Land Development vs
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1998-06-28
Guests: Dan Davidson (Executive Director, Land Use Research Foundation); Bill Tam (attorney); Maile Bay (consultant); Rick Egged (State Director of Planning)
Duration: 1:02:41

[00:00:03] Randall Roth: Aloha, this is Randy Roth, host of the Price of Paradise show. We're broadcast live Sunday mornings on KHPR and KKUA and then rebroadcast Sunday evenings beginning at 8:00 on KIFO. Everyone who works to bring this program to you is a volunteer who believes in the importance of lively and informed public dialogue. We believe the brightness of any community's future is directly related to the level of activity in its marketplace of ideas. Our sponsor is the Hawaii Community Foundation, an organization that encourages grassroot efforts to improve the quality of life in Hawaii and that administers charitable funds with efficiency and compassion. People new to Hawaii might not realize that our sponsor, the Hawaii Community Foundation, is one of the oldest and largest such organizations in the country.
[00:00:39] Randall Roth: People new to Hawaii might not realize that our sponsor, the Hawaii Community Foundation, is one of the oldest and largest such organizations in the country. It's been earning the people of Hawaii's trust for more than 80 years and in the last 10 years alone, has distributed nearly $80 million in support of local charitable causes. Our topic today has to do with a tension that I suppose is always going to be there. It's a tension between real estate development and environmental protection. If you've had an opportunity to look at this morning's Honolulu Advertiser, the focus section page B3, you see that the headline is, should Governor sign permit deadline bill, and then we have commentaries from four people.
[00:01:06] Randall Roth: If you've had an opportunity to look at this morning's Honolulu Advertiser, the focus section page B3, you see that the headline is, should Governor sign permit deadline bill, and then we have commentaries from four people. Those four people, Bill Tam, Dan Davidson, Miley Bay, and Rick Egged, are going to be with us this morning. Miley Bay and Dan Davidson are here in the studio, and by phone for the first half hour or so of the show, we have Rick Egged and Bill Tam. Rather than tell you what this specific piece of legislation is all about and why it's on the table right now, I think I'm going to turn first to Dan Davidson and ask him to do just that.
[00:01:37] Randall Roth: Rather than tell you what this specific piece of legislation is all about and why it's on the table right now, I think I'm going to turn first to Dan Davidson and ask him to do just that. Dan is the executive director of LURF, otherwise known as the Land Use Research Foundation, a research and trade organization whose members are Hawaii land owners and developers. Dan has personally specialized in land use law and land use planning in Hawaii since 1979, and on behalf of LURF, he regularly appears before state and county legislative bodies and agencies regarding land use, infrastructure, housing, water, and environmental issues. Good morning, Dan.
[00:02:15] Dan Davidson: Good morning, Randy.
[00:02:16] Randall Roth: Dan, I guess you're more or less on the developer side and as I understand it, this bill that we're talking about right now, usually referred to as Senate Bill 2204, is an initiative that has come from from your side of the table if you will. Presumably there's something wrong with the status quo. Tell us a little bit about why something needs to be changed and then how this bill would go about changing it.
[00:02:43] Dan Davidson: Well, first of all, this is a economic revitalization task force bill aimed at revitalizing the economy. So I think it goes further than land development versus environment. It really has to do with the entire economy and how we kick start the economy after seven years of economic decline. I'll focus on the real estate development or development side of it because that's what I really know about. Hawaii has a extraordinarily complex state county permits and approval process. It takes too long, it costs too much money, it's anti consumer. After seven years of really terrible economic difficulty, most in government are recognizing that they need to do something about it. These are the various streamlining efforts that we know about.
[00:03:28] Dan Davidson: These are the various streamlining efforts that we know about. SB 2204 is part of that, which is an effort to create an accountable permit process where the public agencies have to set their own limits and then follow them. If they don't, what the permits that are before them are automatically approved, which is the controversial element of the bill.
[00:03:57] Randall Roth: So under current law that has been in effect now for a number of years, if somebody wants to change conservation land to urban designation or wants to get a permit to do one thing or another that's part of the development process. If they run into a slow, unresponsive bureaucracy, it's the developer's problem. It can go on for years and years and years and years, but as I understand it, under SB 2204, that would turn completely around to where if they aren't denied within a certain period of time, automatically it's approved. And consequently there is, I think in your article this morning, you stressed predictability, they're going to know one way or the other where they are after a certain period of time, and accountability.
[00:04:34] Randall Roth: And consequently there is, I think in your article this morning, you stressed predictability, they're going to know one way or the other where they are after a certain period of time, and accountability. Is that right?
[00:04:45] Dan Davidson: That's right.
[00:04:46] Randall Roth: Okay. Miley Bay is a planner and analyst, specializing in land use and environmental issues in Hawaii. Together with her husband John, they have Bay Pacific Consulting, and some of their clients have been the State Office of Planning on the Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission, University of Hawaii Center for Development Studies, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Trust for Public Land, the Hawaii Audubon Society, the National Park Service, and various landowners and community groups. Before her consulting practice, she has been with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs here in Hawaii as a staff attorney. She's been with the Office of Governor and the Office of State Planning, and she was the administrator for the Coastal Zone Management Office.
[00:05:28] Randall Roth: She's been with the Office of Governor and the Office of State Planning, and she was the administrator for the Coastal Zone Management Office. Good morning Miley.
[00:05:39] Maile Bay: Uh just one note, the Coastal Zone Management Office in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
[00:05:43] Randall Roth: Oh, got you. Okay. Miley, you're I think, perceived as as maybe approaching this from a very different point of view as compared to Dan. I know your article and the the paper this morning came to a different conclusion in terms of what the governor ought to do with 2204. Can you summarize where you are and why?
[00:06:05] Maile Bay: Well, there are several approaches um to the the problem with permit processing. We will recognize, um, in many of the, uh, people who oppose this bill that there are delays, but to recognize why there are delays in the permit processing, um, has to go through the the facts. Um, we feel that often times the delays have been because developers have not submitted complete applications in the process, and they've also withdrawn their applications. Uh, in some instances, um, affording or causing a one year delay automatically that's already written in the rules if you do withdraw your application, in one of the land use designation changes. Um, we feel that, or I feel that because there already are remedies uh to many of the issues that have been put into place, um, we we talk with the the fact that these these laws supposedly been in place for a number of years, but if you look at fact, in one of the the major land use designation changes uh laws, the the Land Use Commission in 1995 changed their uh process by statute.
