Now Oi and ag lands

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1066610103-sch@news.lava.net...
>

>
> Especially in the outer islands where there may have
> even been a population loss, this kind of development
> (especially gentlemen's farm estates) are aimed at a
> market segment of wealthy individuals from outside, or
> from investors both on and off the island.

You certainly are not talking about Maui.
>
> I think you get the idea. It's a poor substitute for
> economic diversification.

What is a poor substitute for economic diversification?

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1066610103-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> > Especially in the outer islands where there may
> > have even been a population loss, this kind of
> > development (especially gentlemen's farm estates)
> > are aimed at a market segment of wealthy
> > individuals from outside, or from investors both on
> > and off the island.
>
> You certainly are not talking about Maui.

Doesn't Wosniak own a "farm" on Maui?

> > I think you get the idea. It's a poor substitute
> > for economic diversification.
>
> What is a poor substitute for economic
> diversification?

Subdividing land for residential development.

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1066733404-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
> > > I think you get the idea. It's a poor substitute
> > > for economic diversification.
> >
> > What is a poor substitute for economic
> > diversification?
>
> Subdividing land for residential development.
>
Why is there a need for residential development? Let me suggest, there is a
need for more residential development, when the population increases. The
population is not going to increase (excluding those who move to the islands
that do not have to work) without having jobs for these people or a place
for these people to live. So, let me suggest that the mere fact that more
people are coming to places like Maui, there is a need for more services
that these people need to survive. And regardless of how you accomplish
what you refer to as "economic diversification", that end result is more
people living here, and more need to use the land for other purposes.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1066733404-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > Subdividing land for residential development. [It
> > is a poor substitute for economic diversification]
> >
> Why is there a need for residential development?
> Let me suggest, there is a need for more residential
> development, when the population increases.

We can always build to higher densities if there is a
need for housing. But this development is also used to
lure investers. This investment bubble can feed on
itself and pop with disasterous consequences. It would
be better to have new companies startup here that can
hire workers who are unemployed.

> for these people to live. So, let me suggest that
> the mere fact that more people are coming to places
> like Maui, there is a need for more services that
> these people need to survive. And regardless of how
> you accomplish what you refer to as "economic
> diversification", that end result is more people
> living here, and more need to use the land for other
> purposes.

No this is not a good economic driver. In fact, it's
costs money to put in infrastructure like roads, water,
sewege, water treatment, and services like schools. The
net gain in revenue may not be much when compared to
the costs. The money might be better spent on training
people to take jobs in startup companies that generate
income from their products.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1066815306-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>>>
>> Why is there a need for residential development?
>> Let me suggest, there is a need for more residential
>> development, when the population increases.
>
> We can always build to higher densities if there is a
> need for housing.

You keep talking only about housing. What about all the other buildings
that are needed to support the population, other than housing.

But this development is also used to
> lure investers. This investment bubble can feed on
> itself and pop with disasterous consequences. It would
> be better to have new companies startup here that can
> hire workers who are unemployed.

It can, but like everything else, "bubbles" burst from time to time,
when
prices get out of line. And yes, it would be better to have new
companies
startup here, but haven't we gone over this territory before. How do
you do
that?
>
>> for these people to live. So, let me suggest that
>> the mere fact that more people are coming to places
>> like Maui, there is a need for more services that
>> these people need to survive. And regardless of how
>> you accomplish what you refer to as "economic
>> diversification", that end result is more people
>> living here, and more need to use the land for other
>> purposes.
>
> No this is not a good economic driver. In fact, it's
> costs money to put in infrastructure like roads, water,
> sewege, water treatment, and services like schools.

Yep. A growing population requires more infrastructure. So what? As a
matter of fact, a growing infrastructure also requires people to build
that
infrastructure, and requires people selling the products needed to put
up
that infrastructure, and it requires even more people to bring the
materials
here to the islands that are required to put up the infrastructure, and
people to maintain that infrastructure. Translation: jobs. And I might
add, generally good paying jobs at that.

The
> net gain in revenue may not be much when compared to
> the costs. The money might be better spent on training
> people to take jobs in startup companies that generate
> income from their products.
>
There are only a couple of ways revenue collected by the government
goes up.
Either they raise the amount from those who visit these islands, or they
raise the amount they get from everyone of us who live on these islands.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1066815306-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > We can always build to higher densities if there is
> > a need for housing.
>
> You keep talking only about housing. What about all
> the other buildings that are needed to support the
> population, other than housing.

If build to higher densities in existing city areas
instead of prime ag land, then the "other buildings"
are already there. In fact, one problem with schools in
some older neighborhoods is that they need to be shut
down for lack of sufficient numbers of students.

