Aloha Everybody!
Happy Valentineʻs Day. Great job so far on making those phone calls -- keep it up! Just a few follow ups, corrections, and thoughts on tomorrowʻs hearing.
First some good news. Sent an action alert to our whole membership this morning and 250 people have sent email comments to the council members and testimony to the clerk. WOOT WOOT!!! Below is a link to the alert -- it is an easy click-n-send testimony program -- forward this link to everyone you can think of. The sooner we can get testimony in the better.
Action Alert Link: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2699/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9524
1. Prepare to testify only once.
I spoke with the Councilʻs clerk and she advised that people will likely only get one chance to testify, even if there are multiple floor draft amendments offered. She said that typically the floor draft amendments are introduced immediately upon taking up a bill and then public testimony is taken on the bill and the proposed amendments. If a motion for a floor draft amendment fails to get six votes, there is still chance after the public testimony phase for councilmembers to try again and propose another floor draft -- so it is not a one shot thing with the amendment.
Given all of the confusion and many variables, she advised not testifying specifically to this or that floor draft amendment, but to the concepts at the heart of the issue -- so "oppose Bill 50 unless the purple spot is removed" is better than "support floor draft amendment 2." And if there are other issues you would like to comment on -- like the Blue Spot -- then you got to do it all one time.
Remember that informing the city council members is a secondary of the hearing tomorrow -- the primary goal is to expose the political collusion of the Tropic Land owners and certain city council members. Having the hearing go for a long time with lots of testimony opposing the spot is one mechanism for demonstrating the collusion. We want to make it clear that there is no good reason to support the purple spot and so strong public opposition to the purple spot... so there must be another reason this or that councilmember is supporting this proposal... like money.
There is no requirement to submit written testimony ahead of time. You can just testify verbally, if you like. You can sign up to testify online (link below) or by calling the Clerk or by signing in when you get there or just waiting till Chair Martin asks if anybody else wants to testify.
I have suggested several people to be called up by the councilmembers, if in the event David Tanoue starts talking bubbles again like last time.
2. Countering David Tanoueʻs and other shibai(s).
We know from conversations with councilmembers that Tanoueʻs "explanations" (really half-truths) are the primary justification some councilmembers are giving for supporting the spot. So I think we really need to take on Tanoue directly. We should not hestitate to frames our statements like "Mr. Tanoue misled you when he said that I-1 is more consistent with agriculture than P-2." Since more than one councilmember is pointing the Tanoue as the reason for their vote -- as opposed to themselves for having misunderstood the law -- I think it is important to provide those members a graceful way to change their vote by highlighting the misleading things he has said.
I also spoke with Kathy Sokugawa, Mr. Tanoueʻs deputy. She did not think the statements he made were misleading. But she did confirm that there is no obstacle to the council voting to remove the purple spot. And that other P-2 activities could occur on the property, provided they comply with the unilateral agreement for the golf course. I read that agreement again yesterday, there is nothing limiting crop production on the Purple Spot. And that if the land were covered in concrete then it would very difficult to change the zoning later from I-1 to Ag-1. We havenʻt been able to find an example where a urban growth boundary has been reduced or an industrial zone has been rezoned for agriculture -- once this switch is flipped there is no going back.
Discussion with Tom Berg revealed that Tropic Land is floating a unilateral agreement of its own for the industrial park -- this is how they would ensure that the industrial park was only for ag use. Hereʻs the hang up: the city council does not enforce the unilateral agreement, the Land Use Commission does. There is no way for the City Council to ensure that Tropic Land would be held to a unilateral agreement of any kind down the road. And interesting how we spent all that time before the LUC and Tropic Land never once offered to be held to unilateral agreement for an ag-related industrial park. This is literally an empty promise -- we have to help the council not fall for it.
3. Correction on the campaign finance info I reported the other day.
I canʻt be sure that Ann Kobayashi received money from Tom Enomoto. She has however received a lot of money from Friends of Romy Cachola, who has in turn received a lot of money from Clyde Kaneshiro. She also has repeated donations from Ernestine Enomoto and Grace Kaneshiro, but I have not been able to demonstrate a link between these ladies and the owners of Tropic Land. So, the email I sent on Sunday night over simplified and over stated the connection between Ann and the developers. For the rest of the council, however, the connection is very clear.
I also wanted to let everyone know that I will be there early, but that I will have to leave by 4:00 -- I have to teach a class at the law school at 5:00 pm -- but if the hearing is still going at 7:00, then I will definitely be back. This means depending on how the hearing goes, I may miss my chance to testify. Let me know about other carpooling needs, transportation challenges, and we can try to work them out so that everybody can get to the hearing.
Mahalo!!
Marti.
372-1314
twitter: @kaheaalliance
Replies