[00:06:52] Maile Bay: Um, we feel that, or I feel that because there already are remedies uh to many of the issues that have been put into place, um, we we talk with the the fact that these these laws supposedly been in place for a number of years, but if you look at fact, in one of the the major land use designation changes uh laws, the the Land Use Commission in 1995 changed their uh process by statute. The legislature made it a one year time frame for anyone to change agricultural or conservation or urban land to another district. They they have the Land Use Commission has to act within one year and that law came into place in 1995.
[00:07:30] Maile Bay: They they have the Land Use Commission has to act within one year and that law came into place in 1995.
[00:07:35] Randall Roth: Isn't isn't that kind of a mini version then of what we're talking about now?
[00:07:39] Maile Bay: Well, the distinction between what that law did in 1995 and what we're talking about today is that the Land Use Commission is not required to automatically approve every uh application that goes before it uh after the one year. Uh but it puts a time frame which the administration could do on every uh permit or approval process out there right now, um and the agency then has to comply with that time frame. And in fact, since 1995 when that law came into effect, the Land Use Commission has followed that one year rule and has in fact processed um their petitions within uh eight, six to six months to 12 months. The distinction is the automatic approval.
[00:08:22] Maile Bay: The distinction is the automatic approval.
[00:08:24] Randall Roth: Okay. Bottom line is you're saying that the governor should veto 2204. You're saying that we don't really need it. And from your article this morning, I get the impression that you think it's really quite dangerous, that some bad things could happen with 2204.
[00:08:39] Maile Bay: Well, absolutely and they have in the past in terms of automatic approval um in our conservation district use application process. Uh we do have, that's where people go for a permit to do an activity in the conservation district. Um they currently now have to process all those applications within 180 days and in the past several years, there have been several examples of where the voting mechanism um within the Department of of Land and Natural Resources by the board has automatically approved um projects. For example, the Keahole project at the airport uh to build a generation plant on the Big Island was approved uh by default where um there was a three to two vote uh against the project by the board.
[00:09:16] Maile Bay: For example, the Keahole project at the airport uh to build a generation plant on the Big Island was approved uh by default where um there was a three to two vote uh against the project by the board. But because the rules say you have to have a majority of four people to vote in favor, there's there's six people on that board and one person had removed themselves for a conflict because they owned stock in the the parent company of that project. Um that that project was automatically approved because there were not four votes um and that's because there is an automatic approval process written within the CDUA's.
[00:09:57] Randall Roth: So I I think non lawyers are going to get lost in the detail quickly. No, no, no. Quickly, but I think what you're telling everyone is that if 2204 is signed, if it becomes law, we're going to be seeing more development and I think you would suggest that a lot of it is going to be inappropriate development.
[00:10:16] Maile Bay: Uh it could be and there could be the lack of public participation because that may be one of the major issues that I mean that's an issue that's always uh at the heart of many of these types of applications of how much the public should say. So we want to be sure that the public has their their say so in any of these processes.
[00:10:32] Randall Roth: So even if the ultimate decisions were the same, you would want that participation. You would want people to feel as though they're part of the process.
[00:10:39] Maile Bay: Absolutely, people should know what's uh happening in their jurisdiction in their neighborhoods.
[00:10:44] Randall Roth: Okay, that's Miley Bay, a planner and analyst. Next we go to Rick Egged. Rick is a director of the State Office of Planning, an agency that is administratively attached to DBED, the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. Prior to joining DBED, Rick owned a market research firm and managed Agribusiness operations for foremost farms, Haliakala Dairy and Waimanolo Dairy. Good morning, Rick.
[00:11:07] Rick Egged: Good morning, Randy.
[00:11:09] Randall Roth: Rick is off uh taking his son camping and uh his cellular phone had too much static so he ran off 10 minutes ago to find a payphone. Rick, we appreciate all your efforts to give us a nice clear signal this morning.
[00:11:21] Rick Egged: You're welcome Randy.
[00:11:22] Randall Roth: Rick, have you been listening to uh to Dan and and Miley?
[00:11:26] Rick Egged: Yes, I have.
[00:11:28] Randall Roth: Uh where where does the governor, where does the Cayetano administration stand on this issue?
[00:11:34] Rick Egged: Well, the governor and the administration have been supporting Senate Bill 2204 through the legislative process. We're in the process now of our final analysis of the bill that the legislature actually passed. As you know, when it goes through different committees, uh different language is added at various stages of the game, and so we're and we're making sure that the language that actually passed the legislature will accomplish what we set out to do. And uh that review is is what is taking place at this point and uh at the when that is finished, the governor will decide uh whether to sign the bill into law.
[00:12:13] Randall Roth: And you, I think because it is your bill, at least in its original form and it was part of the uh economic revitalization task force recommendations, uh the Cayetano administration, at least in general, thinks it's a good idea to have this kind of automatic approval mechanism. Why is that?
[00:12:33] Rick Egged: Yes, we're obviously, as you point out, we're in favor of the concept because uh it has been was part of the ERTF package and it is a bill that we have been supporting. We think it's important to change the the culture in terms of the way uh government in Hawaii works. And this is and I think it's important to point out, you very you focused with all the people that you have in this discussion, no, with the exception of uh Dan on the um state process. It's important to know that this bill will affect all the county decision making also. This is a bill that um changes the way all government agencies in Hawaii would work, not just the state level.
[00:13:07] Rick Egged: This is a bill that um changes the way all government agencies in Hawaii would work, not just the state level.
[00:13:15] Randall Roth: And Rick, I I think I noticed in your article in this morning's advertiser that all four county mayors are in support of this?
[00:13:22] Rick Egged: Uh no, I didn't um state that. The the point that uh we have we have reviewed this bill with uh the county, at least two of the counties that I've talked to directly and none of the counties uh were ever ever testified against the bill, they were all aware of it. Uh they basically stayed out of the process because for them, uh there's also their city council and county council that they uh that is is part of a decision making on the county level.
[00:13:52] Randall Roth: Okay, well I was referring to something that was in Dan's article and we'll ask him about that in in just a little bit. Anything else, Rick, uh before we we move on and we'll come back to you um uh at about 8:30 to get any thoughts on what you will have heard between now and then. Anything else right now?
[00:14:08] Rick Egged: Yes, I would like to comment on this on the whole general theory of why we should be doing something like this. And that is that from our standpoint, it is important that there be more of a certainty involved in the process. Uh we've set up in the bill, we we testified against efforts to set a specific deadline for every uh permit as a maximum because we felt that it really has to vary from uh one um different type of permit to the next. I mean, at one point, there was a 90 day limit uh in the in the language of the bill. That's gone. The bill allows each agency to determine their time frame and then act within that time frame.
