Then I got an email with photos of Joe Brescia’s house now that the dust fence has been taken down, and I thought, yes, this is what manifests from that mindset of fear and accommodation, this is what it looks like:
Wondering what happened to the iwi marked by the orange fence in this earlier photo?
The stakes have been removed and replaced with rocks and flags, similar to those denoting sprinkler heads. Before long, the flags will be gone, either removed intentionally, lost to the winter surf that washes across the lots along this stretch of coast or chewed up by weedeaters and lawnmowers. Soon it will be easy for people using this house to pretend they are not living above and walking upon 31 known burials.
Thinking of visiting the iwi? The two “no trespassing” signs warn against it.
Still questioning why this house was built atop iwi at all? Well, as Pua Aiu, administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division told me for an article in Honolulu Weekly:
[S]ince SHPD is “not allowed to do a taking” of private property, the agency had “very little wiggle room” in attempting to site the house Brescia wanted on a relatively small lot widely dispersed with numerous iwi.
Actually, Brescia wanted even more, but litigation brought by citizens, not government, required him to push it back from the shoreline and scale it down a bit. And if there had been adequate concern for the iwi, it could have been scaled down even more. But it wasn’t, because the county and state are driven by fear and accommodation.
It’s the same scenario that’s playing out now with the ag land TVRs. That's why, if this bill passes, we’ll end up with places like this and this that have absolutely nothing to do with agriculture— other than boasting a ”converted barn.”
Is this really the kind of blatant disrespect for the law, the community and ag land that we want to legitimize?
Posts
32 comments:
Funny how you never get around to saying what law supposedly made TVRs on ag illegal before the county law. Until Kauai passed the law there was no law making TVRs illegal on ag land. A previous county attorney said they were legal, and Mel is wrong, the AG letter never says TVRs are illegal on ag land.
All this bluster about "illegal TVRs" is a lot of hot air. The law is: no new TVRs on ag land. Nobody is challenging that. All TVRs that were legal when the law was passed must be grandfathered in. That is the law. If they are not grandfathered in, all the TVR owners SHOULD sue the county. And they will win. Because the government does not have the right to change the rules like that. It can make new tvrs illegal, but it can't make the old ones illegal.
The county isn't acting out of fear and accommodation. The county is doing what is legal and right. You just don't like it.
I love those places you linked to! I do not believe in an ag future for Kauai or the state as a whole.
I do not believe it is in the state's best interest to position itself as self-sustaining in the middle of the Pacific. I do not envision any future where this would be necessary.
I hope the bill passes and attracts more monied interests to the islands.
i too hope the bill will pass because of the new farms that will be created. Our farmer's markets will be joyous and colorful and diverse and soon famous. It will not matter if the owner is tvring the building on the lot. Local food and more taxes being paid for more services etc etc.
New TVR's are illegal under the current law and under the proposed amendments. The first poster is right - in that the amendments to the current law would only allow "grandfathering" - not new TVRs. This is far different the "proliferation" as stated by the law's opponents. Proliferation is propaganda.
Me thinks its better to be sure that the law that would allow grandfathering is passed, than to sit and watch the current law that does not allow any TVR on Ag to be overturned. That, indeed, would open the floodgates to proliferation. And from what I read, like all of the lawyers think the current law will be overturned.
- Maybe those cheaters with a TVR and no farming should not get a windfall, but Caren's approach will result in the baby being thrown out with the bath water when the existing law is overturned. No one has talked about this, but I wonder what the County's insurance carrier's view of all of this is. Does the county have coverage for defending and paying damages for a challenge to a law that takes away property rights?
BTW - smoking pot is illegal too. Don't see everyone out banging the table about how important it is that everyone follows the law there.
BTW - smoking pot is illegal too. Don't see everyone out banging the table about how important it is that everyone follows the law there.
The cops DO enforce that law. No one is enforcing against TVRs on ag land. I don't care what the other comments say it is illegal unless you have a special permit and they don't have one.
