It was your choice
It was your choice
This past week, I read a news item that I thought was indeed a good solution to the possible road closure because of the lava flow. It consisted with the “cutting” of a section of the road so the lava could flow freely through, and then a bridge would be built over it.
I personally thought it was a very good idea. It showed that as a people we could respect “Madame Pele” and let her flow uninterrupted on her way.
The other issue I would like to address is all these hateful comments toward (Dani Stein, Your Views).
He was only stating the truth!
It was the same thing I stated (in an earlier letter), and nobody sent any love my way.
I feel neglected.
I stated the majority of the people complaining about the lava are the same people who came here in the late ’80s and early ’90s to buy land because it was cheap. You were told at the time you were living in an active flow area, so why does it surprise you?
As I said, nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to live there. Please, let me feel some love from the “hippies.”
Jay Wason
Hilo
Build lava bridge?
Anything is possible, including the loss of the bridge because of lava, should the lava change course and impact the structural integrity of any bridge built.
So, should millions of dollars and months of construction be spent on a bridge that might not be viable if Mother Nature decides to change course, or should that same money be spent on developing some other option, such as a decent pier and ferry system from Issac Hale park to Hilo?
Another harsh reality: How much money is worth spending to allow people to remain in an area that will be constantly at risk versus spending money to relocate them?
Is there currently, or will there be in the future, enough revenue generated by the isolated population to justify the expense of maintaining accessibility for them?
Will those people behind the flow be willing to pay the same amount of property tax, or more, to maintain access?
Tax rates are calculated on property value.
Can the county justify and require the same tax level or higher to property owners on the other side of the flow, should the real estate values plummet as a result of the lava threat? Will people on the unaffected side of the flow be willing to pay more taxes to keep access to the other side of the flow, when many on the unaffected side are already frustrated by their own poor road conditions, with no support from the county?
Technically, I suppose anything is possible. Unfortunately, just because it can technically be done isn’t the only deciding factor.
Clearly, it’s a very complicated issue. I don’t think there is an easy answer.
Don Jacobs
Keaau