[00:14:41] Rick Egged: The bill allows each agency to determine their time frame and then act within that time frame. And as Miley Bay pointed out, the Land Use Commission has had no difficulty doing that. Once that one year time frame was applied to them, they've been able to make all their decisions in that time frame. We know that this may mean that there will be more um denials because if a agency does not have enough information to uh give an affirmative decision, they know that no action will be an affirmative decision, they will have to take action denying the application.
[00:15:15] Randall Roth: So, in effect, uh it's forcing these agencies to be well, maybe efficiency's not the right word, but they're going to have to act one way or the other up or down within a fixed period of time, we're going to see more action.
[00:15:28] Rick Egged: Absolutely. And I and we think that government owes the private sector and the public exactly that.
[00:15:34] Randall Roth: Okay. Uh Rick, thank you and again we'll be coming back to you in just a bit. Our fourth guest this morning is Bill Tam. Uh Bill is an attorney here in Hawaii who for the last 21 years has specialized in land and natural resources law. Uh currently he's with the law firm of Austin, Hunt, Floyd, and Ing. Before that, he spent 16 years in the Attorney General's office representing the Board of Land and Natural Resources and the State Water Commission on matters including the Campbell Geothermal permit and more recently the Waihole Ditch Case. Uh Bill also was an adjunct professor at the UH School of Law for a number of years. Bill, good morning.
[00:16:14] Bill Tam: Good morning.
[00:16:15] Randall Roth: Bill, I know that uh you think that the governor ought to veto Senate Bill 2204. I get that out of this morning's newspaper. Tell us uh why.
[00:16:26] Bill Tam: Well, I think there's a situation in which the goal is laudable, but the remedy is is a danger. Um, MKing once remarked that nothing gets abused so quickly as a good idea, and I think this may be an example. The situation is that we have um automatic approvals of business and development related permits once the maximum deadline is hit. And that may vary as as Rick pointed out a moment ago, with different permits. The situation is going to be not in simple permits, but in the most complex permits. We're going to get a project approved as Miley pointed out in the Keo Hole case, with no conditions. In other words, once the deadline passes, in effect, the judge loses the capacity to make a decision and it's approved regardless of the merits.
[00:17:03] Bill Tam: In other words, once the deadline passes, in effect, the judge loses the capacity to make a decision and it's approved regardless of the merits. In the Keo Hole case, the land board had actually voted three to two with one recusal that um turn down the permit. And leaving aside whatever the merits of that project might be, that was a case in which by virtue of a quorum problem and also an interpretation of the Attorney General's office that you had to actually have four votes to deny it as opposed to four votes to approve it, which is a peculiar interpretation in that particular instance. You have the deadlock situation resulting in a project which has no other conditions related to it.
[00:17:36] Bill Tam: You have the deadlock situation resulting in a project which has no other conditions related to it. I'm not sure how the Attorney General's office is going to be able to defend cases in which they really don't have a view one way or the other, as they actually said in their papers in that case.
[00:17:53] Randall Roth: Bill, is is this along the lines of what Miley said in her article, that that this Senate Bill 2204 makes about as much sense as trimming one's toenails with a cleaver? Um, you're telling me that that it it if we get up to that automatic approval, it's just a black or white sort of thing as opposed to sitting down and fine tuning with a scalpel, if you will, some sort of set of conditions. Do I have that right?
[00:18:18] Bill Tam: Yeah, imagine for example you were in a trial and a judge was going along and there were a series of motions and as in many trials, you can't always control the time it takes to conduct it. But at some point, somebody walked in the courtroom and said, this case is over and it's automatically you're convicted. And the penalty is going to be death penalty or 25 years in jail, and there's going to be an extreme remedy. And it was a function of running a courtroom by virtue of a stopwatch. I mean, you may get a certain ways down the line, but it says nothing about the relative merits of that particular issue. The the irony in this case is is completely within the power of the government right now to accomplish these goals without this draconian remedy.
[00:18:49] Bill Tam: The the irony in this case is is completely within the power of the government right now to accomplish these goals without this draconian remedy. I mean, I think the simple answer would be that the governor
[00:19:00] Speaker 1: frankly, could call his cabinet together and say, let's establish deadlines. I think that's a good idea. And if you reach the point where you can't meet those deadlines, let's figure out, and much the way a a business looks at its accounts receivables, let's look at and say 30, 60, 90 day problems and let's help solve those problems. May needs more resources. I mean, I don't think we should kid ourselves that if they can't do the job now with existing resources, penalizing them is not necessarily going to make them speed up.
[00:19:28] Randall Roth: Why why do you think the governor is going the 2204 route as opposed to what you're describing?
[00:19:34] Speaker 1: I'm not sure because I think in some ways um in it there's a psychological aspect of of people being accelerated. I mean, that's the that's the thought that somehow this is going to make people work faster. But if governor is quite capable of doing that right now, I mean he can have his cabinet meeting and direct people to come up with these rules which you know, they can do within a certain time period. I think there are some other traditional remedies that are available also. For example, there's a there's a notion in law called Mandamus, which the Hawaii legislature ended some years ago. But it basically is an order from a court or higher official to a lower official saying, carry out this task by a certain time.
[00:20:04] Speaker 1: But it basically is an order from a court or higher official to a lower official saying, carry out this task by a certain time. And the legislature could reinstitute Mandamus. you could provide a remedy whereby a hearings officer could, for example, listen to on an expedited basis, listen to both sides and say, you know, there's good cause here why you're going to have to continue this. But the remedy shouldn't be ultimately that the public suffers a bad project simply because, for example, the department's understaffed. You know, as we go through further cutbacks, the people in the in the state government are faced with doing more work with less people, and everybody thinks that's easy. It's not.
[00:20:31] Speaker 1: You know, as we go through further cutbacks, the people in the in the state government are faced with doing more work with less people, and everybody thinks that's easy. It's not. I mean, there are due process requirements which apply to the government which do not apply to the private sector and people tend to forget that you've got to go through certain requirements under the sunshine law. Okay. one other aspect I just want to mention. There's a danger here that that we will in effect, end up with not democratic majority rule, but actually anti-democratic minority rule. In other words, if you can delay something by virtue of a whole variety of things, you can get your permit approved no matter what.
[00:21:00] Speaker 1: In other words, if you can delay something by virtue of a whole variety of things, you can get your permit approved no matter what. And I don't think that's fundamentally consistent with our constitutional obligations to govern as opposed to just to default government.
