People should have voice in development issues

To the Forum:

Recently,

TGI published a letter from R. E. Weir which opposed a suggestion made for a

public election to occur for approval of major developments. This letter fails

to address the realities which generated the proposal and his objections do not

bear analysis.

At present Kaua’i’s zoning laws are permissive of

developments. In substance our Planning Department and Planning Commission are

simply the vehicles in which the processing of approvals for proposed

developments occurs.

For developers and others who support unlimited

development of Kaua’i this legal environment is idyllic. It is also necessary

to recognize that developers are well financed and persistent and they offer

attractive arguments that their developments will generate jobs and additional

property tax revenues. And developers make generous campaign

contributions.

Our County Council has a history of finding these factors

controlling. If the proposed development enjoys public support the climate is

benign.

However, many of our citizens looking at urban sprawl and the

threat to a rural lifestyle believe that Kaua’i’s growth should be more

controlled. When a project does not have public support and our elected and

appointed officials fail to accept the public will there is a need for a means

to control unwanted developments.

Perhaps Mr. Weir has a better

suggestion, but the imposition of the requirement in these situations of a

public vote is a reasonable one.

Mr. Weir says that the requirement is

“silly” and raises questions about the frequency, costs and criteria for

elections.

The frequency of major developments is limited – there have

been less than 10 over the last 20 years. If the election were to be held as

part of a general election its cost would be minimal.

If the developer

wished a special election it should be paid for by the developer. In neither

case would there be a taxpayer burden.

Mr. Weir then suggests that voter

turnout is “notoriously” low and submits that approval of a project could

depend on the “whim” of a small number of voters.

Fortunately voting on

Kaua’i substantially exceeds the 36 percent rate he cites. As has been said,

democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest, but it

cannot in good conscience be urged that elections should be invalidated because

of limited voter participation.

Finally he asserts that such an election

would be straying from the principles on which America was founded. It is

certainly true as he states that the inalienable rights specified in the Bill

of Rights should not be matters subject to public elections, but the

opportunity of a corporate enterprise to make a commercial development is

clearly not in the same category as freedom of speech, press, worship or

assembly.

If the system currently in place does not carry out the public

will we need a mechanism to correct it. Requiring a public expression in cases

of major developments is such a means.

Walter

Lewis

Princeville