Saturday, October 22, 2016

To Jenna Carpenter re: observations on the Kauai General Plan Update process

10/19/16


Aloha Jenna,

 (In sharp contrast to the Charter Review Commission) the effort by the planning department to outreach to the people has been strong. The biggest challenge that I see is that not enough people grasp the importance of this critical document which will defines our County Zoning Ordinances. The county zoning ordinances set the precedent for what type of land use is allowed where. It very much effects the future direction of the island. The last General Plan Update valued open spaces above economic opportunity. Fifteen years later, we have largely maintained our open spaces but have exported our young generation and pushed much of our generational community out of the north shore and the Poipu-Koloa area. We have less of a middle class. My concern with the current plan is we will again amplify the disparity between the largely non-residential rich and the poor who serve them. This is a hard problem to solve. These are national problems.


The wonderful team at the planning department has worked hard to bring the effort to the people at events, localize town tours, and media promotion.  They have a website, transparency, are working hard to include people 
and have been quite creative and open.


I have highlighted several areas of importance in which the global economyʻs influence on Kauai creates stress points that still seem to be unresolved. 

  • One of the biggest hurdles is the rising cost of real estate on our island because it is one of the most beautiful places on the planet. That draws people and investors who come from an economy outside of what commerce on Kauai can support in a workforce. This cascades into a stream of problems beginning with housing instability that builds financial stress and the interconnected challenges that can foster depression, crime, drug abuse, family break-ups, under-supervision of children, incarceration, etc. We need to think outside the box on creating tiny housing units in unused commercial spaces, for example. The big challenge in all planning is the opportunities designed for the existing population risk being filled by people who move here specifically to take advantage of the fresh living spaces. First-hand participation from those most suffering is not evident in the input of the general plan development. For example, were I on the planning team, I would have a session at the Kauai Community Correctional Center to learn where the inmates saw their stumbling points.
  • True food production agriculture for local consumption does not easily fit into our economic model and zoning structure. Mono-cropping is hard on the land and is high-risk for the small farmer both at a customer level and vulnerability to plant disease and market fluctuations. Diversified agriculture with a range of tree crops and annuals is the most successful model for the small-scale food production farmer. This planting style is better for the land and environment, but does not lend itself to the investment in farm machinery. Instead, farm workers are necessary and best included with inexpensive, semi-permanent, safe, clean living units on the farms. There is not yet visioning in the plan to support this need that will truly help Kauai be resilient. The present vision strives for sustainability, which means to be able to continue perpetually. Resilience means not only to continue but to improve and grow stronger over time; to be able to weather unforeseen challenges. Hawaiiʻs geographic isolation amplifies the need for wisdom in growing food on Kauai for ourselves and the other islands. Our economic model places value in profits generated in dollar$ while it does not recognize the non-monetary value of building resilience.   
Those are two of my key observations. I will give it thought on who to recommend for a additional perspectives. 

A challenge in this process has been that we seem to need to utilize off-island contractors to facilitate the General Plan Update. Inherently, they are less familiar with the people and the issues arising on the island. In general, they have run good meetings. An extreme problematic example was the recommendation by an otherwise talented sub-contracted consultant from San Fransisco who recommended to move the town core focus of Hanalei further to the east. Instead of including the soccer field, four churches and three schools, the design recommendation was to shift the focus and development concentration to the open areas that are in fact wetlands, a national wildlife preserve, taro fields and a buffalo pasture with an unbridged river running through it. Those challenges were pointed out to him after the presentation was concluded. He had been unaware that area was essentially a flood plane, as he mainly worked from maps at a distance. It was his first trip to Kauai and only day in Hanalei. I am not sure if he adapted his recommendation with that new knowledge. 

Thank you for your effort to gain divergent perspectives. 