> > No this is not a good economic driver. In fact,
> > it's costs money to put in infrastructure like
> > roads, water, sewege, water treatment, and services
> > like schools.
>
> Yep. A growing population requires more
> infrastructure. So what?

No a growing population with higher density
accomodations in existing areas already has
infrastructure. You're nitpicking. What's your real
concern here??

> As a matter of fact, a growing infrastructure also
> requires people to build that infrastructure, and
> requires people selling the products needed to put up
> [etc]

Jerry are you making this up? Why do this? Why build
new roads on prime ag land? Why not just use existing
infrastructure?

> > The net gain in revenue may not be much when
> > compared to the costs. The money might be better
> > spent on training people to take jobs in startup
> > companies that generate income from their products.
> >
> There are only a couple of ways revenue collected by
> the government goes up. Either they raise the amount
> from those who visit these islands, or they raise the
> amount they get from everyone of us who live on these
> islands.

You seemed to have missed the point. Either you spend a
lot of money to build infrastructure on prime ag land
and thereby decrease the increase in tax revenue from
the land and lose forever the potential income from
farming, OR you use higher densities and existing
infrastructure. The money you save from avoiding the
first alternative could be used to finance job
re-training programs for economic diversification.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1066903504-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> > "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> > news:1066815306-sch@news.lava.net...
> > >
> > > We can always build to higher densities if there is
> > > a need for housing.
> >
> > You keep talking only about housing. What about all
> > the other buildings that are needed to support the
> > population, other than housing.
>
> If build to higher densities in existing city areas
> instead of prime ag land, then the "other buildings"
> are already there.

So, you want your police department and all of its substations on the fifth
floor of a high rise. And what do you do about fire stations. Do you want
to have supermarkets on the tenth floor, or any of a variety of retail
outlets, like clothing stores, shoe stores. Can you just picture a Walmart,
or a Home Depot on the tenth floor of a building?

In fact, one problem with schools in
> some older neighborhoods is that they need to be shut
> down for lack of sufficient numbers of students.

Now that is also an interesting point. Do you want schools to be in high
rises? What happens to little things like athletic fields.
>
> > > No this is not a good economic driver. In fact,
> > > it's costs money to put in infrastructure like
> > > roads, water, sewege, water treatment, and services
> > > like schools.
> >
> > Yep. A growing population requires more
> > infrastructure. So what?
>
> No a growing population with higher density
> accomodations in existing areas already has
> infrastructure. You're nitpicking. What's your real
> concern here??

Oh yeh? So, a place like New York City does not spend money on
infrastructure? As for whether I have any concerns, I have none. I am
simply pointing out our areas of disagreement on the subject.
>
> > As a matter of fact, a growing infrastructure also
> > requires people to build that infrastructure, and
> > requires people selling the products needed to put up
> > [etc]
>
> Jerry are you making this up? Why do this? Why build
> new roads on prime ag land? Why not just use existing
> infrastructure?

You mean you want to have gridlock on the roads. You want to have
electrical blackouts because the system cannot handle the load? You want to
have your water supply cut off, because you do not have enough water. You
want not enough fire stations to meet the needs of a growing population, or
more schools where there are needed. All of that and more is part of the
infrastructure you need to support the population.
>
> > > The net gain in revenue may not be much when
> > > compared to the costs. The money might be better
> > > spent on training people to take jobs in startup
> > > companies that generate income from their products.
> > >
> > There are only a couple of ways revenue collected by
> > the government goes up. Either they raise the amount
> > from those who visit these islands, or they raise the
> > amount they get from everyone of us who live on these
> > islands.
>
> You seemed to have missed the point. Either you spend a
> lot of money to build infrastructure on prime ag land
> and thereby decrease the increase in tax revenue from
> the land and lose forever the potential income from
> farming, OR you use higher densities and existing
> infrastructure. The money you save from avoiding the
> first alternative could be used to finance job
> re-training programs for economic diversification.
>
> --alvin
>
>
>
>
>

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1066903504-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > If build to higher densities in existing city areas
> > instead of prime ag land, then the "other
> > buildings" are already there.
>
> So, you want your police department and all of its
> substations on the fifth floor of a high rise. And
> what do you do about fire stations. Do you want to
> have supermarkets on the tenth floor, or any of a
> variety of retail outlets, like clothing stores, shoe
> stores. Can you just picture a Walmart, or a Home
> Depot on the tenth floor of a building?

Jerry...whoa...don't get to carried away. We have about
two police 24/7 patroling the Pearl City Area-- over
100,000. So perhaps they might have to hire a few more
staff with high rises, but they don't need new
stations. In fact the security and fire safety of high
rises might be improved compared to Moilili area now.

> > In fact, one problem with schools in some older
> > neighborhoods is that they need to be shut down for
> > lack of sufficient numbers of students.
>
> Now that is also an interesting point. Do you want
> schools to be in high rises? What happens to little
> things like athletic fields.

