Hawaii247.com | Hawaii 24/7

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

By Sydney Ross Singer

A public meeting was scheduled by Mayor Billy Kenoi to discuss the controversial mangrove eradication and poisoning project that has now left over 30 acres of mangroves dead and rotting along the Puna coastline. The meeting, scheduled for July 31 at the Pahoa Community Center, was the first chance given to the public to comment on and question the project.

But the meeting never happened. Malama o Puna, the organization spearheading the poisoning, backed out at the last minute, causing the County to cancel the meeting, according to Hunter Bishop, spokesperson for Mayor Kenoi.

The public is left with an ugly, poisoned shoreline and still without any voice on the issue.

The 30 acres of mangroves now stand dead and defoliated along the sensitive Big Island coastline, left to rot over the years and blighting what had been beautiful, treasured areas. Wai Opae (which is the popular snorkeling area in Kapoho), Pohoiki (also called Isaac Hale Beach Park), Paki Bay, and Onekahakaha Beach Park in Hilo have all been poisoned.

There was no public hearing or public comment period allowed for this mangrove eradication project, which was done with the cooperation of the DLNR, County of Hawaii, and Big Island Invasive Species Committee. There was no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prepared.

For most residents who frequent these areas, awareness of the project began when they noticed the mangroves were dying and brown scum was floating on the water. Heaps of dead leaves from the defoliated trees still line the high tide mark.

A public protest against the mangrove poisoning was held in January, 2010, and the controversy was reported in the media. But Malama o Puna refused to stop the poisoning.

A citizen lawsuit was filed in February to get an injunction to stop the poisoning until an environmental assessment was done. Despite requests that they stop their work, Malama o Puna continued with their poisoning, killing 7 acres of mangroves at Pohoiki and 3-4 acres of mangroves at Onekahakaha Beach Park in Hilo while the lawsuit proceeded.

A ruling has just been made on the lawsuit, which continues in Third Circuit Court in Hilo. The Court has ruled that it is too late to sue Malama o Puna for not doing an environmental assessment. This does not mean Malama o Puna did not have to do an environmental assessment. It just means that it was too late to have the issue considered by the Court.

Attorneys for defendants Malama o Puna, DLNR, and County of Hawaii tried to get the case dismissed, claiming that private citizens cannot sue for violations of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, or Hawaii Pesticide law.

But the Court reaffirmed that the public has a right to a clean and healthy environment, as provided in the Hawaii Constitution Article Xl, Section 9, and that all citizens have a right to sue to protect those environmental rights.

The lawsuit now will focus on whether Malama o Puna violated clean water regulations and threatened endangered species that are known to use the poisoned areas. No further hearings are scheduled at this time.

Ironically, mangroves may be the best species for Hawaii’s subsiding coastline, especially given the climate change predictions coming from the Hawaii government and environmental groups that the oceans are rising. Mangroves protect the shoreline from erosion, storm surge, and tsunamis. In fact, mangroves have been shown to save lives.

Unfortunately, while recognizing climate change is the environmental issue of our time, some environmental groups and government agencies have not yet realized the implications climate change has for “invasive” species control. Climate change is an inconvenient truth for those who want to save native species that thrived in the past but which may not survive in today’s and tomorrow’s altered environment.

Introduced species which grow well here may belong to the Hawaii of the future. Today’s “invasive” species may become tomorrow’s “invaluable” species.

This especially applies to mangroves, considered by the Nature Conservancy in its Summer, 2010 magazine as one of the most valuable and beneficial species in the world. Mangroves may prove critical to shoreline protection in Hawaii as the oceans rise and the land sinks.

While their presence in Hawaii is controversial, as is the use of powerful poisons to kill the mangroves and leave them rotting along the shoreline, the public will not have an opportunity to comment on this eradication. And while the County meeting was too little, too late, it was at least an attempt to include the public. But now, even that attempt has been poisoned.

