Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You want to take the 69% of the land on Oahu that is in private ownership and keep the owners from developing it. That means that if I, for example, paid five million dollars for some land that I could develop with current zoning and then the County government changed the zoning to agriculture or open space, I would lose my five million dollars. The government can't just take people's land like that! The owners have to be compensated. By the government that takes their land.
In my view of the world, any property ownership other than a primary residence is a business, speculation, or investment. As such it is subject to risk, and one of those risks is that the government can change the taxation, zoning, or permitting. We have the same problem on Kauai: entitled developers who sit on a property for 10-20-30 years and then threaten to sue the county when there is the slightest whiff of restricting their development potential. That is wrong.
Logically, there is a legal process to change the zoning, and if that is followed, it should preempt any speculative property rights. If the political process decides that there should be restrictions on a zone, I have no problem with that. If you don't get a permit to build and don't post a completion bond, then you are not actively developing and any potential development can be modified before you do. As a citizen or corporation, you're free to vote or lobby politicians to sway them back to a situation that benefits you.
The issues of land ownership, development, and zoning are the heart of the issue for preserving the aina. All the land belongs to someone, and every one wants to make money. The problem with the private property regime is that it is all about self-interest.
When you make a post advocating for more open space, like it used to be, you have to realize that those spaces belonged to someone who paid money for them (like Dreaming of Hawaii's $5 million property example) and wants to make money back.
Simply saying there should be less development is a weak argument when all the economic and business interest is for more development. You would need a stronger state government, with more money to buy the land, and then have laws to preserve it perpetuity. That is something I would vote for (along with better schools, etc.).
Instead, right now, we do have a system based on greed. Even the state wants more money from the public lands. For example, the state parks department wants to extract more money out of tourists at the Kokee state park on Kaua'i by charging admission fees, putting in a hotel (in a sensitive environment home to endangered birds), and widen the road for tour buses--essentially ruining the undeveloped qualities for everyone.
Mahalo your right, i really wasnt planning to get deep with this thread nor get political. All i wantted to do was raise awareness that yes we are loseing our homes to concrete, wow Hawaii was really gorgeous, she still is but not as much. Thats it simple. Anyone moving or young to Hawaii will not know oahu as anything other then whats current. Mahalo for your pono post.
You would need a stronger state government, with more money to buy the land, and then have laws to preserve it perpetuity. That is something I would vote for (along with better schools, etc.).
I just remembered this already exists, it's called the Land Conservation Fund, and there is a commission to manage it in each county. But it's small (only a few million), and seemingly ineffective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.