. She is scheduled to be on KKCR Radio to speak about her project as we go to press, at 4 p.m. today.
It’s nice to know that someone is questioning what the difference was between Kaua`i and Maui and why the outcomes were so different. It would be a shame to see history written so that no one would see the real story behind the blockade here and the lack of one on Maui.
Many see it as a matter of the fact that Maui took the legal approach with Maui Tomorrow and the Sierra Club’s lawsuit where there was no such suit at the time from Kaua`i.
As a matter of fact that the ruling that the lawsuit only covered Maui Harbor and not Kaua`i had not been determined in the Supreme Court ruling made two days before the ferry attempted to enter Nawiliwili harbor and wasn’t a “fact” until the circuit court ruled such on Maui after the SC sent it to them for adjudication..
Yet they mistakenly say that was a factor if not the main reason why many here chose to put their lives in danger, saying that Kaua`i had no lawsuit of its own and so were less inclined to “legal” protest.
But really it comes down to the fact that many of those who were less involved in “organizations” and “meetings” and more into an anarchical style of grassroots organizing saw the obstacle as being the timidity of those organized leaders and worked hard to counteract it by not condemning- and in fact in some cases encouraging- civil disobedience.
They refused to “join up” with those who sought to control of what happened at the Nawiliwili those two fateful nights and it was their efforts that gave “permission” for it to happen that way.
It’s one thing to rabble rouse and organize and whip up a frenzied protest. It’s quite another to just let it happen.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
BARELY LEGAL
BARELY LEGAL: Apparently the ugly draft bill to allow illegal Transient Vacation Rentals (TVRs) on agricultural land which we reported upon twice in December is about to illegally rear it’s ugly head at today’s county council’s Planning Committee meeting if a post about it at Mel Rapozo’s newly re-activated Kaua`i Politics turns out to be true
He says that:
I heard a disturbing rumor today. I heard that there will be an amendment on the Council agenda next week that will grandfather transient vacation rentals on agriculture lands until the Important Ag Land (IAL) study is completed.
This info comes along with Joan Conrow’s coverage today of an issue we’ve been lax in reporting upon regarding this year’s ordinance grandfathering illegal TVRs in non-visitor destination (VDA) areas.
Conrow details how, despite the fact that the ordinance says that “any member of the public may initiate proceedings to revoke a non-conforming use certificate or to stop an un-permitted use.”, the Planning Department has been denying those members of the public- some of whom have been fighting TVRs on the North Shore for years- the names of the owners and the locations of the TVRs that are applying for the “use permits” required to get “grandfathered”.
The eligible TVRs, according to the ordinance, have to prove that they had been operating for a year as of the date the bill became law.
But three times now North Shore land use advocates Karen Diamond and former Planning Commissioner Barbara Robeson have appeared before the council with excellent presentations detailing the problems they ran into in finding out who was applying and showing pictures and documents that prove that many apparent TVRs they suspect are applying don’t meet the requirements set out in the ordinance.
To get a full description of their presentation Conrow’s post today is a must read.
Today Bill 2294 is on the council’s agenda. It would tighten up some of the language to force proper scrutiny from the planning department which has just illegally made up rules for the use permitting on the fly without going through the required HRS Chapter 91 administrative rules.
Diamond and Robeson testified at the first reading and the Public Hearing for the bill last year detailing the lack of access to the planning applications, presenting pictures and testimony showing certain owners- including some of those who were finally outed by Conrow today in seven pdf documents that are linked in the article today- would have to be fudging the facts if not outright lying on their application to be eligible for use permits.
Nowhere along the line has Bill 2294 mentioned anything about allowing TVRs on ag land which would be illegal under state law (HRS 205) as we detailed in December when then Council Chair, now vice Chair Jay Furfaro illegally circulated a secret draft of a bill to all seven councilmembers that would do just that by requiring so-called “non-enforcement agreements” between the offending ag land TVR owner and the Planning Department be created.
According to the Kauai County Charter “No bill shall be so amended as to change its original purpose”.