For more information, see www.mangrovelawsuit.com

Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist, director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, and co-author of the numerous groundbreaking books exposing the cultural/lifestyle causes of disease. He works with his wife and assistant, Soma Grismaijer, and offers an online do-it-yourself lifestyle research website, www.SelfStudyCenter.org

Onekahakaha: Before. (Photo courtesy Sydney Ross Singer)

Onekahakaha: After poisoning. (Photo courtesy Sydney Ross Singer)

Onekahakaha: Dead mangroves piled along shoreline. (Photo courtesy of Sydney Ross Singer)

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

By Sydney Ross Singer

The Department of Land and Natural Resources has decided that the public has too much say about environmental affairs, especially when it comes to invasive species control and eradication. So they are proposing to take away the public’s right to comment by eliminating environmental assessments.

A 30-day comment period, perhaps the last the public will have on invasive species issues, has just started on July 8, 2010, regarding proposed changes to the DLNR’s list of actions that are exempted from requiring an environmental assessment, or EA. And the major change is to exempt invasive species control and eradication, effectively declaring open season on any species that they decide is “invasive”.

Poisoning mangroves along the shoreline, which the DLNR is currently being sued for allowing without an EA, would be exempted from an EA under the new rules. So would poisoning or chainsawing down thousands of acres of non-native trees in the forests, on conservation lands, or anywhere else controlled by the DLNR and its numerous branches that manage the lands, shoreline, and oceans. If it is called “invasive” or a “weed” it can be attacked by any means without public comment, or even public knowledge.

Here are some of their proposed exemptions from an EA. If anyone, including the government, wants to do any of these things, the DLNR will allow it without any public comment, EA, or announcement that it is going to happen.

Invasive species control using traps, toxicants, herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations for the purpose of protecting, preserving, or enhancing native species, native habitat, or native ecosystem function.

This broadly allows any and all “invasive species” activities to be done without public comment or an EA. And the public has no say in what is considered “invasive”. Anyone can slash and burn, poison, bulldoze, biocontrol, or in any other way attack the environment to control “invasive species” without any public or agency review.

Maintenance of state lands to remove weeds, brushes, grass and other unwanted vegetation.

Notice that there is no indication of land size. “Unwanted vegetation”, which could include just about anything except “native” species, could be removed by any method on any number of acres without public comment or an EA.

Actions that are intended to maintain or improve the sustainability of those natural resources under the jurisdiction of the Department, including law enforcement, regulation compliance, resource and environmental monitoring, alien or pest species control, and other administrative and management measures.

This is carte blanche for doing any actions on any alien or pest species on any number of acres by any method.

Pest control. Work under this exemption would be performed by the Department or its contractor. Work would involve placement of approved toxic baits, kill traps, live traps, snares, repellent and using EPA-regulated, commercially-available pesticides. Label instructions will be strictly adhered to. No pesticides will be allowed to enter State waters.

Again, no limitation is placed on the extent of this pest control, or what is considered a “pest”, such as pigs, cats, and non-native birds. Islandwide eradications could be done under this exemption without an EA or public comment.

Animal damage control actions, when needed to maintain resource values, in Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) program areas, including application of approved rodenticides, and ungulate removal.

The public will have no say on eradication projects against cattle, goats, sheep, or any other animal.

New landscaping and irrigation systems within State Parks.

This exemption used to state “on less than 5 acres”, but is now changed to allow new landscaping on any number of acres. This means they could remove any trees they like and replace them with any other trees they like, on any number of acres of park land, without any public comment or review of any kind.

There is more, but the above show the extent to which the DLNR is wanting to allow “invasive species” activities to proceed without any public involvement.

Why the opposition to EA’s? As Sam Lemmo, director of the DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, explained it, environmental assessments are “bureaucratic red tape”. In fact, the DLNR OCCL is currently also proposing changes to its administrative rules to allow “invasive” species to be controlled or eradicated by poison or chainsaws on any number of conservation or shoreline acres without any EA or public comment.