[00:21:14] Randall Roth: Okay. Bill, we'll come back to you uh in just a little bit to get some additional thoughts. I know you as well as Rick have to to get going. Uh, in case you tuned in late, you're listening to the Price of Paradise radio show. My name is Randy Roth, and we're talking generally about the tension between real estate development and environmental protection. Specifically, we're talking about a piece of legislation that's sitting on the governor's desk right now. It's referred to as Senate Bill 2204, and basically it would say that if a developer who wants to change a land classification or zoning or get a permit to further some development, the old approach which exists today, is that if it doesn't get acted upon, and doesn't get acted upon, etcetera, no matter how much time passes, that's just tough luck for the developer.
[00:21:51] Randall Roth: the old approach which exists today, is that if it doesn't get acted upon, and doesn't get acted upon, etcetera, no matter how much time passes, that's just tough luck for the developer. Senate Bill 2204, if the governor signs it, or if he allows it to go into law without vetoing it, it's going to say the bureaucracy has a certain amount of time during which to approve or deny it, and if it does neither, then it's automatically approved. There's a lot of detail that only a lawyer could love, but I think there are a lot of non lawyers out there that recognize that this is very, very important to the future of Hawaii. If you'd like to get in line to ask a question or make a comment, give us a call at 955-8821.
[00:22:28] Randall Roth: If you'd like to get in line to ask a question or make a comment, give us a call at 955-8821. If you're on a neighbor island, it's 1-800-955-8821. Well, Dan, I'll bet you've uh had the urge to jump in and say a few things. You started this off. You feel strongly that change is in order and the 2204 would be good change. You've listened to uh a couple critics of this legislation, Miley Bay and Bill Tam. Uh, any comments based on what you've been listening to or additional thoughts to share?
[00:23:04] Speaker 2: Sure. First of all, I think it's very important to recognize the broader uh impact of this beyond land developers. uh if a high tech company wants to come to Hawaii, their first question is how long does it take before I know if I can get approved? if a new hospital wants to relocate here, if a new university wants to relocate. It isn't just a question of developers building houses. It's much broader than that, which we think is one of the benefits. Bill and Miley may made some good points. I'm glad they're so strongly in favor of streamlining. And incidentally, in my article where I talk about the governor and the mayors, I'm saying they're in support of streamlining in general.
[00:23:36] Speaker 2: Bill and Miley may made some good points. I'm glad they're so strongly in favor of streamlining. And incidentally, in my article where I talk about the governor and the mayors, I'm saying they're in support of streamlining in general. To me, the the the interesting thing is how Bill and Miley both went right to the exceptional circumstances as opposed to what's generally happened over the years. which since 95 the land use Commission can meet their deadlines, which is good. uh Board of Land and Natural Resources has had the deemed approved model uh for well over a decade. I've heard of maybe two instances in the hundreds of approvals they've had to issue over that period of time where deemed approved has come into play.
[00:24:27] Speaker 2: I've heard of maybe two instances in the hundreds of approvals they've had to issue over that period of time where deemed approved has come into play. And one of them, K Holly was extraordinarily complex, lots of litigation back and forth. It again, the exceptions. I think that what we need to focus on in the public interest is a permit process that works better for the public 98-99% of the time, and not try to legislate for the exceptions.
[00:25:13] Randall Roth: And I guess Rick's word uh which describes what you were also saying, is is just the certainty. It sends the signal out there that people are interested in setting up a business or whatever it might be in Hawaii, that there is some degree of certainty as compared to quote, the old days, when who knows when government regulation might come around to giving you an answer. Absolutely. Miley Bay, I'll bet you've got some thoughts on all of that.
[00:25:40] Maile Bay: Oh, absolutely. Um, I think you when we talk about exceptions, uh, um I think what Bill and I are referring to are are are fairly egregious situations. But those exceptions have taken place, and they do, the time frame uh, delays have occurred, primarily, in our agricultural and conservation districts. uh, which is where developers come in and buy the less expensive, cheaper land uh over the urban district, where they have to go through a much lengthier permit process. And I'm not going to go into all the details of that, but um our agricultural land has been there for many years, as our our main stay of our economy, and has been recognized by our legislature, given these protections, our conservation district calls our natural resources, many of those that we enjoy and attract visitors here also.
[00:26:10] Maile Bay: And I'm not going to go into all the details of that, but um our agricultural land has been there for many years, as our our main stay of our economy, and has been recognized by our legislature, given these protections, our conservation district calls our natural resources, many of those that we enjoy and attract visitors here also. Uh Jack Myers, as you can see on my article, um my that I know wrote this morning, built in the urban district primarily, um he left town not losing a cent as he said. But he uh built here uh during uh tough economic times and and made a profit. Um the we must recognize that the the that there have been measures put into place to help streamline the process.
[00:26:46] Maile Bay: Um the we must recognize that the the that there have been measures put into place to help streamline the process. the one year rule for the land use commission was one of those streamlined measures. That was 1995. Um we have predictability within that time frame. Previous to that, they had uh process their permits in one to two years, uh recognizing that often times those delays were from um intervenors uh into the process.
[00:27:13] Randall Roth: Miley, is that all a way of saying what we have today isn't as bad as what the people who support 2204 would suggest?
[00:27:21] Maile Bay: Uh, absolutely. That there there are safeguards put there today to protect what are our resources and that's what the the time frames are about. Um and to automatically approve everything across the board, um is just not going to to help the economy.
[00:27:38] Randall Roth: So we need a balancing and you would suggest that the status quo without 2204 is a reasonable balancing of the competing interests here?
[00:27:45] Maile Bay: To yes to a degree. There is also the task force that has been established by the legislature to look into the problems that exist in attempting to to to see where the delays are occurring because in all this process, as Bill and I mentioned exceptions, no one has told us which projects have been delayed and given an ability to come in and any of the testimony that on this bill, to say, okay, was that the developers problem there or was that the government's problem? And if it was the government's problem, then let the administration and over the last 30 years, make the predictability, establish the rules for time frames, such as the one year that was established by the legislature for the LUC.
[00:28:15] Maile Bay: And if it was the government's problem, then let the administration and over the last 30 years, make the predictability, establish the rules for time frames, such as the one year that was established by the legislature for the LUC. Let the the executive branch do that. The executive branch can take that that platform position and they can establish accountability for their employees and establish that kind of leadership.
[00:28:38] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, we're going to go to some callers in in just a bit, but two of our guests who are with us by phone, have to get going. So, we're going to go back to them and give them one last quick crack at the topic. First, let's go to Rick Egger. Uh, Rick is the um uh part of the governor's team. Rick is the head of the office of planning at D Bed. Uh Rick, a couple of the uh critics of this legislation have suggested that it's unnecessary that that really we just need more leadership from the governor, that the governor has it within his power unilaterally to do what this legislation is all about.
