During a recent government meeting, significant concerns were raised regarding infrastructure and development in West Hawaii, particularly in relation to two bills: Bill 166 and Bill 169. Testimonies from community members highlighted the inadequacies of current infrastructure, including wastewater treatment, road safety, and water supply, which they argue must be addressed before any new housing developments are approved.

One speaker emphasized that the region is not prepared for further development, warning that without improvements to the existing infrastructure, West Hawaii risks becoming as congested as cities like Los Angeles or Honolulu. The speaker pointed out that the current systems for wastewater, water supply, and electrical services are already strained, and any new housing projects would exacerbate these issues.

Janice Palmiglenny, another testifier, strongly opposed the rezoning request associated with Bill 166, citing the West Hawaii Wastewater Treatment Plant's failure to adequately treat wastewater, which poses environmental and health risks. She also criticized the lack of safe roadways, particularly the dangerous Kiloko Drive, and urged council members to deny any rezoning requests until infrastructure improvements are made.

Chuck Flaherty echoed these sentiments, arguing that the proposed developments do not genuinely contribute to affordable housing but merely meet the needs of the developments themselves. He referenced a study indicating that new developments must include a significant percentage of affordable housing to meet demand, which he argued does not alleviate the overall housing crisis.

Tanya Yamanaka Anasaziem raised concerns about the wisdom of building affordable housing in flood-prone areas, questioning the safety of such developments for vulnerable populations. She also expressed support for a resolution aimed at auditing the county's Department of Research and Development to enhance transparency and accountability.

In contrast, Pani Matonga, representing a local union, supported Bill 169, advocating for a ten-year extension to allow for the resolution of community concerns regarding infrastructure and development. He argued that with time and effort, solutions could be found to address the issues raised by opponents of the bill.

The meeting underscored a growing tension between the need for housing development and the imperative to ensure that infrastructure can support such growth, with many community members calling for a moratorium on new developments until these critical issues are resolved.