It is clear what is happening to Hawaii. Agriculture and livestock production once reigned supreme, and the environmental laws protected those activities. Now, the paradigm has shifted to conservation and preservation. And the laws are changing to reflect that shift in values.

Agriculture and livestock production are now seen as the enemies of the environment. Agricultural plants, such as strawberry guava, once promoted by the government, are now being attacked by the government. Species that were prized for their beauty, resource value, food value, and ability to grow well in Hawaii are now considered “invasive”, “weeds”, and “pests”. Natural resources are being destroyed, such as strawberry guava and mangroves, because they are non-native and therefore not valued by these native species supremacists.

Blinded by their newly developed hatred for the non-native, these invasive people are opening up our public lands to unchecked eradication and control of species they deem “invasive”, disregarding the potential environmental and cultural impacts of their actions. They are so focused on killing things that they don’t want to take the time to consider what problems they might cause, or whose rights they may be trampling upon.

The government is wanting to turn the environment back into what it was 400 years ago. The people be damned if they disagree and still value any of the numerous introduced species that now make Hawaii a paradise. In the new environmental order, we can’t disagree. There will be no EA, which is all we have to allow us participation in the environmental process.

This government has forgotten that its authority is derived from the people. It is OUR environment. It is OUR government. We must continue to assert our right to be part of the decision making that alters OUR environment. We must demand more EA’s, not fewer. We must let the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) and the Environmental Council know that we refuse to give up our rights.

Comments should be sent by Aug. 9, to the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Engineering Division, Project Planning & Management Branch, ph: 587-0229, fax: 587-0283, email: carty.s.chang@hawaii.gov, and the Office of Environmental Quality Control, 235 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, fax: 586-4185.

You can see all their proposed exemptions to the EA process here: http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Documents/Environmental_Notice/current_issue.pdf

Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist, director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, and co-author of the numerous groundbreaking books exposing the cultural/lifestyle causes of disease. He works with his wife and assistant, Soma Grismaijer, and offers an online do-it-yourself lifestyle research website, www.SelfStudyCenter.org

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

By Sydney Ross Singer

As the rest of the world is plagued by environmental disasters, Hawaii is about to unleash its own man made plague.

An alien scale insect, Tectococcus ovatus, imported from Brazil, is planned on being released to infest the entire State of Hawaii’s strawberry guava trees. Endemic to Hawaii where it was introduced in 1825, strawberry guava is an ornamental tree prized for its landscape and aesthetic value, useful hardwood, delicious and abundant fruit, and vigorous growth.

The scale insect will attack the dark green, smooth, beautiful leaves, producing disfiguring galls, or cysts. The tree will become weak, as new growth is attacked. Sapped of energy, less fruit is expected to be produced. When cut, new growth will be attacked. If there is a drought or other stress on the trees, they can completely lose their leaves, and new leaves will not easily grow back.

Each gall will excrete waxy filaments carrying tiny eggs, along with tiny, crawling nymph insects, which will be spread by the wind. Males are small, as well, and fly. The air will be filled with insect particles, eggs, crawling nymphs, and flying males. Allergy, asthma, dermatitis, skin, ear and nose infections from itching and scratching, are all possible, but are not being addressed at all by the government.

Under quarantine conditions in Hawaii, the scale reproduces continuously, with a generation time of 6-10 weeks. In two generations, numbers build to a level that causes stunting of small potted plants.

The infestation in the wild could be extreme and unprecedented, since there are no predators for this scale insect in Hawaii, as there are in Brazil. Strawberry guava also grows more densely here in Hawaii, making it easier for the scale to spread. This is an admitted experiment, and once done it is irreversible. All they can do is study the impacts, not stop them.

Since all trees will become infested, private property owners will have to protect their trees with oil based pesticides, which might reduce but will not eliminate the scale insect since the female is usually protected inside its gall. If you cut your trees to use the wood, it will not easily grow back. Defoliated, dying trees will create a fire risk. And without planting anything to replace the dead and dying strawberry guava, useless weeds will move in.