[00:28:58] Randall Roth: Uh Rick, a couple of the uh critics of this legislation have suggested that it's unnecessary that that really we just need more leadership from the governor, that the governor has it within his power unilaterally to do what this legislation is all about. What's what's your reaction to that?
[00:32:56] Rick Egged: the governor not believe that the status quo is acceptable. There's no question given the circumstances regarding our economy and that there's a perception that Hawaii is not a business uh friendly place to uh locate and to work on any sort of um business venture. And again, as as uh Dan pointed out, this is not just a development bill. That does not just affect development permits, it affects all business related permits. We think there's a overriding need to change the way government does business in Hawaii. Uh that's why this bill is um been proposed and has was passed by the legislature in order to accomplish that that very major, we agree it's a very major bill and it would change the way uh government has to do business and has to think in Hawaii.
[00:33:35] Rick Egged: Uh that's why this bill is um been proposed and has was passed by the legislature in order to accomplish that that very major, we agree it's a very major bill and it would change the way uh government has to do business and has to think in Hawaii. but we think that that's an absolutely necessary change to the status quo. Okay. and you see this Certainly, the governor, if I could just quickly conclude here. uh, certainly the governor has taken many steps and uh to in order to accomplish this administratively. But the governor does not have the power to to bring in the automatic approval process as the um the final determining factor in terms of getting uh the agencies to act in a very expeditious fashion.
[00:34:07] Rick Egged: But the governor does not have the power to to bring in the automatic approval process as the um the final determining factor in terms of getting uh the agencies to act in a very expeditious fashion. And again, this is not just state agencies. It covers all state agencies and county agencies, and admittedly, those are not um all under the jurisdiction of the governor administratively. Uh this bill is is uh an important part of that streamlining effort. I think that what we should look at in terms of of not having this changing culture is instead, we should look at if any particular need uh is present to address circumstances that might affect one agency or another, as much as possible, we want to address them in the rule making process.
[00:34:36] Rick Egged: I think that what we should look at in terms of of not having this changing culture is instead, we should look at if any particular need uh is present to address circumstances that might affect one agency or another, as much as possible, we want to address them in the rule making process. That could cover things like the conditions that would take effect if a if a uh project were automatically approved or if um any other uh adjustments need to be made those can be made in the in the future. But the the bottom line is we need to change the way government uh does business.
[00:35:10] Randall Roth: Okay. and a new regulatory culture as you put it. Right. Okay, thank you, Rick. Hope you and your son have a great camping trip.
[00:35:17] Rick Egged: Thanks, Randy.
[00:35:18] Randall Roth: Uh, real quickly to Bill Tam. Uh Bill was with the State Attorney General's Office for 16 years, for 21 years. He's been an attorney here in Hawaii specializing in Hawaii land and natural resource law. Bill, parting thoughts from you.
[00:35:32] Bill Tam: Well, I I I agree that the goal is laudatory. The problem is there are some cases, and they're usually the most complex cases where these kinds of deadlocks will occur. And so the problem is with the remedy. You don't you don't shoot the judge because the trial is going to be over at some fixed time and that's essentially what's being proposed here. The problem is not that bureaucrats sometimes take long. That is within the power of the governor, presumably right now, to order and the assumption somehow is the automatic approval bill will create a greater fear, they'll somehow act faster. That's a misconception. The problem with that automatic process is it ignores that there are outside forces that cause different delays.
[00:36:01] Bill Tam: That's a misconception. The problem with that automatic process is it ignores that there are outside forces that cause different delays. In complex cases you often have to refine a project by additional information. You could have a contested case in which third parties due process rights are involved. In the K holdi case and as in others, the situation may arise in where in in the land use context, a neighboring land owner is in a case and suddenly the case just ends and that that's just fundamentally wrong. And so what we don't need here is we don't need a hammer to hit ourselves on the toe in it in in hard situations. We simply need we need deadlines and we can do those by rules.
[00:36:31] Bill Tam: And so what we don't need here is we don't need a hammer to hit ourselves on the toe in it in in hard situations. We simply need we need deadlines and we can do those by rules. I would I guess I would close with one one thought. The Mandamus notion that I I mentioned earlier is available or if if the if the legislature would pass that. And the other thing to do is simply to um have a schedule or a chart when something's coming up, and if a department needs more help, that's what the governor is there to do. The governor can say we'll put some more resources there and make sure this get done in time, but you can't just cut the department's budgets, expect them to work longer, and especially as things pick up in the economy, expect the staff that now exists to handle something in a faster way just out of sheer fear.
[00:37:02] Bill Tam: The governor can say we'll put some more resources there and make sure this get done in time, but you can't just cut the department's budgets, expect them to work longer, and especially as things pick up in the economy, expect the staff that now exists to handle something in a faster way just out of sheer fear. That's just that's just not a rational way to conduct government.
[00:37:20] Randall Roth: So I guess we've we've refined the uh the metaphor a bit, you shouldn't trim your toenails with a hammer.
[00:37:27] Bill Tam: Let's hope we don't do it.
[00:37:29] Randall Roth: Okay. Bill, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
[00:37:31] Bill Tam: Thanks very much.
[00:37:32] Randall Roth: In case you tuned in late, you're listening to the Price of Paradise radio show. We're talking about development versus um environmental protection generally, but specifically about Senate Bill 2204, which many people perceive as something, I guess on the positive side would streamline the permit seeking process. On on the negative side, there are some people who are fearful that it might um result in less protection of our resources and that's what the the time frames are about.
[00:38:00] Speaker 1: environment. We've had waiting uh on the line for some time, Carl from Kani Ohe. If anyone would like to get in line behind Carl, the number is 9558821. Carl, thanks for waiting. Good morning.
[00:38:12] Caller: Hi, folks. Got a question about how the uh bill would work if it is in fact enacted and signed into law. Uh, land use uh permitting or any permitting is in part discretionary and in part not discretionary. There's certain projects that simply don't fit the legal criteria under a particular statute. How would this bill apply to a project that is simply outside the legal criteria for the granting of a particular permit? Uh, it sounds to me like it would be automatically approved at that period even though if it had gone through the full process, it could not legally have been approved. And how would the public go about challenging a an approval of an substantively unlawful project on this bill?
[00:38:33] Caller: How would this bill apply to a project that is simply outside the legal criteria for the granting of a particular permit? Uh, it sounds to me like it would be automatically approved at that period even though if it had gone through the full process, it could not legally have been approved. And how would the public go about challenging a an approval of an substantively unlawful project on this bill?
