My Turn: Get facts straight on Kona Village proposal

The WHT Our View of July 12 was an interesting but puzzling read. I can only guess from where the incomplete and inaccurate information came upon which the writer based his suppositions.

As The Plan for Kona was developed in 1960 and the original developer of Kona Vistas submitted plans for Kona Vistas I, II and III in 1984, if would have be impossible for homeowners who purchased homes in the year 2000 or later to have added their input.


Yes, we are questioning whether the Kona envisioned in 1960 with a high density, two- and three-story buildings with non-permeable driveway and roadway surfaces sandwiched between other established Kona neighborhoods meshes with the experience-acquired knowledge upon which we should base decisions in 2019.

I mention “non-permeable surfaces” purposefully as the development proposed has already begun diverting the natural streams that flow onto the property and merge within its bounds. The Holualoa Gutch and Horseshoe Bend never dry out even in periods of low rainfall. This entire area is mauka of the section of Kuakini Highway south of Pottery Plaza that was destroyed by surging water from heavy fall rains four years ago.

That destruction hadn’t happened in 1960 when the Land Use Pattern Committee was holding its community meetings to establish locations that no one residing in Kona at that time cared enough about to preserve.

As the developer has only completed an archaeological survey of 5 acres of the 68 under discussion, and, as on those 5 acres human skeletal remains were found in a lava tube, we can only guess what might be found on the remainder. We aren’t planning to trespass to prove what the developer should be additionally providing in an archaeological survey, in addition to the impact study and a current traffic study that the County of Hawaii has required of the developer earlier this year before the County would consider acting upon the developer’s application for extension. Have either of these minimal conditions yet been met?

This special location that the developer will desecrate if the Kona Village is aligned between two heiaus. [To note: no relationship exists between this Kona Village and the long-loved, much awaited return of the Kona Village Resort.] Were the upland koa from Holualoa hauled by stream or carried through, [slid through alam holua], this rock walled pathway from the heiau in Holualoa makai to the Kealakonaa heiau where canoes were made and blessed?

Or, were these parallel rock walls remnants of a holua? Another link to these parallel rock walls can be found on the grounds of the Holualoa Inn. Much discovery must happen, much evidence will be destroyed in short order if Kona Three LLC is allowed to proceed.

A second line of questioning revolves around an alternate focus: Should we observe and preserve the agricultural traditions of the ahupuaa?

We’ve been told that while there have been several coastal parcels purchased and preserved north of Kona and now, hopefully, this access point at Banyans, but no undisturbed uplands regions have been available.


This could be an exciting educational find for PONC, if only we can make it happen.

Cheryl Tanguay is a resident of Kailua-Kona.