I don't care what the other comments say it is illegal unless you have a special permit and they don't have one.
It wasn't illegal until the county passed a law making it illegal. If the county tries to say all the ones that existed before they changed the law are now illegal, the county is going to lose one BIG lawsuit. Gaurans.
June 30, 2010 3:45 PM -- you are wrong. All TVRs outside VDA were "illegal" (required permit) before county passed law to grandfather them in. TVRs on ag land needed a special permit under 205 even before county law was passed. If they do not have a permit they are illegal. Garans.
It is ridiculous to believe that TVRs on ag land are legal. Unless someone can share with us the language in the HRS that says otherwise, I am convinced that it is illegal. I don't want to hear Furfaro's and Bynum's weak attempts to speak as attorneys. They haven't a clue. I want to see the language that says that TVRs on ag lands are legal. Simple enough.
I want to see the language that says that TVRs on ag lands are legal. Simple enough.
Wow. In your world, things are illegal unless a law says they are legal? No wonder I vote republican.
You vote republican because your idea of a good politician is Sarah Palin.
The Attorney General that was appointed by the Republican governor signed off on an opinion that said that TVRs are not permitted on ag land. People who build a house on ag land have to sign an agreement that the house will be a farm dwelling occupied by people who farm the property. Some people buy ag land because they want to farm, intend to honor the agreement and follow the law. Some people buy ag land, sign the agreement and choose not to honor the agreement because they believe that they are above the law.
Anonymous July 1, 2010 6:14 PM:
Are you saying that the Attorney General is a Democrat? How does your foot taste in your mouth?
The Attorney General that was appointed by the Republican governor signed off on an opinion that said that TVRs are not permitted on ag land.
There is no attorney general opinion that says TVRs are not permitted on ag land.
It’s all about the definition of “TVR”. What is a TVR?
I recommend that all of you folks who think TVR’s on Ag land are illegal read eminent North shore attorney Charley Foster’s blog: Planet Kauai.
(http://planetkauai.blogspot.com/2010/06/ag-land-tvrs-on-agenda-again.html)
He gives an easy to understand reason why even the TVR’s on Ag land (or elsewhere prior to the enactment of Kauai Ordinance 864) were/are not operating illegally. The simple truth is that the State’s regulations (as well as the County’s) defined TVR’s as “multi-unit buildings”, such wording having been aimed at hotels, time shares, etc. The concept of single family transient rentals is not covered at all by State law. No matter what one would wish to think, that’s the way the law works. If it ain’t illegal, it’s legal. Kinda like snuff laced with opium a number of decades ago used to be legal.
HRS §514E-1: “"Transient vacation rentals" means rentals in a multi-unit building….”
So decrying the “illegality” of TVR’s on Ag land merely reveals one’s ignorance of the facts and the law. Se la vi!
Hawaii has state and county zoning laws that apply to ag land. His analysis made no mention of Chapter 205.
He also failed to mention the farm dwelling agreements that people sign before they can build a house on ag land, where they agree that the occupants of the house will be farmers, not tourists.
Chapter 205 can be no clearer. That is the STATE LAW, not an opinion. Please don't argue unless you can cite the section in Chapter 205 HRS that allows TVRs on ag land. If you can't cite the language, please save your breath.
I recommend that all of you folks who think TVR’s on Ag land are illegal read eminent North shore attorney Charley Foster’s blog: Planet Kauai.
Attorneys are full of opinions. Doesn't make them right. Charley has only been licensed to practice law in Hawaii a very short time and land use isn't his specialty.
AGAIN -
Please don't argue unless you can cite the section in Chapter 205 HRS that allows TVRs on ag land. If you can't cite the language, please save your breath.
Can ANYONE cite the section in Chapter 205 HRS that allows TVRs on ag land? Furfaro? Bynum? Kawahara? Kaneshiro? Chang? Charley Foster? Mayor Carvalho? ANYONE??????
oh good LORD, people!