The government hopes that studies done in Brazil and a greenhouse in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park are good enough to predict what the insect will attack when released. But no promises. And nobody really knows over time what will happen. Since strawberry guava is a relative of the ohia, there is the real possibility of the insect evolving or adapting to attack our ohia and other myrtle species.

Should the government compensate property owners for damages to the aesthetics and usefulness of their strawberry guava trees, and the costs of spraying and replacing trees? The government knows it might need to, so it literally denies that strawberry guava is a natural and cultural resource.

They have to say this, because if they admit that they are taking away from the people a natural and cultural resource that has been part of Hawaii for nearly two centuries, there will be a trigger for an Environmental Impact Statement, and they will have to compensate the public.

The EA also says strawberry guava is not a significant cultural resource because it was not mentioned in ancient Hawaiian culture, and they say native practitioners who use strawberry guava “should” use native species of trees for cultural items, instead of strawberry guava. They also ignore the rest of Hawaii’s population and culture which strongly protested against this insect release last year.

The EA ignores the resolution, passed by the Hawaii County Council in 2009, banning this insect release. It ignores the 5,000 petition signatures opposing the insect. It ignores the state House and Senate proposed resolutions banning biocontrol against food plants. It ignores the street protests in Hilo and Honokaa, and the general outrage that an alien insect is being proposed to attack a valued resource.

There is a clear disrespect throughout the EA for anything not native, be it plant, animal, or culture. The overlying message is that anything that was not here 400 years ago doesn’t count and should not be here.

They say we have enough food and wood, that they don’t think the galled leaves will be noticed by the public, that the introduction of trillions upon trillions of alien scale insects infesting hundreds of thousands of acres of strawberry guava does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. They say their project will have “No Significant Impact”.

They say how urgent the need, how desperate the fight, how worth the risk and sacrifices. They don’t say how their minds are already made up, how their grants are already funded, and how they should have done the EA years ago, at the beginning of the project, not at the end.

The EA is so blinded by its own bias that it disregards the value, appreciation, and love people have for this tree. Replacement costs for these ornamental fruit trees could be thousands of dollars each, depending on its size, shape, placement in the landscape, and other factors. There are probably millions of privately owned strawberry guava trees throughout the state.

The liability for the government could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, as it was for Florida when the state and federal governments killed 500,000 privately owned citrus trees to fight citrus canker. A class action lawsuit gave the public full replacement costs for each tree.

They know not to directly attack the yellow guava, since there is a commercial industry for that fruit. They would love to get rid of yellow guava, since it is just as “invasive” and perhaps even more widespread than strawberry guava. But they know they will have to pay for the damages to the industry. Since Hawaii does not at the present time have a strawberry guava industry, they think there is no economic loss.

They ignore the aesthetics of the tree and the non-commercial use of the fruit by everyday people. To them, aesthetics and food don’t matter. Their job is to attack non-native species. They are a pest control service. They have to sell us on the notion that our strawberry guava trees are useless weeds, because they have an insect that they want to ram down our throats.

We must demand an EIS, to force them to consider all the issues. To make them do one, we need to first comment on the EA. You need to comment to get legal standing to sue later for an EIS.

The environmental assessment (EA) for this insect release was just published, and the 30-day comment period began June 23, 2010. Comments are required by July 23.

You can read the EA here:
2010-06-23-ST-DEA-Biocontrol-Strawberry-Guava.pdf

Then consider joining a lawsuit to stop them. Contact me at biodamage@gmail.com, or call 808-935-5563. Or visit www.Biodamage.com and www.SaveTheGuava.com

Together we may be able to save the islands from this planned pestilence.

Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist, director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, and co-author of the numerous groundbreaking books exposing the cultural/lifestyle causes of disease. He works with his wife and assistant, Soma Grismaijer, and offers an online do-it-yourself lifestyle research website, http://www.SelfStudyCenter.org.

