• Living wills • Assessment increases • Affordable housing solution Living wills In a letter to the Garden Island entitled, “Living Wills,” (4-8-05) Ms. Dux made a valid point: We are all going to die and if we do not
• Living wills
• Assessment increases
• Affordable housing solution
Living wills
In a letter to the Garden Island entitled, “Living Wills,” (4-8-05) Ms. Dux made a valid point: We are all going to die and if we do not want the government, or family, or the church to decide whether or not we are to be kept alive by “artificial means” the best way to avoid this is to make a living will. She asks, “Why are so many religious people afraid of death? Is there anyone who cares to answer?”
I do not consider myself to be a religious person, but in view of the recent case of Teri Schiavo, I believe that our entire culture has reason to be wary. In Schiavo’s case it was after all the “government,” represented by armed guards, that prevented her elderly parents from giving her food and water. This is in spite of the fact that Congress held an emergency session and voted overwhelmingly in support of a “de nova” review of her case. Contrary to what was said by the mainstream media, Schiavo was NOT on life support at the time, and never has been. It was supposedly her “family,” represented by her estranged husband (with a new common law wife), who stood to gain millions by her death. His authority was used to deny her any physical therapy since the year 2000, and ultimately used to deny her even basic sustenance. And it was the “church,” represented by millions of believers, who in the end, were powerless to prevent her from being subjected to a slow, painful death, unfit for an animal.
A living will isn’t a bad idea, especially in a generation that has moved down the slippery slope from prohibiting euthanasia, to voluntary euthanasia, to involuntary euthanasia, to what we have seen recently – which, by any standard is the antithesis of a “good death.” How many of those who took the advise to sign a living will have checked the block that said, “Yes, my last wish is to be slowly dehydrated like a raisin?” Anyone who would submit to such an end should seriously consider a psychological exam before signing anything.
I doubt that “most religious people are afraid of death,” but many have been given reason to fear dying. Most church folk would not want to be kept alive by machines indefinitely, preferring to die by natural causes at home with loved ones around them. That apparently was too much to ask for Teri Schiavo’s parents, who were not even allowed to know where their daughter was to be buried.
Assessment increases
According to the survey conducted by the Kauai Ti Party, most if not all home owners on the island saw a 25% increase in their 2005 assessment of their building value over their 2004 building assessment. When some of us called the Assessors Office for an explanation of this sudden one year increase, when in prior years the yearly increase had run between about 2% and 5%, we were told the Assessors were doing “catching up”, meaning they had not charged us enough increase over the past several years as building costs were increasing; so that they needed to put in this 25% one time increase to even things out.
On first hearing, such an explanation seemed plausible. Upon doing the necessary math and assuming a building cost inflation rate of 5% per year (which is a generous allowance, as it is more than twice the Hawai‘i inflation rate, the Consumer Price Index) this explanation turned out to be either a blatant lie or the result of sloppy math. Let me explain. Compounding a building cost inflation of 5% for five years gives an answer of 27.6%. In other words, if you divide the correct 2005 building assessment by the 2000 value the result should show an increase of 27.6%.
What are the actual increases if you compare your 2005 building assessments with your 2000 values? You will find the number is more like 40% to 50%, way above the conservative theoretical value of 27.6%! In my own case the County’s numbers show a five-year increase of 43.3%. In the case of a friend, the number is 50.8%!
The fudging of numbers by our assessors is in reality worse than these numbers show. In arriving at the annual building assessment we have been told that the formula the assessors use is Replacement Cost minus Depreciation (plus Improvement, if any.) Let’s be conservative and let the depreciation be calculated on a Straight Line 40-Year basis. That would give you a negative assessment change of 2.5% per year. When you subtract that from the generous allowance of 5% building cost inflation you should get a net 2.5% building assessment increase from year to year. For most of us the total increase over a five year period, based on this honest use of the formula, would come out to be 13.14%. Not 40%! Not even 25%!
Let’s see how our Finance Director, whom I thanked a while back in the Garden Island for admitting in a public document that he had not been following his own Tax Code, would respond to this little exposé?
Maybe the Finance Director, the Mayor and the Council Chair should recite in unison, publicly on Ho‘ike, Kauai County Code Chapter 5A (the Tax Code), Section 5A-8.1 and Section 5A-6.3.
Affordable housing solution
When and if land is developed for long-time residents of Kaua‘i who cannot afford a down payment but can afford monthly payments, may I suggest the following.
Instead of modest rental apartments like Kalepa village where there is no hope of saving money for a house, have the government develop land (small lots are fine if done nicely) where they can build a simple, local style main house (3/2 with 2 stall carport) with a modest local style guest house (2/1 w/1 stall carport) – not cheap construction or products that will fall apart in five years but instead save money by good utilization of smaller square footage with nice outdoor space. Use the old plantation style homes as a model…no frills but family friendly!
Do a lease option. The monies they earn from the guest house (either by vacation renting it or long term renting it) would go toward their down payment. Once they have reached 10% of the purchase price towards the down, allow them to purchase the property and pay PMI until they reach 20% down. The County/State get extra revenues from the rental unit along with additional property taxes. If lease optionees fail to keep up their payments, the County/State (whoever owns the development) gets the property back and can release it.
This was just an idea that popped into my head, so I’m sure it can use tweaking. But could it get something started? I hope so!
- Pat Burrelli
Long-term renter
Princeville