[00:39:01] Speaker 1: Okay. Let me uh let me direct that to to Dan Davidson. And and Dan, I guess I'm sitting here saying to myself, well, if it if it doesn't fit, then it'll be denied, but but what if it isn't denied?
[00:39:13] Dan Davidson: Well, I'm trying to understand uh uh the context of uh something that doesn't fit in the process. I mean, your your basic answer is correct, that if if something is substantively uh completely out of line, the obvious administrative solution to that is to deny the permit. Furthermore, in in the example of somehow if it's approved, it's subject to appeal, court action, uh all the usual Chapter 91 remedies uh to address uh an invalid or inappropriate permit.
[00:39:50] Speaker 1: Let let let me ask our caller, Carl. Is your concern or underlying your question, is there a sense that maybe there's going to be some some incompetence or worse um with the bureaucrats that something should be denied, but for whatever reason, it's not going to be denied and therefore it's automatically going to be approved. Is that your concern?
[00:40:12] Caller: Yeah, collusion between uh the bureaucracy and a politically well-fixed project.
[00:40:18] Speaker 1: Okay. And let me let me put it in those terms and and ask Dan because now, if if there's collusion uh not to act on something, it hurts the developer. Under 2204, I think what Carl is suggesting is that if there's collusion not to act, it's going to help the developer. What do you think?
[00:40:37] Dan Davidson: No, I I think that it's it's very important to illustrate that in all these various permits and approval, the agencies are going to be able to set their time limits. In one version of this bill, in fact, the House of Representatives felt very strongly about it as as Rick indicated. They wanted an arbitrary 60-day approval period right in the law. We opposed that because it wouldn't work. It wasn't fair to the agencies, it didn't allow them enough time to do their work. And a 60-day may fit a conditional use permit and urban land in the city and county of Honolulu, it's not going to fit some of these complex state permits. So, uh developers, businesses, uh they want valid permits done the right way and it's not in their interest for the system to run any other way because they're just going to be in court.
[00:41:34] Speaker 1: Carl, does that answer your question?
[00:41:36] Caller: Well, no, it doesn't actually because I uh am not at all sure that the law really does provide for judicial review of uh permitting under uh automatic permitting, and that's one of the problems with this bill. It's rather poorly drafted and it does not uh explain uh what happens in that situation. But uh I could imagine circumstances where a uh developer of a particularly controversial uh question would be quite happy to simply wait six months and let something become uh permitted automatically where as opposed to a situation of going to a public uh hearing that they know would be controversial and that they know that they would lose, if the public really had any input in into the situation.
[00:42:21] Speaker 1: Okay. Carl, I'm going to end the this conversation by giving you the last word on that, and thank you for calling. We go to Lloyd in Waikiki. Good morning, Lloyd.
[00:42:30] Caller: Uh I think uh it'll be snowing here in Waikiki before the governor ever vetoes that particular bill. Uh it's all part of the system of that uh task force is to develop, develop, develop. I I don't know why people don't realize that the more we keep it down even though, you know, because we're in an island. If we keep developing every every inch of these islands the next couple three, 400 years, we're going to have a hellhole here on our on our hands and I think it's it's it's it's sure we're against some development because we have to be. If we don't what's going to happen to these islands? We're just going to have a developed island from side to side. It's just it's just unreal. Okay. You know and I think that um one of the things is that we've got to quit thinking about development development development. It we got enough zoning now Okay in Eva and all of these areas here on Oahu to never think about development for quite a long time.
[00:43:27] Speaker 1: Lloyd, you've made your point quite well. I appreciate your call. Aloha. And to listeners out there, you know, we've got a lot of lawyers talking about a lot of the details of this legislation. But I think for better or worse, um you know, Lloyd has has articulated what at least is the perception of a lot of people that that really at stake here is more than just a lot of legal details at stake here is what uh Hawaii is going to look like many years down the road again for better or worse and we really encourage you to call and ask your question or make your comment. The number is 9558821. We go to Greg from Maui. Good morning, Greg.
[00:44:05] Caller: Oh, good morning. Hi, I just wanted to say, I really agree with what that fellow just said right before I I just spoke here. And uh I think uh that if if it carries on like it is, I'd really hate to see Maui turn into like Honolulu over there. And uh well one thing that I've noticed even though I think I I would disagree with this bill that that uh you're talking about, I really I noticed that so much work is being done, I mean just so many houses and so much development being done without any permits at all. And that's a funny thing that that's going on a lot out here. Okay. And I think that's just uh there's it's so hard to get permits that that a lot of people will just risk it and just build whatever they can and hope that their neighbors don't call up on them, you know what I mean? So whether we have automatic approval after a period of time or not, there ought to be more efficiency so far as the permit process is concerned.
[00:44:54] Speaker 1: I think so. Uh but uh I'd hate to see for the whole place to be developed though. Okay, thank you Greg. Appreciate your call. We got a Frank from Honolulu. Good morning, Frank.
[00:45:03] Caller: Morning Randy. Just just a a little comment about the last two caller's points and then I want to ask something um as far as overdevelopment goes, of course, to have a very congested kind of development, but I think everyone in Honolulu at least and I wonder if it goes for the outer islands, is aware of that clear to the sea corridor idea that Alfred Price had instituted where you cannot build everything um uh shoulder to shoulder, there must be views to the the mountain to the sea.
[00:45:36] Speaker 1: Okay.
[00:45:37] Caller: Okay, my my question is in case of a a change in the regimes democrat to Republicans can we expect that the Republicans are going to be more as far as business practice goes or are we going to be seeing something even more hard nose as far as business um um uh uh uh uh on on on on on unwise business or overdevelopment or pro pro business goes?
[00:46:06] Speaker 1: I guess that's a question a lot of people are going to ask themselves as they walk into the uh the ballot. uh I like to know the opinion of the people there. Well, I'll tell you what, that's a that's a a provocative political question Frank.
[00:46:17] Caller: Well, you know it seems it seems like that the Democrats and the Republicans these days are rather interchangeable except for uh individual sticking out on both sides of the fence and so I'm just wondering Republicans are usually known to favor business much more. So Hawaii seems to think that it seems Hawaii would think that Republicans would would be better to be in Republican's hands but as as we know, Republicans are so down in Hawaii. Okay.
