Should we merge the City vision teams with neighborhood boards

The idea has been suggested to save money. But the
functions are very different. The teams seem to focus
on longer term issues while the boards seem focused on
maintenance issues. Now with both lacking money, the
suggestion is that they will both focus on long term
issues, so why not combine them? But the people
involved are the same. Why should they change their
focus of interest?

Their styles of operation are very different. This is
seen as both an advantage and a disadvantage. But I see
that the advantage of different styles as a way of
being suitable for different issues they discuss.

Unless there is just a failure in either groups to
function, it seems to me that the present situation
should continue. If and only if, they can find ways to
collaborate, then it makes sense to combine them. For
example, it would seem that consideration of future BRT
routes through the area should be jointly done to get
as much feedback as possible to architechs and
planners.

In the past boards have tended to focus on a need for a
traffic light at a specific location, etc, rather than
be interested in broader and more long term questions
of the area and island or state. Without vision teams,
general plans become more like planing in a vacuum.

--alvin

Gino Lancette wrote:
>
> Most of the Vision Team projects are wrought with cost overruns,
> poor planning, and poor quality workmanship. They are con-
> stantly under repair.

My only experience with a Vision Team meeting taught me that whichever
proposed "project" could rally the most supporters--and the most vocal
supporters--to appear at a meeting would get their project funded.

Every attendee had an equal vote, regardless of home address.

I was stunned that a group of model airplane enthusiasts, most from
outside Kailua, were able to secure funds for a parking lot and lua up
at Kapaa Quarry for their club while Kaelepulu School could not get a
stoplight, stop sign, or crossing guard on Keolu Drive in an area too
frequently used as a 4-lane speedway, regardless of the 25 mph limit,
blinking lights and presence of lots and lots of elementary school kids.
Injury accidents (mostly involving drivers and, fortunately, not
kids)are common. Oh, well. The model club "turned out the vote" from all
over the island. They win.

How is that an accurate reflection of Kailua's "vision"?

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Gino Lancette wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1059407405-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > In the past boards have tended to focus on a need
> > for a traffic light at a specific location, etc,
> > rather than be interested in broader and more long
> > term questions of the area and island or state.
> > Without vision teams, general plans become more
> > like planing in a vacuum. --alvin
>
> This is entirely false. Neighborhood boards have
> always been concerned with long term impacts.
> However, funding was seldom provided for anything
> more than a traffic light or two.

Maybe for the meetings you attended. For the few Board
meetings that I have attended, hours of discussion are
spent on the sprinklers in some park that are broken,
speeding on the main road through the neighborhood,etc.

I understand this is typical of these kinds of
meetings.

> The MAIN difference between the Neighborhood Boards
> and Harris' Vision Teams is that the Neighborhood
> boards are accountable to the public for their
> actions. Vision teams were often made up of
> architects and builders who could gain from the
> projects they promoted. There was/is no
> accountability to the public for how they spend the
> public's money....
>
> Most of the Vision Team projects are wrought with
> cost overruns, poor planning, and poor quality
> workmanship. They are con- stantly under repair.

There is more documentation for Board meetings. And
they have rules and procedures to follow. But
accountability for what? Both bodies are advisory.
Architects and builders sometimes attend board
meetings. That does not mean they control it. Projects?
They have no funding.

Actually, in my area there is more collaboration.
Boards and teams of different neighborhoods have shared
funding they had, to get some urgent jobs done for the
communities. I don't think you can make a blanket
statement about Teams spending in general.

--alvin

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Judy wrote:

> Gino Lancette wrote:
> >
> > Most of the Vision Team projects are wrought with
> > cost overruns, poor planning, and poor quality
> > workmanship. They are con- stantly under repair.
>
> I was stunned that a group of model airplane
> enthusiasts, most from outside Kailua, were able to
> secure funds for a parking lot and lua up at Kapaa
> Quarry for their club while Kaelepulu School could
> not get a stoplight, stop sign, or crossing guard on
> Keolu Drive in an area too frequently used as a

Perhaps you would know why people from Kailua take no
interest in the Kailua Vision Team?

It's certainly not the concept itself. I have a friend
in the Aiea Team. She says they collarobated with the
Pearl City Team and Boards to gather up enough money
for a project that was important for Aiea. Pearl City
got the benefit the following year. She says the Teams
were important in setting up priorities with the other
Team and Boards. Left to themselves the Boards do not
try to discuss issues among themselves for the region
of the Island they represent. In fact, there might be
restrictions on these undocumented meetings in their
charters. Also, my impression was that although they
do not follow strict rules and procedures, they do
try to vet the attendees and try to be fair. Such
behavior as you witnessed would probably not occur in
any other neighborhood.

--alvin