In high rises? Where does this come from??? Now we just
don't have to close these schools.

> > No a growing population with higher density
> > accomodations in existing areas already has
> > infrastructure. You're nitpicking. What's your real
> > concern here??
>
> Oh yeh? So, a place like New York City does not
> spend money on infrastructure? As for whether I have
> any concerns, I have none. I am simply pointing out
> our areas of disagreement on the subject.

I doubt if we are headed for that high a density. But I
note that there is an elementary school in Waikiki
accross from the Honolulu Zoo, and even with the high
population density of Waikiki, I don't think we need to
expand the school.

Let's see just what is our disagreement. I claim that
building to higher densities does not require as much
funding for more infrastructure as building on prime ag
land. You disagree. Just what is you opinion here??
Nitpicking on my statements does not clarify your
ideas.

> > Jerry are you making this up? Why do this? Why
> > build new roads on prime ag land? Why not just use
> > existing infrastructure?
>
> You mean you want to have gridlock on the roads.
> You want to have electrical blackouts because the
> system cannot handle the load? You want to have your
> water supply cut off, because you do not have enough
> water. [etc]

Please Jerry, when you live close to work and there is
no good parking in high density areas, then you take
the bus. So buses might come more often to service high
rise areas. In contrast, you don't have to spend the
money for more roads in ag areas. Even electrical and
water systems are planned for very long range and are
overbuilt for future capacity. So adding a high rise
does not over tax the system. On the other hand putting
10,000 people in a area zoned ag does tax the system
and creates costly changes in infrastructure for the
area.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1067070903-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> > "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> > news:1066903504-sch@news.lava.net...
> > >

> >
> > So, you want your police department and all of its
> > substations on the fifth floor of a high rise. And
> > what do you do about fire stations. Do you want to
> > have supermarkets on the tenth floor, or any of a
> > variety of retail outlets, like clothing stores, shoe
> > stores. Can you just picture a Walmart, or a Home
> > Depot on the tenth floor of a building?
>
> Jerry...whoa...don't get to carried away. We have about
> two police 24/7 patroling the Pearl City Area-- over
> 100,000. So perhaps they might have to hire a few more
> staff with high rises, but they don't need new
> stations. In fact the security and fire safety of high
> rises might be improved compared to Moilili area now.

Ah but we are talking about a growing population and what effect that would
have. If you build high rises to house these people, wouldn't that
translate to the need for more police? As a matter of fact, a high rise
apartment can house an awful lot of people in a very small area. Wouldn't
that translate to more policemen, which then translates to finding a place
for these policement to operate from. And the more people you have, the
more people you need to be in the area to fight fires, which by the way is a
fire in a high rise which is a lot harder to fight than a single story
house. And what are you going to do about all the buildings that will be
required to house all the other services that a growing population needs and
uses, like the retail establishments I mentioned.
>
> > > In fact, one problem with schools in some older
> > > neighborhoods is that they need to be shut down for
> > > lack of sufficient numbers of students.
> >
> > Now that is also an interesting point. Do you want
> > schools to be in high rises? What happens to little
> > things like athletic fields.
>
> In high rises? Where does this come from??? Now we just
> don't have to close these schools.

A growing population, which is how this thread got started, requires more
schools, unless that growing population is accomplised without a growing
student population.
>
> > > No a growing population with higher density
> > > accomodations in existing areas already has
> > > infrastructure. You're nitpicking. What's your real
> > > concern here??

I don't think I am nitpicking. Infrastructure is constantly being added to
service a growing population. When I left Oahu in the early fifties, they
did not have a whole lot of what I would call freeways. Today, Oahu has
them all over the place. That is the result of a growing population. And
if the population on Oahu continues to grow, then there will be a need for
even more improvements in your road system, along with a host of other
facilities, like police stations, fire stations, more government buildings.
In other words more of everything. So, putting people in high rises may
solve one problem, but it does not address the host of other needs for land
that a growing population needs. That is all I have been trying to say.
>
> Let's see just what is our disagreement. I claim that
> building to higher densities does not require as much
> funding for more infrastructure as building on prime ag
> land. You disagree. Just what is you opinion here??
> Nitpicking on my statements does not clarify your
> ideas.