Strawberry guava fruit (Photo courtesy of Syndey Ross Singer)

Tectococcus (Photo courtesy of Syndey Ross Singer)

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

By Tambry Young and Suzanne King

On the morning of July 6, Gov. Linda Lingle, pinned and honored a new Brigadier General at a ceremony witnessed by a large group of uniformed servicemen and women.

A few hours later, in that same room, with representatives of a number of LGBT families on hand, she vetoed HB444, the civil unions bill that would have extended the benefits and protections afforded by marriage to all Hawaii families. Families like ours who are raising a bright, well-adjusted daughter with all the hopes and aspirations any parent feels about what the future holds, are devastated.

What is striking about the two events in one day is the unembarrassed lip service it paid to oft-trotted out slogans like “support our troops” and “equality and justice for all.” We know from recent research that people in Hawaii by a ratio of 2:1 approve of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

Yet apparently, Lingle feels that it would not have been appropriate to seize this historic opportunity to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to LGBT members of the military even as we welcome their readiness to risk their lives in service to their country.

Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona for one, felt it was too much pressure on one individual in an election year to be asked to make a decision of this import. We believe the people of Hawaii have a right to expect that someone who seeks the highest office in the state won’t balk at the responsibility that comes with it.

Providing same-sex couples and their families legal recognition is a responsibility Lingle has chosen to pass on, as she suggested, to the “people of Hawaii behind the curtain of the voting booth.”

Had others ducked their responsibility the way Lingle did or stood in the way of progress by keeping women confined to roles defined by the familiar norms of society, her own career would not have been possible.

Without political leaders who recognized that the American project is about expanding the meaning of “we the people,” Lingle would not have become the governor of Hawaii. America’s representative form of democracy was designed precisely to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Such votes too often abridge the rights of minorities or those who are seen as “other.”

Many of those who spoke out against civil unions were couples in inter-racial marriages.

Again, had it been left to the people to decide “behind the curtain of the voting booth” these couples would not have been able to get married. It took the Loving vs. Virginia decision of 1967 to make interracial marriage possible in the U.S. That Supreme Court ruling pointed out that to deprive people of the right to marry on the basis of race is “directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment” and deprives “all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

It took Brown vs. the Board of Education in 1954 to decide that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

The cause of justice and minority rights is seldom advanced by popular vote. We elect leaders with the hope that they will have the courage to honestly and impartially serve the needs of the entire community.

Neither justice nor the rights of the LGBT minority were served by Lingle’s decision to veto HB444. Our disappointment only strengthens us for the work we will continue to do to ensure equal rights not just for ourselves but for all LGBT families in Hawaii.

We refuse to yield to the tyranny of the majority “behind the curtain of the voting booth” or to forfeit our claim to the principle of equality enshrined in both our federal and state constitutions.

(Tambry Young and Suzanne King are members of Citizens for Equal Rights)

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

By Rod Thompson

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Something very unusual happened tonight, June 22, in Hawaiian Paradise Park. The people won.

The nine-member board of directors of the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association had called a special board meeting, the second one this month besides the regular monthly meeting, with the purpose of selecting a contractor for a fourth round of street paving in the subdivision.

During the public statements part of the meeting, angry homeowners told board members they were railroading selection of a contractor, despite the fact that questions were still pending about quality of work of the contractor who did the previous three rounds of paving.

Homeowners also said the previous June 7 special meeting violated the association’s bylaws because no notice was given about its purpose.

Then impromptu theater started. One homeowner, a former policeman, reminded Chairman Bob Rainie that Rainie, in a prior meeting, had told a woman words to the effect that he would have hit her if she were a man. Rainie denied saying that.

The ex-policeman ignored him, puffed out his chest, and said, “I’m a man,” as if daring Rainey to hit him.

Another man strode up to the board meeting table and grabbed paving bid packages out of Rainie’s hands, saying at least one of the packages had been illegally opened already.

In the past, Rainie had told homeowners, “You’re out of order. Shut up.” This time, homeowners turned the words against Rainie, shouting, “This meeting is out of order.”