[00:46:42] Speaker 1: Well, I'm going to give you the last word on that because really it is a provocative comment I think rather a question. Thank you, Frank. We got a number of people on the line and we're going to go to them, but I want to ask real quickly both Miley and Dan, there seems to be a lot of distrust of of the regulatory process, whether it's on what I'll call the developer side or what I'll call the environmentalist side and obviously we're not talking about a linear spec spectrum here. There are a lot of different perspectives and degrees of concern, but from both sides, if it's two-sided, there seems to be a lot of um distrust in the regulatory process, Dan, is that right?
[00:46:48] Speaker 1: We got a number of people on the line and we're going to go to them, but I want to ask real quickly both Miley and Dan, there seems to be a lot of distrust of of the regulatory process, whether it's on what I'll call the developer side or what I'll call the environmentalist side and obviously we're not talking about a linear spec spectrum here. There are a lot of different perspectives and degrees of concern, but from both sides, if it's two-sided, there seems to be a lot of um distrust in the regulatory process, Dan, is that right?
[00:47:20] Dan Davidson: I think that's right. And I think our 6 to 7 year, very extended, very complex permit and approvals process has actually contributed to that. I think that accountable faster with full opportunity for public input so that everybody feels they had a really good opportunity to participate is better than our endless sort of torture of things that doesn't satisfy anybody.
[00:47:49] Speaker 1: So 2204 would force the bureaucrats, the people who who handle the the regulatory process to to set it up, set it up right, and we wouldn't have this lack of trust, if you will, that we currently have.
[00:48:03] Dan Davidson: Well, I'm not sure we go that far. The other quick point is that this bill does not alter one single substantive rule or regulation on the books. It strictly deals with processing. It doesn't wipe anything out. It's still all there.
[00:48:16] Speaker 1: So, in theory you should get the same decisions, you're just going to get them in a more timely fashion. Correct. Okay. Miley Bay.
[00:48:23] Maile Bay: Uh well, what we would I would agree with is the the fact that the the part of the bill that requires the government to outline what the requirements are for permits is is essential. And I think that a lot of the distrust and and and listening to uh one of the the callers this morning is, for example, building permits in different parts of of the smaller permit processing. People want to build that porch, people want to put in that bathroom, and they don't want have to wait um and an an inordinate amount of time. They want to have predictability of how long that permit will take. Uh when we talk to 6 to 7 years, I mean this is the dichotomy that we're talking about. Uh 6 to 7 years for a permit in our conservation our agricultural lands is a far cry from a building permit, and we end up mixing a lot of apples and oranges in this bill. Now, if we would just crop provide accountability by uh government agencies to say what's required for any permit process, I think that would address the trust issue. But um to to lump it all together in uh SB 2204 is is just a is we're we're still trimming our toenails with, you know, a cleaver, a hammer, machete, your your choice.
[00:49:33] Speaker 1: Something. Okay. Uh we go back to our phone lines. First, David in Nuuanu. Good morning, David.
[00:49:38] Caller: Good morning. Uh I I wanted to make just one point, which was that where a border commission uh is to act on some permit or something like that, uh the governor doesn't have any authority to change or direct that result. All he can do is is remove a member of the commission and and then perhaps reappoint one who then has to be confirmed. But uh it's not something where the governor can just say, do it.
[00:50:04] Speaker 1: So for example, when when Bill Tam says, we don't need 2204, all we need is leadership from the governor, you would say that's really not true.
[00:50:14] Caller: Well, it's certainly not true in every instance. I don't know of some permits or or things like that that that may be approved by a single administrator, but a border commission is an independent authority.
[00:50:26] Speaker 1: Okay. Anything else, David?
[00:50:28] Caller: Um no.
[00:50:29] Speaker 1: Appreciate appreciate your comment. We go to Lila from Iaea. Good morning, Lila.
[00:50:34] Caller: Good morning. In this festival of possible worlds, if our laws were followed uh efficiently and morally and ethically, uh then perhaps 2204 uh might be uh a good bill. However, you mentioned Nelha, Kailua a number of times on the state laws. Um, the developers, once they find bones are supposed to stop. Instead, right now, in Kailua, at night, they are blowing up Hawaiian bones. So you wonder why Hawaiians and environmentalists are worried about what our legislature is doing and what our bureaucrats are doing. And that is a project that's squeezed in. So we're going to have projects that occur simply because somebody didn't do their job.
[00:51:37] Speaker 1: Okay. Mahaloha. Appreciate the call. We go to Lisa from Maui. Good morning, Lisa.
[00:51:42] Caller: Good morning. Can you hear me?
[00:51:43] Speaker 1: I sure can. You're on the air.
[00:51:46] Caller: Well, I think like everybody else that we've been listening to, um much of the public is opposed to this. But my basic question is, what is the fastest way for me to let the governor know that we're against this? How do we get in contact with him?
[00:52:02] Maile Bay: Um, you can call his campaign headquarters. I don't have the number right in front of me, I'm sorry. Um or you can call his office, and I believe there are toll free numbers from the neighbor islands and uh and advise that you are opposing this piece of legislation.
[00:52:19] Caller: Okay, and can we be sure that he will get those messages?
[00:52:23] Maile Bay: Um well the the in terms of um the the campaign that's out there to oppose the bill that's what we have faith in.
[00:52:33] Speaker 1: Okay. Lisa, thank you for your call. Uh real quickly, Dan, are you surprised that um most of the calls do seem to be in opposition to 2204. Most of the calls seem to support the notion that it should be vetoed?
[00:52:48] Dan Davidson: No, I anticipated that from the uh um sort of the way it's playing out right now. I don't think that in the represents the feelings necessarily of the general public at all. How do you think the general public uh approaches this topic? I think that people in general want government to work better. That doesn't mean they're in favor as I'm not in favor of untrammeled growth and development. Uh we have to follow our plans. We have to do it right. But we we have to know that that there's a a discipline, a system, an accountability, so we get answers. Some of the answers are going to be no. Uh but the system now where everything is is at the expense of the applicant, that's whether it's a homeowner or whether it's a developer, uh I think is is a real problem in terms of our business climate.
[00:53:05] Dan Davidson: I think that people in general want government to work better. That doesn't mean they're in favor as I'm not in favor of untrammeled growth and development. Uh we have to follow our plans. We have to do it right. But we we have to know that that there's a a discipline, a system, an accountability, so we get answers. Some of the answers are going to be no. Uh but the system now where everything is is at the expense of the applicant, that's whether it's a homeowner or whether it's a developer, uh I think is is a real problem in terms of our business climate.
[00:53:44] Speaker 1: Okay. Let's go to Astrid in Kailua. Good morning, Astrid. Astrid, are you there?
[00:53:51] Caller: Oh, this is Michael.
[00:53:53] Speaker 1: Okay. Well, we skipped over Astrid. Let's go to Michael then uh on the Big Island. Good morning, Michael.
