General Plan must be something meaningful

The current Kaua’i General Plan update process was seriously impeded by the

fact that its efforts to reach a consensus essentially failed. It therefore

became a series of platitudes without meaningful standards or sanctions.

But its coup de grace occurred this summer when Gary Baldwin commandeered

the effort, diluted citizens’ provisions for participation, and assured that

whatever message remained was business-oriented.

While several important

issues arose during consideration of the plan, the issue as to the policy the

county should have concerning the visitor industry was paramount. The vision of

the citizens’ group was for the reduction of dependence over the next 20 years

on tourism. The business group urged expansion of the visitor population in

this period.

No responsible economist will contend that reliance on tourism

in an area will enhance the well-being of the residents of that area. On Kaua’i

there is offshore ownership of over 95 percent of tourist accommodations and

car rental facilities and all of the transportation facilities. Yes, tourism

does provide jobs, but the jobs in a service industry are largely poorly paid.

Opportunities for ingenuity and entrepreneurial efforts are limited. The

Caribbean islands are case studies of the relative poverty and impact of point

of origin business cycles which occurs in locations heavily reliant on

tourism.

Those who want to see tourism expand on Kaua’i do have a point. In

the short run, having a job is better than unemployment. But in the longer

view, expansion of tourism will erode the features that make Kaua’i an

attractive tourist destination and will discourage efforts to improve Kaua’i’s

economy by other means.

The County Council will, in the comfort period

following the election, decide whether to accept the toothless plan guilefully

presented by the Planning Commission or to seek something better. It would be

easy to adopt the plan in its current form and in substance relegate it to the

scrap pile. But such an action would not address the ongoing issues.

If

the visitor population is to nearly double from its present level to the year

2020 projections, accommodations will be needed. Under existing practices, all

new facilities will virtually automatically be approved as sought.

If we

are to protect Kaua’i from unlimited expansion, a better way is necessary.

Unless public vote and participation in the case of each new tourist facilities

proposed to be built occurs, Kaua’i will be awash with facilities we may not

need or want, and our island will suffer the loss of our unique

characteristics. Let us join in urging the council to consider this issue

thoughtfully and enact legislation which would create a meaningful public

approval requirement for all new visitor accommodations.

WALTER

LEWIS

Princeville