Not ‘red herrings’
This letter to the editor concerns Mr. Michael Brestovansky, a Tribune-Herald reporter, and is in response to his Sept. 5 article.
If he did a more thorough job of investigating the “controversial” proposed development in Puueo by the Edmund C. Olson Trust, and the issues which the Puueo community members raised, he would have known to include other significant concerns community members raised, in addition to the damage done by the trust to our plantation camp cemetery (which Councilman Aaron Chung dismisses as “red herrings”).
Some other issues include the anticipated floodwater runoff because of this project and the impact of traffic through the Puueo neighborhood. Even before the development of these homes is completed, construction traffic will not only impede everyday traffic on Wainaku Street, it will do major damage to this already heavily traveled neighborhood street.
This development has stated it will take up half of Clem Akina Park, which has been for more than 100 years the dedicated playground for the children of Puueo.
Has an Environmental Impact Statement ever been done for this project?
And, to the Honorable Mr. Chung: You are quoted as saying that before this whole thing came up, “zero” people living knew anything about this plantation camp cemetery. What you are avoiding is the fact that we all know about this cemetery because, as children, we all played there!
Those of us who could attend the council and community meetings are just a few from the Puueo community who feel strongly about this controversial proposal by the Olson Trust.
Mr. Chung, perhaps you should be more careful in choosing your words. Somebody could mistake that “zero” for the person sitting in your chair.
Gordon A. Ignacio Sr.
Puueo
Bad bill
While the political cartoon in the Sept. 15 Tribune-Herald pointed out the bureaucracy and the $500 nonrefundable money application fee to apply for a short-term rental (Airbnb, VRBO, etc.), it didn’t describe the ill-written Bill 118.
I have had a short-term rental for the past eight years. My vacation rental is in my tropical fruit orchard and is off the grid in lower Puna.
Guests are allowed to pick tropical fruits in-season, eat range-free eggs and experience what an off-grid cottage entails. Almost all my reviews have been five stars.
But my rental would be denied because my parcel is zoned agricultural, and the parcel was formed in 1995.
Why are short-term rentals not allowed in agricultural zoned areas if formed after 1976?
I am not competing with hotels.
My neighbors are wonderful and have no objections to my vacation rental. Some have had relatives stay at my rental.
But this bill is depriving Hawaii tourists of experiencing a tropical orchard and this unique location, just a few miles from the new black sand beach and nearby Uncle Robert’s, among other attractions.
I started the application process and sent out letters to neighbors (a requirement even before applying). But when I went to the Planning Department to apply, I was told I would be denied because of my agricultural zoning. I was also told I could appeal, but I would still be denied. So I did not to give them my $500 pre-written application check.
My orchard was completely defoliated last year from fissure 8, and I had to evacuate for almost three months. I had to replace everything that rusted at a big financial loss. No help from the feds or state.
And now I have to give up my vacation rental from this ill-written bill?
Bill Riley Caudill
Pahoa
