That will be years or even decades. What happens to the undamaged businesses in Kaanapali, Kahana, Honokowai, Napili, and Kapalua in the meantime? What happens to those owners’ investment and to the employees that work there?
It will come back in a respectful way. My hope is that people have a different appreciation for Maui than what they might have had before. They need to look at the island and its people differently after this. Temporary visitors is the mindset. It is actually the mindset everyone should have towards life the planet.
New road? The Lahaina bypass already exists.
So you wipe away undamaged businesses by keeping them closed for years? What happens to the companies and people who invested their capital in these enterprises? That’s not a realistic economic solution. Insurance will cover the burned businesses but your solution would deliver an even worse fate to the undamaged enterprises.
You are very naive if you think businesses have years of excess capital laying around. Business recovery will drive any long term recovery. Government disaster assistance will only provide a gap filler to kick start the process. Without these businesses’ in the tax base, local and state resources will dry up.
My solution is you become a better listener. You made a lot of assumptions about what I said that just aren’t there. That is not creating a respectful discussion. That is an adversarial posture. Usual men do this. Rarely see women engage in this kind of ego based discussion. You should chill out and just accept others have different opinions without projecting your thinking upon them.
If I misinterpreted what you were advocating for, then I apologize. I interpreted your statement that "It will come back in a respectful way" as implying that if West Maui stayed closed for several years and the current businesses failed, they would be replaced by more respectful businesses. I guess maybe I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "more respectful," but from where I sit, allowing undamaged businesses to fail would only add to the tragedy. I want to see these businesses allowed to reopen before they fail, so they can become a key cog in the engine of West Maui's recovery and rebound. Maui will need lots of capital to rebuild, so I would hate to see that impeded by more failing businesses that should have a viable pathway to survival.
And where do the funds to provide shelter/water/food to thousands of people, potentially for years without them working and drawing a paycheck, come from? I know, you'll just say to raise taxes. But on who? The business you want to close who will no longer have any income to pay those taxes? Plus that expense would end up being far greater than I think you realize. In the shorter term its manageable, but for years or decades, without the economic activity needed to generate funds, it just isn't. Or just commandeer housing and food from individuals that have them? This isn't a communist country, and our Constitution has inhibitions regarding seizure of private property. Plus, you get a bunch of people used to just not working but still getting handouts to cover all their necessities. Even after everything is rebuilt, a significant portion of them will not want to have to work to get those things, because they'll be used to not having to.
No, the government actually didn't commandeer anything. Pay attention to how things actually happen. The timeshare resorts, at least those under the MVC/Vistana umbrella, are voluntarily housing their own displaced employees. In addition, both timeshare resorts and regular hotels throughtout Maui are housing displaced residents, but again, there was no government seizure. The government is PAYING to house those people, and the businesses accepting those tenants actually do agree and sign contracts to do so..
Yes, but that money isn't unlimited, nor available for a specific area for years on end to cover every need. Plus, it's not meant to keep businesses afloat that weren't damaged, nor to pay employees who aren't working if their business wasn't damaged.
Yes, but "immediate" isn't indefinitely for a number of years lets just shut everything down. It means make sure people, in the near-term after the disaster, have access to food and shelter. And not planning for what's next is irresponsible and just invites even more problems. You can walk and chew gum at the same time; in the Army, we have teams that work on Current Operations and others that work on Future Operations. It applies to disaster recovery too, not just combat operations.
Again, another short-term issue. Those current fires and water issues won't be continuous issues lasting for years without a solution.
Also not going to be a years-long issue. It didn't take that long for people to get back to living and working in areas near the WTC. The actual area affected by toxins in the ground is Lahaina, not all of West Maui. And resolution of ways to get normal potable water service aren't going to take years either.
Management giving away stays is a whole separate issue. In case you got lost, I and the person I was responding to are discussing people wanting government to completely shut down West Maui, and how government would provide for those affected.
In the case of the timeshare we own at, Maui Hill, from what I understand owners and those who had traded in were giving up their weeks to house those displaced from the fire. So yes, they were voluntarily being given up.
Oh, for sure longer than days. It's already been longer than days. But they can likely get things to a manageable level by the end of the year to start working on rebuilding in Lahaina proper and even with limited traffic capacity, close that area off to the public while still allowing more normal activity elsewhere in West Maui. Will the carrying capacity be less than before the fire? Absolutely. But there will still be the ability to conduct business, and with tourists not spending money at the businesses that burned down, even with lesser numbers they most likely will spend more money at the businesses that didn't.
I do agree to some extent. But at least in the first couple of weeks after the disaster, there was no way owners were gong to be able to go and stay there, especially with the power, water and other issues, so why not in that immediate timeframe allow displaced employees to stay? But like I said, owners can certainly discuss that with management or in court. And I wouldn't begrudge them that right, though I daresay that it wouldn't fare well in the court of public opinion.