Felicia

To Council Members re: biased Charter Review Commission

10/19/16


Council members,


Allan Parachini, chair of the Charter Review Commission, has implemented the intense bias that I strongly highlighted when his nomination was confirmed by the council. He was chosen by Jan TenBruggencate for the charter review commission with the express purpose to pre-empt the ability of the citizen to be successful of promoting a charter amendment as happened regarding pesticide protection last election cycle. The intention was evident at the time. Jan and Allan are such clear advocates for large business that the word lobbyist is probably appropriate, especially for Jan. Jan selected two-year Kauai resident, Allan, for the commission and passed his chairmanship of the board over to Allan about a year later.

The proposed reason for a one-time, ten-year Charter Review Commission was to take a comprehensive look at the aged document and review for areas of weakness and bring it to the public. We needed holistic structural improvement that would be vetted by the public.  Instead, we have had a piecemeal method of addressing specific special interests over time. The Charter Review Commissioners are trained in Roberts Rules of Order and never with a full explanation or training about what is the purpose of the charter and the goal of the commission. We have selected miscellaneous citizens from diverse backgrounds like car salesmen, shop owner, carpenter, filmmaker, farmer, educator... in a streaming fashion of entry, most without a background of law or public policy.  And yet we leave them vulnerable to opportunistic interests to infiltrate the process. There is virtually no pathway for public accountability.

  • Mr. Parachini has lived up to my concerns by producing deceptive ballot questions that leave off significant factors like removing the mayorʻs line of authority to the fire chief in proposal #2, without having that written anywhere on the ballot. Proposal #3 regarding a zoning board of appeals does not mention that it eliminates the layer of professional legal oversight with a hired hearings officer. Proposal #5 does not educate the distinctions between referendum, ordinance or charter amendment on either the ballot or the legal notice.
  • The questions were intentionally worded to elicit a YES response as witnessed in the commission meeting.
  • There are no pro and con arguments stated in the legal notice. 
  • The legal notice has 6 not 7 ballot questions and they are in a different order, causing confusion for people who may study ahead of time and write down vote choices. 
  • The legal notice is not easy to find, they are no longer in the paper; one has to be smart enough to know to go to the library
  • Allan has abused his role by having a completely biased front page headline in the Garden Island newspaper that is titled Changing With the Times, that nowhere informs the voter of a counter argument ~  Allan is a contributing writer to the paper and knowingly  benefited by the innocence of a young, new reporter who does not understand the subtleties of the issue. 
  • Without diligent attendance of the meetings and political acumen, the Charter Review Commission exploits the trust of the citizens to surrender their own power. The wording and exclusion of information at critical points in the process is intentionally deceptive.
WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROPOSAL, ALL THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TAKE POWER FROM THE CITIZEN AND AWAY FROM THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.  This is not stated or evident anywhere on the ballot; only the politically sophisticated would understand this subtlety. 

The Charter Review Commission is 7 non-elected, barely vetted people who are able to effectively circumvent the political process with virtually no oversight.  Internal departments of the county government basically are able to utilize this vehicle to make changes to the county charter behind closed doors. There is no televised (Hoike) programs, nor reporters in the room highlighting the concentration of power that is taken away from the voter. The public notification  is the bare minimum requirement, posted deep in the county website 6 days prior to a meeting. It is essentially visible to only the most politically sophisticated of the public. Mr. Parachiniʻs position at the paper is not used to invite constructive community participation in this process.  Last I checked, there had been three successful citizen led ballot initiatives and roughly 65 that have come from the Charter Review Commission.

The middle column of the three questions on the ballot (items 5,6, & 7) are to effectively eliminate the ability of the citizens to get a ballot initiative passed if they so need, while extending Charter Review Commissionʻs own reign of capacity. (After they voted to put the 10 year extension on their own reign of power, Jay Furfaro let them know that it would be a brand new board and not them. From the looks on their faces, they had not anticipated that.) 

In the time we have had this commission, the size of the county budget has tripled in part because of the Charter Review Commission allowing for an opportunity for silent government growth without the oversight of the County Council who really should have this responsibility.

We have a problem, as I have highlighted on at least three meetings where new commissioners have been confirmed.

I told you so.

Felicia Cowden
Kilauea