Board members soon made and passed a motion to adjourn without conducting any new business. Six out of the nine members, including Rainie, will be replaced when a new board is installed Sunday. That means fresh members will reconsider the paving issue.

After the adjournment, Rainie told a homeowner he knew the whole thing was orchestrated. The homeowner denied it. He told Rainie he had commented to another resident before the meeting, “You know we’re going to lose.” The other man answered, “Yes, we’re going to lose.”

But the anger generated by a year of Rainie’s control of the chairmanship was too great to be contained. The people won.

(Thompson is a long-time journalist and resident of Hawaiian Paradise Park)

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

By Rick Gaffney

The Hawaii Fishing & Boating Association (HF&BA) drew more than 350 people to its first community meeting June 10 at Kona’s Honokohau Harbor. By the end of that week over 600 people in the Kona community had signed a petition asking for a legislative investigation into the management of Honokohau.

Within a week, more than 850 new members had joined the HF&BA.

What precipitated this boating tea party?

Following on the heels of one rate increase after another, the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR) decided to implement parking fees at Honokohau Small Boat Harbor. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Honokohau Harbor has long seen its surplus revenues flow elsewhere to support other boating facilities, while it remained unfinished, and suffered from collapsing piers, long-term water and electric problems, sanitary and environmental issues, safety and security issues, filthy restrooms, slippery launch ramps and unpaved parking lots.

In short, it is a mess, and never seemed to get any better, despite regular fee increases.

Moreover, the proposed parking fees were going to be quickly implemented without adequate public disclosure, and without much more than a rudimentary plan tailored after one established for the Ala Wai. The two harbors have very little in common.

Honokohau has always been completely accessible to the public and has always supported diverse activities ranging from world class sport fishing to youth-at-risk paddling programs; baby luaus to funerals; sailing, fishing and paddling clubs; and much more. It also supports some 200 small businesses, including commercially permitted activities out of 45% of the berths, a higher percentage of commercial berths than any other small boat harbor.

The businesses at Honokohau wanted the public to feel welcome, and the community wanted continued free access to the ocean and the many public activities that take place at the harbor and the facilities located there.

Their concern was that the proposed parking fees would create a barrier between the harbor and the community, and the idea was explosively unpopular when the DOBOR revealed it in early April. That was the breaking point.

Several long time boating community members got together, polled the business community and the harbor users, and found universal interest in challenging DOBOR’s apparently institutionalized disdain for the boaters of Hawaii.

The Hawaii Fishing & Boating Association, a group founded in the mid-80’s by Capt. Pat Nelson, was revived. Instantly a steering committee of 15 harbor users got in touch with DOBOR, Hawaii’s BLNR member Rob Pacheco, Mayor Billy Kenoi, Councilman Kelly Greenwell and state Rep. Denny Coffman, and began the push back.

The organization is proposing that the DLNR/DOBOR work with the Hawaii Fishing & Boating Association, and area legislators, to actively pursue a new management paradigm for Honokohau Harbor, embracing a public/private management authority focused on improving those facilities and keeping them financially solvent, supportive of the ocean recreation industry and open to the community.

The Association’s mission statement is: “To advocate for effective management of our boating facilities and fisheries.”

The organization’s strategy is “to represent community stakeholders, to be proactive on issues that affect our harbor users/activities/facilities and to work as a partner with local, state, federal and other entities to ensure community access to the ocean, fisheries sustainability and insure the full involvement of the community in ocean resource and boating facilities management decisions.”

While the parking fees were the progenitor, other issues have come up. Convoluted new DOBOR rules; expensive changes to all of our slip descriptions from “bow-and-stern” to “along catwalk;” capricious changes to long-time bookkeeping standards regarding the distribution of harbor generated revenues; and overall administrative arrogance at the top of DOBOR.

For more information and membership forms, contact HawaiiFBA@gmail.com or call HF&BA Secretary, Tina Prettyman, at 329-7896.

(Gaffney is president of Hawaii Fishing & Boating Association and is a long-time fishing and marine advocate.)