The stated “purpose” of Bill 2294 speaks only of changes in regulations for signage inside and outside the TVR and includes provisions for 24/7 contact information for management persons on the island.
We’ll have to wait and see what happens at today’s Planning Committee meeting which will be chaired by Furfaro but the correct process would be to reintroduce a separate bill. not to sneak in this provision without allowing the public the opportunity to have their usual four chances to testify.
If passed out of committee today the bill would be up for final “second reading” passage at next week’s full council meeting
The absurdity of trying to pass a law that actually directs a county department to not enforce and abide by state law is another one of those “only on Kaua`i” machinations that have marked county council and administration activity for decades.
And for those who are wondering what’s happening with our complaint to the OIP regarding the illegal circulation of the “TVR on ag land non-enforcement agreement” draft bill by Furfaro, we still cannot even get a confirmation that the OIP has received the complaint... much less find out if they are pursuing it... much less find out whether they have even opened a case.
He says that:
I heard a disturbing rumor today. I heard that there will be an amendment on the Council agenda next week that will grandfather transient vacation rentals on agriculture lands until the Important Ag Land (IAL) study is completed.
This info comes along with Joan Conrow’s coverage today of an issue we’ve been lax in reporting upon regarding this year’s ordinance grandfathering illegal TVRs in non-visitor destination (VDA) areas.
Conrow details how, despite the fact that the ordinance says that “any member of the public may initiate proceedings to revoke a non-conforming use certificate or to stop an un-permitted use.”, the Planning Department has been denying those members of the public- some of whom have been fighting TVRs on the North Shore for years- the names of the owners and the locations of the TVRs that are applying for the “use permits” required to get “grandfathered”.
The eligible TVRs, according to the ordinance, have to prove that they had been operating for a year as of the date the bill became law.
But three times now North Shore land use advocates Karen Diamond and former Planning Commissioner Barbara Robeson have appeared before the council with excellent presentations detailing the problems they ran into in finding out who was applying and showing pictures and documents that prove that many apparent TVRs they suspect are applying don’t meet the requirements set out in the ordinance.
To get a full description of their presentation Conrow’s post today is a must read.
Today Bill 2294 is on the council’s agenda. It would tighten up some of the language to force proper scrutiny from the planning department which has just illegally made up rules for the use permitting on the fly without going through the required HRS Chapter 91 administrative rules.
Diamond and Robeson testified at the first reading and the Public Hearing for the bill last year detailing the lack of access to the planning applications, presenting pictures and testimony showing certain owners- including some of those who were finally outed by Conrow today in seven pdf documents that are linked in the article today- would have to be fudging the facts if not outright lying on their application to be eligible for use permits.
Nowhere along the line has Bill 2294 mentioned anything about allowing TVRs on ag land which would be illegal under state law (HRS 205) as we detailed in December when then Council Chair, now vice Chair Jay Furfaro illegally circulated a secret draft of a bill to all seven councilmembers that would do just that by requiring so-called “non-enforcement agreements” between the offending ag land TVR owner and the Planning Department be created.
According to the Kauai County Charter “No bill shall be so amended as to change its original purpose”.
The stated “purpose” of Bill 2294 speaks only of changes in regulations for signage inside and outside the TVR and includes provisions for 24/7 contact information for management persons on the island.
We’ll have to wait and see what happens at today’s Planning Committee meeting which will be chaired by Furfaro but the correct process would be to reintroduce a separate bill. not to sneak in this provision without allowing the public the opportunity to have their usual four chances to testify.
If passed out of committee today the bill would be up for final “second reading” passage at next week’s full council meeting
The absurdity of trying to pass a law that actually directs a county department to not enforce and abide by state law is another one of those “only on Kaua`i” machinations that have marked county council and administration activity for decades.
And for those who are wondering what’s happening with our complaint to the OIP regarding the illegal circulation of the “TVR on ag land non-enforcement agreement” draft bill by Furfaro, we still cannot even get a confirmation that the OIP has received the complaint... much less find out if they are pursuing it... much less find out whether they have even opened a case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