Let me suggest that when anyone of us responds to a posting we are
responding to what the writer has said, or at least what we think they are
saying. As to your current question (above) I am not sure what you are
trying to say. Are you saying that the cost per square foot (other than
land cost) for constructing a high rise is less than it cost per square foot
to build a single story house. I also don't understand your statement
"building to higher densities does not require as much funding for more
infrastrucure, as building on prime ag land" means. Can you be a little
more specific.
>
> > > Jerry are you making this up? Why do this? Why
> > > build new roads on prime ag land? Why not just use
> > > existing infrastructure?
> >
> > You mean you want to have gridlock on the roads.
> > You want to have electrical blackouts because the
> > system cannot handle the load? You want to have your
> > water supply cut off, because you do not have enough
> > water. [etc]
>
> Please Jerry, when you live close to work and there is
> no good parking in high density areas, then you take
> the bus. So buses might come more often to service high
> rise areas. In contrast, you don't have to spend the
> money for more roads in ag areas. Even electrical and
> water systems are planned for very long range and are
> overbuilt for future capacity. So adding a high rise
> does not over tax the system. On the other hand putting
> 10,000 people in a area zoned ag does tax the system
> and creates costly changes in infrastructure for the
> area.
>
Ah, I see, you are assuming that the high rises are close to where you work.
So, you are going to force builders to only build high rises close to where
people work. And what are you then going to do if that person who moved
into that high rise, decides to work in an area that is no longer close to
where they live. That does happen you know. As for the capacity of the
electrical and water system, what you say may be true, but the question
should be, how big a population can they support. And didn't I just read
that you folks on Oahu are under some sort of water restrictions? Now, that
to me means you don't have enough water to support the current population on
the island.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1067070903-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > Jerry...whoa...don't get to carried away. We have
> > about two police 24/7 patroling the Pearl City
> > Area-- over 100,000. So perhaps they might have to
> > hire a few more staff with high rises, but they
> > don't need new stations. In fact the security and
> > fire safety of high rises might be improved
> > compared to Moilili area now.
>
> Ah but we are talking about a growing population and
> what effect that would have. If you build high rises
> to house these people, wouldn't that translate to the
> need for more police? As a matter of fact, a high
> rise apartment can house an awful lot of people in a
> very small area. Wouldn't that translate to more
> policemen, which then translates to finding a place
> for these policement to operate from. And the more

Hardly expect that to be the case. A big building has
it's own security. And for just a small number of
additional police staff, it's not worthwhile to have a
new station.

> > In high rises? Where does this come from??? Now we
> > just don't have to close these schools.
>
> A growing population, which is how this thread got
> started, requires more schools, unless that growing
> population is accomplised without a growing student
> population.

But in older neighborhoods downtown, there are too many
schools. Increasing the poopulation density there will
just keep the schools going. I doubt if there will be a
need for more construction.

> > Let's see just what is our disagreement. I claim
> > that building to higher densities does not require
> > as much funding for more infrastructure as building
> > on prime ag land. You disagree. Just what is you
> > opinion here?? Nitpicking on my statements does not
> > clarify your ideas.
>
> Let me suggest that when anyone of us responds to a
> posting we are responding to what the writer has
> said, or at least what we think they are saying. As
> to your current question (above) I am not sure what
> you are trying to say. Are you saying that the cost
> per square foot (other than land cost) for
> constructing a high rise is less than it cost per
> square foot to build a single story house. I also
> don't understand your statement "building to higher
> densities does not require as much funding for more
> infrastrucure, as building on prime ag land" means.
> Can you be a little more specific.

Briefly your comments while enthusiastic quite often
don't seem germane at all. The main problem with
building on prime ag land is that you can't reuse the
land for agriculture. And the advantage of having an
increase of people in Honolulu is that the demand for
new infrastructure is less..

> > Please Jerry, when you live close to work and there
> > is no good parking in high density areas, then you
> > take the bus. So buses might come more often to
> > service high rise areas. In contrast, you don't
> > have to spend the money for more roads in ag areas.
> > Even electrical and water systems are planned for
> > very long range and are overbuilt for future
> > capacity. So adding a high rise does not over tax
> > the system. On the other hand putting 10,000 people
> > in a area zoned ag does tax the system and creates
> > costly changes in infrastructure for the area.
> >
> Ah, I see, you are assuming that the high rises are
> close to where you work. So, you are going to force
> builders to only build high rises close to where
> people work.

Is your statement really germane at all? It's relative.
Anywhere in Honolulu is closer than having new homes in
the middle of a cane field in leeward Oahu.

> live. That does happen you know. As for the
> capacity of the electrical and water system, what you
> say may be true, but the question should be, how big
> a population can they support. And didn't I just
> read that you folks on Oahu are under some sort of
> water restrictions? Now, that to me means you don't
> have enough water to support the current population
> on the island.

Yes. New residential developments on prime ag land in
the leeward area do not have a sufficient connection to
the water from the Koolaus because they have been zoned
as ag. The current supply of water would have been
sufficient except that homes and golf courses have been
built. For new developments in the Leeward area, we
have started desalinization projects, since it is also
true that the projected long term population growth is
reported to be so large that the Koolaus will not
provide for much more needs even if they are fully
exploited.

--alvin