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

By Aaron Stene

I’m absolutely frustrated with the anti-Mauna Kea astronomy activists.

They continue wage legal warfare against one of the backbones of Hawaii County’s economy. The Mauna Kea telescopes provide not only an economic, but also educational, boost to our island. However, these activists have portrayed the telescope development on Mauna Kea as evil and harmful to our island.

In addition, they’ve decided to protect Mauna Kea through the courts instead of working within the system. For example, they filed a lawsuit attempting to invalidate the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan. This document provides the framework to preserve Mauna Kea for future generations.

It seems these astronomy opponents hold very shortsighted view of Mauna Kea and this island.

Hawaii County’s economic mainstays are tourism, construction, real estate, and the military. These industries are unsustainable over the long term. Nevertheless, this fact hasn’t dawned on these individuals.

Kealoha Pisciotta even stated “If jobs are the concern, the Target store being built in Kona will offer twice as many jobs as TMT.”

Ms. Pisciotta completely missed the point with that infuriating comment. Retail jobs, unlike ones at the Thirty Meter Telescope, do not provide a living wage or are sustainable over the long term.

So, I hope these activists finally see the bigger picture and cease filing lawsuits attempting to protect Mauna Kea. Hawaii County’s future economic health is at stake.

(Aaron Stene is a Kona resident and long-time blogger.)

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

By Michael Reimer

I think of myself as an informed voter. I do not pretend to understand all the machinations of the budget process or the administrative rules that control it. But I do have a common sense knowledge that says if income is down, expenditures must come down.

All governments are vulnerable to economic downturns. They fail to recognize that they are also vulnerable to economic bonanzas. Hawaii County is no different. This is not something inherited from a previous administration nor created by this one. But it is a challenge to resolve. The Mayor is in a tough position. He is required by law to submit a balanced budget. The best he can do is to take estimated income and balance it with estimated expenses. And that is hard to do in a political system.

It is up to us, the rank and file taxpayers to offer suggestions on how to improve and stabilize the budget process.

But when your back is against the wall, if you wait until the last minute, options are diminished. The easy way out is to increase taxes.

Let’s look at the recent past. The Kim administration’s highest budget was about $403 million. This year’s budget, two years later is $375 million, less than 10 percent different. In two or three years can that 10 percent not be found in decreased expenditures? Have fixed costs gone up so much that it has completely absorbed the 10 percent and added more? Have revenues decreased so much that taxes must be raised?

The government cannot stagnate even in tough years. Think today of what has to be done tomorrow. Are there solutions to the County budget that do not require a raise in taxes? Yes. I have some ideas and I would guess that you do too. From the most fundamental – turn out the lights when the room is empty – to the largest source of revenue – property assessments.

I sent to all Council members a perception paper entitled “10 peas in the budgetary pod.” It was where to look for savings. Some of the 10 items were: Past, Priority, Postpone, Privatization, Pay-as-you-go, Partnerships, Pension, Public input, Permanence, and Politics.

Its intent was to get the Council thinking outside of the crisis management box. Plan ahead. Perform some cost analyses. “Budgeting is not simply an exercise in balancing revenues and expenditures one year at a time; it has a long-range perspective in assessing whether program and service levels can be sustained.”

This county and probably 3300 other counties got caught in the economic blight that hit real estate. The reason is they were taxing the wrong descriptive item of the property. They were taxing the most vulnerable of the tax base, assessments. Tax something else less fickle than sales prices.

We are enduring the consequences of a speculative real estate market. Suppose a $300,000 house in your neighborhood sells once a year for three years. Now your assessment and those of your neighbors by default is based on an increase of nearly $100,000 in commissions and transfer taxes. Burst the bubble and the County is out money it never should have included in the assessment. Real estate taxes should be based on something tangible such as square footage.