[00:53:57] Caller: Good morning. Uh I just wanted to comment on the idea of the recession and try to reframe that concept because we hear it's used as a lever for all kinds of things. But I would like to suggest that that the idea of a recession is a kind of a majority or negative term, but one could reframe it and say the current economic condition is actually a no-growth equilibrium which could be viewed as an ideal both for this state and for the global situation so that instead of labeling our current economic situation negatively as a recession, we could label it in as as approaching a more ideal state of no-growth equilibrium.
[00:54:44] Speaker 1: Okay. Michael, we appreciate your comment this morning. Um, can we go to Astrid in Kailua? Astrid, are you there? We've got a problem getting through to Astrid. Let's skip on down to Dave in Kailua. Good morning, Dave.
[00:54:57] Caller: Good morning, Randy. Uh I just wanted to follow up on uh just the kind of the title. Uh yes, it's part of a new culture on the Rick Eggert article there. Uh to me, it's kind of startling to hear Mr. Eggert refer to a new government culture. Uh I appreciate the need for change in government, but uh to me, the culture of government has been a big part of our problem in the state. Uh and as as we can see from Lila's comments, the the culture that is of greatest uh uh impact and import in this state oftentimes is uh given very short shrift by this government culture that is now in existence and is are trying to get even a little more power and uh being able to pass permits through uh you know in a short short order without due deliberation.
[00:55:52] Speaker 1: Okay. So I'd be very strongly opposed and will continue to resist this bill but uh I I think that the idea of government culture is one that needs a lot more discussion and debate in this state. Uh I guess it's good that Mr. Eggert raised it in this context. Uh, however, uh I think that as as I read the article, it's just a very good example of of how culture and and the use of terms can actually be abused. Okay. And I guess as Frank commented earlier, we'll find out in November uh whether the people think um Governor Cayetano has done a a good job of of changing the culture in a positive sort of way or whether the people feel that it's time to give um uh somebody else, maybe somebody from a different party, an opportunity to to have a shot at that.
[00:56:22] Speaker 1: Okay. And I guess as Frank commented earlier, we'll find out in November uh whether the people think um Governor Cayetano has done a a good job of of changing the culture in a positive sort of way or whether the people feel that it's time to give um uh somebody else, maybe somebody from a different party, an opportunity to to have a shot at that.
[00:56:42] Dan Davidson: Well, I I would agree that that's the opportunity. I don't really see a big broad range of choices uh you know, between Republicans and Democrats at this stage. Uh so the public is offered uh very little choice. So, I guess I'll be uh voting for bulwark this uh this election.
[00:57:00] Randall Roth: Thank you, Dave. Appreciate your call. Well, we do have Astrid from Kailua. Took a while to figure it out, but Astrid, are you there?
[00:57:08] Caller: Yes, I'm here.
[00:57:08] Randall Roth: I apologize for our technical problems. What do you have for us this morning?
[00:57:12] Caller: Well, there's not much time. I just want to comment on accountability. I think that this bill would be a bonanza to public officials who don't want to be held accountable, because on many of these controversial projects, if you vote yes, one bunch of people are mad at you, if you vote no, another bunch of people are mad at you. But if you can manage to stall around for 90 days or 120 days or whatever it is, you're all set. See, the thing automatically goes through and you can say, gee, I'm sorry, we didn't vote for it at all.
[00:57:42] Randall Roth: But you know, Astrid, as a as a citizen, I personally, and I can't speak for others obviously, but I personally would be more ticked off at people who who didn't act one way or the other than I would be at people who said yes, when I wanted no, or vice versa.
[00:57:58] Caller: Well, you are an intelligent and informed and sophisticated citizen, but most people don't have much time to study these issues. All they know, they're against something or they're for something and if their particular representative or council member doesn't vote opposite to what they want, that's all right with them.
[00:58:16] Randall Roth: Okay. Astrid, I appreciate your call. We we are down to just the last few minutes and I've got one other person who's been waiting a long time on the line. We want to be sure to hear from him. It's Richard from Kailua. Good morning, Richard.
[00:58:27] Caller: Yes, good morning, Randy. Uh, I just don't want to uh add a counterpoint to some of the statements that have been made. I think uh we have to take a look at what our major problems are in the state of Hawaii and they're really primarily two. Number one, we don't have jobs for our best and brightest. And number two, for those who we are able to employ, uh they can't afford the housing. So young people are leaving this state in ever greater numbers. And part of the problem is that our our permitting processes in all, in all areas have become too burdensome, too onerous. And I think this bill will do something to assist in at least shortening the time and the holding cost and help people actually get things moving in all areas.
[00:59:14] Randall Roth: Okay. Richard, I appreciate your call. We're down to the last two minutes. I'm going to give each of you one of those two minutes. We'll start with Miley Bay.
[00:59:23] Maile Bay: Uh, thank you, Randy for the last hour and it's been very enlightening. Um, appreciate the support in opposition to uh Senate Bill 2204. Um, once again we want to remind people that uh if they would want to oppose this piece of legislation, which we feel is the absolute worst piece of legislation that came out of the session this year, they should call the Governor's campaign headquarters or call his office in Honolulu. Um, it's necessary for um, the actions that have been put into place, uh Act 127 which set forth the task force to look at streamlining measures. And in last year's legislation, we're talking about 19997 and that's the report to the 1998 legislature. To continue its work, we should not let this bill, um as noted in the article, leapfrog the efforts that the legislature um in a bill that was signed by the governor in 97. Um, let it do its work, let that task force of 11 citizens uh report to the legislature and then take a look at what the problems are, and perhaps um address the concerns that that are are expressed by um the developers and the large land owners out there.
[01:00:35] Randall Roth: Okay. That's Miley Bay, who is a planner and analyst specializing in land use and environmental issues in Hawaii. Dan Davidson, you got 48 seconds.
[01:00:43] Dan Davidson: Well, I'm glad Richard of Kailua got through because I think that's the uh the general public out there that is terribly concerned about the business climate. Uh we've had negative out migration in Hawaii the last uh four or five years, so our best and brightest are leaving. So I think we need to do something important to change the permit culture. SB 2204 is a great uh step in in that right direction. Uh we're excited about implementing it. Thank you.
[01:01:16] Randall Roth: Okay, and that's Dan Davidson, who heads up LURP, the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii. Uh next week, we're going to be talking about confidentiality of medical records. Uh do you think you've got it? Do you want it? Well, tune in and listen. Producer of our show is Suzy Roth, production chief is Jeff Lardy. Thank you for listening.