Look, lets just cut to the chase. I can tell you there were more attorneys in that room, then paper in the fax machine.
Seriously, I read all this stuff and my head spins. Can't we just use logic and common sense? Guess not.
Logic: ag land is for agriculture.
Logic: if you are a lawmaker and can't figure out what that is, the Feds have done it for you. they even have suggestions for lawmakers working on ag bills for what works and what doesn't. The Fed laws are pretty clear:
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, Looks like a duck, and tastes like a duck after it has been cooked in an imu, its a DUCK!!!!
If it looks like an iole, (rat for u olelo challenged), smells like a rat, tries to walk like a duck, and sounds like a cross between Donald Duck and Marilyn Manson, its probably a RAT!!.
If its a FARMING OPERATION, a FARM DWELLING is for FARMING PURPOSES. IE, for housing the OHANA that is doing FARMING.
If people spent more time FARMING, and less time building fancy guestrooms for the tourists...GUESS WHAT?\That's right. More actual FARMING going on, and a whole lot less of this #$&@.
ANYONE??????
July 2, 2010 6:15 PM
poor angry confused thing.
-go to law school. Uses, are permitted with special permits, the law, does NOT always CLEARLY say specific uses are legal or illegal.
I could also suggest you lower your estrogen or testosterone, so angry at so many people, why blame others for your misunderstand of the world in which you live? poor angry thing.
-go to law school. Uses, are permitted with special permits,
yes , and if they don't have a special permit, guess they are not legal
Hey Dummy (July 2, 2010 9:14 PM):
I asked for the section in Chapter 205 HRS that allows TVRs on ag land, WITH OR WITHOUT A USE PERMIT! You wont find it. In fact, what you'll find is a clear prohibition of overnight accommodations. That was a very simple question, unless of course you can't find the section. And you won't because it doesn't exist. It is quite obvious that you haven't read Chapter 205. You have based your "expert" opinion on the crap that you read everywhere else but Chapter 205.
Like the add for Kealia Kai I saw on the airplane magazine "Plant yourself, kealia Kai... Madame Hughes was there at the meeting, sitting next to her lawyer... semms like JoAnn and Tim are courting big money rather than the people of Kauai.
Well folks, I looked at HRS 205 and it begins with:
"205-4.5 Permissible uses within the agricultural districts. (a) Within the agricultural district, all lands with soil classified by the land study bureau's detailed land classification as overall (master) productivity rating class A or B shall be restricted to the following permitted uses:..."
So, which of these TVR's on Ag land operate on land with those specific soil classifications? I'm sure these class A and B properties have been specifically identified by the august readership here.
AG's opinion has several sections. One section gives the AG's opinion that the County cannot permit TVR's as an accessory use (the proposed law does not take that route). Another section of the ag's opinion, that opponents conveniently do not quote, basically says that the County can do special permits for non conforming use (the route the bill does take). Remember this was happening for years and years without any discussion until people like Jay and Tim voted to finally make it clear and end it on March 7, 2008. The bill is only about grandfathering prior use. No new TVR's are allowed! Finally!
If TVRs need "special" permits why are TVRs without "special" permits are legal? Can the county grandfather a TVR that is illegal? At least Tim and Jay are trying to deal with it after all these years of being ignored.
"You have based your "expert" opinion"
sounds like you are expert on crap. poor ignorant fool, best ignore the mentally handicap, who are angry at the world because they can't adapt, poor thing.
Aloha Tim and Jay, as councilmembers , please sign your name when you write,
if you believe a word of what you write
July 3, 2010 6:14 AM
angry, like that, should require professional help.
Even if all of a sudden, TVRs are grandfathered on ag land - everyone, and I mean everyone, at least assumed they were doing something illegal - but had TVRs nonetheless. I guess being shady pays off.
Post a Comment