Cesspool proposal must be stopped ADVERTISING Cesspool proposal must be stopped I read the letter of Oct. 21 from Bob Smith concerning cesspool owners, with more than passing interest. Perhaps we should review and decide on the accuracy and impact
Cesspool proposal must be stopped
I read the letter of Oct. 21 from Bob Smith concerning cesspool owners, with more than passing interest. Perhaps we should review and decide on the accuracy and impact of his positions. Prior to that, we must agree that the majority of residences located abutting to sewer lines should be removed from the discussion since there are existing codes that deal with their requirements to hook up.
Firstly, Mr. Smith states that unless cesspools are converted to septic tanks, we are faced with water issues that will negatively impact our tourist business. Resultantly, people will lose their jobs and people looking to move here will look elsewhere. Really? Clearly a case of Chicken Little’s “The Sky is Falling.”
Secondly, Mr. Smith goes on to posit that since he is on either a septic tank or a sewer system, all others have the duty to join him. It’s always a matter of whose “ox” is to be gored. There are approximately 84,000 housing units in the county as provided for, in the Census Bureau. If there are 50,000 cesspools, the impact to the bulk of the population is enormous. I understand, the Department of Health is proposing that the changeover would only occur through sale or “other means.” We all know that once the retroactive cost is imposed, it clearly would be expanded to an all-residence mandate. It should also be agreed that at the initial construction phase, the cost of septic tank installation, as opposed to cesspool construction, is not dramatically different. The conversion is very costly and is completely disruptive to individual homes, as well as entire neighborhoods.
Thirdly, Mr. Smith believes the conversion will increase property value? Wrong. If the ruling is imposed, homes for sale will have to discount the price to cover the estimated cost to the new buyer. And what buyer wants to be faced with a cesspool to septic tank conversion? The DOH has even tried to soften the impact by claiming that one of the benefits would be the “sharing” of retrofit costs, between the buyer and the seller. Why would a potential buyer want to sign on to the chaos of a retrofit? The average home price would drop, the number of homes would drop and even those homes with a septic or sewer connection would be reduced, as home pricing is at least, in part, based on comparative home sale prices in neighborhoods.
Mr. Smith, are you prepared to do your part by having your property value reduced? Eco-friendliness does not positively drive the overwhelming majority of buyers. Facing conversion of a newly purchased home will act negatively.
Lastly, the reason why the cesspools were allowed is quite simple. One only needs to travel around the corner to come to the realization that Hawaii County is rural. We have a population density of approximately 45 people per square mile, and it’s a safe bet that the bulk of the homes on cesspools were built when the density was even lower. If one builds in a rural area with no code mandating septic tanks, the decision to employ a cesspool is the normal choice. That’s why 60 percent of the island is not on septic tanks or sewers.
The real tragedy here is that Hawaii County, with its 180,000 people, does not have the political muscle in the state Legislature to pressure the DOH to stop this trainwreck before our property values are reduced and we have created a cottage industry for retrofitting to septic systems. Oahu, with its 980,000 people, 11,000 housing units, density of 1,600 people per square mile, and an overwhelming majority of state legislators, would be the least impacted county and would suffer the least political blowback. Once again, our friends on Oahu will push through rulings that sound beneficial, but will in essence create harm to the outer islands.
This issue demands that Billy Kenoi, every council member, every state legislator, the local and state level real estate people and all other citizens of Hawaii work toward stopping this ruling.
Pete Webber
Kona
What happened to Kawaihae Bypass Road?
Once upon a time not very long ago — July 2014, there was a road planned that went from the upper road near Parker Rodeo Arena down to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. It was called the Kawaihae Bypass Road. It had been on the top of the state’s highway project list for more than eight years, working its way up to the top of the list. The environmental impact statements had been done, the road had been designed and the funds were acquired.
Bids were to be sent out this coming January and then, poof, it was completely eliminated from the projects list by the head of the Department of Transportation in Honolulu, and another road not previously on the list was placed at the top. This road would run parallel to Waikoloa Road from the Daniel K. Inouye Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. No public hearings were held. No prior public announcement of this proposed switch was made.
Despite hundreds of petitions from truckers and letters from the South Kohala Transportation Committee, the supervisor of the state Department of Transportation arbitrarily made the switch. Federal funds had been acquired for the designated Kawaihae Bypass Road, which was meant to support the ever-increasing traffic from the expanding port of Kawaihae and the 8,000-plus cars commuting daily to Waimea and the east side of the island.
The Kawaihae Bypass Road was already planned and ready for construction. The Daniel K. Inouye Highway hasn’t even started the studies yet. Call Patrick Tom, STIP manager, Department of Transportation, at 587-6355 and tell him why we need this Kawaihae Bypass Road now. It is gone forever if we don’t act. Also ask candidates seeking your vote to return the Kawaihae Bypass Road to the top of the highway projects list.
Joyce O’Connor
Waimea
Interpreting the
word ‘sacred’
Reading the article in your paper about the Thirty Meter Telescope dedication and the demonstration that disrupted the program made me sad. Not all Hawaiians believe as the demonstrators do in regards to Mauna Kea. At question is the subject of Mauna Kea being a sacred place. I think that few would challenge the claim that the mountain is a sacred place.
What I think is questionable is how individuals interpret the word sacred. As I see it, there are those who revere the mountain as though it were some deity worthy of worship. Those who believe that way should remove their shoes before stepping on the mountain. They should have also walked up the mountain to demonstrate instead of riding in their polluting vehicles contaminating the atmosphere while digging up dust.
There are those of us who also believe that Mauna Kea is sacred in a different light. Consider the time it took, more than a few years, for the mountain to reach that height from its start on the ocean floor. Consider the amount of material it took to build that structure and how and where the material came from. That alone silently testifies of a special creation project planted in the Pacific Ocean with a possible motive beyond the majestic beauty it reflects. It is understandable that the early Hawaiians respected the mountain as they made the trek to the adze quarry to form their stone tools.
Today, some Hawaiians consider the mountain as a sacred platform, a window, a gift from which we can gaze into the universe and see the wonders that have been created for our pleasure. Where else but here in Hawaii can we look into a microscope, see the micro world, then look out of the window and see the wonders of nature? We go to the ocean and explore the underwater world with beauty others cannot imagine then climb up to the top of Mauna Kea and explore the heavens with its sacred view into the universe that goes on without end.
Sacred? Yes, a gift from our creator that although we are earth-bound, our ability to see beyond our noses is limited only by our willingness.
Leningrad Elarionoff
Waimea