Raising real estate taxes presents many enigmas and should be abandoned. The TAT was raised and now there is an increase in taxes for hotels. Farmers pay less in land tax but more for their home on that land. Non-residents are getting socked with very heavy tax increases but those investors include many Island residents. Beware of the impact on the golden goose investor who often provides property for affordable rental. As an alternative, simply reduce the age allowance on residential property by a few percent.

Staffing needs have to be reviewed. Salaries and benefits are the highest portion of the County budget. Cross training would be important. Move the staff to the areas that need them. The concept of perpetually funded vacancies is archaic. You don’t need more staff or funded vacancies, what you need is staff mobility.

Pensions are a volatile issue. Whatever is proposed to bring them into cost effective arena will be unpopular but must be done. The federal government and some states have made sweeping changes to their pension programs. The County can change if it chooses to and frankly, it needs to change.

Favorite projects must be forgotten. Unpopular issues must be discussed. Shared sacrifice must be more than empty rhetoric. Every attempt or suggestion to obtain stimulus money should be vigorously followed.

The Mayor took his shot and now it is forwarded to the Council. Politics as usual must be set aside. This is also the public’s opportunity to be heard. Contact your Council representative. Give them your positive ideas.

(Michael Reimer is a Kona resident and retired Science and Policy Group consultant. He offered this commentary at the Kona Town Meeting on Tuesday, May 11.)

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

By Linda Elliott

With the recent BP accident in the Gulf of Mexico, our hearts go out to the families, residents and the wildlife that will suffer. This tragedy is reaching all the way to our islands as professionals from Hawaii have gone or are preparing to go to assist the cleanup and environmental response.

Linda Elliott

Although Hawaii has no offshore oil platforms we are still at high risk of major oil spills from tankers and other vessel traffic, as more than 90 percent or our energy comes from oil. On land, oil transporting pipelines and storage tanks create additional risk.

Hawaii is also at risk from natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis that can affect critical wildlife habitats and populations. There are also disease outbreaks that can effect critical populations of threatened native birds. The recent avian botulism outbreak on Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge affecting more than 150 critically endangered Laysan Ducks is just one example.

You may be surprised to know that there is currently no wildlife facility in the Pacific Islands to respond to these types of emergencies, though Hawaii has more endangered species per square mile than anywhere else in the world.

The coastal lands, reef ecosystems and waters of the Hawaiian archipelago provide habitat for more than 14 million seabirds, several endangered wetland and remote island birds, Hawaiian monk seals, hawksbill and green sea turtles, more than a dozen species of whales and dolphins and more than 7,000 marine fish and invertebrate species.

Now, with the help of a growing number of supporters from throughout Hawaii and the nation, the construction of the Hawaii Wildlife Center is almost complete on Hawaii’s Big Island. The Hawaii Wildlife Center, located on 2.2 acres in North Kohala, will be the first oiled wildlife response and rehabilitation facility for native Hawaiian wildlife. Trained staff and volunteers will provide the leadership and manpower necessary to respond effectively to Hawaii ’s wildlife response needs.

The HWC will also respond 24/7 to treat sick and injured native birds from throughout the archipelago. It will provide the best achievable medical and husbandry care for sick, injured and orphaned native wildlife, including those affected by natural and man-made disasters, returning those successfully treated back to the wild.

The animals in care will provide hands-on information and experience on these rare species, and also benefit the overall wildlife populations by providing a resource for public education about each individual and the needs of the entire population.

Construction of the Center began in 2009 and the exterior of the building is now complete. The last 16 percent of the funds necessary to complete the interior must still be raised for HWC to open its doors this year ─ hopefully before the next disaster occurs.

During my career, I have provided the necessary skills at 20 emergency responses throughout the world from Alaska to Africa. Because of my expertise, I am on alert around the clock and am currently on stand by to assist with efforts on the Gulf Coast for seabird, waterbird and shorebird rescue.

From experience, I know with certainty that Hawaii needs this critical wildlife response facility now. If you are interested in helping, email me at info@hawaiiwildlifecenter.org. For more information about the project, visit www.hawaiiwildlifecenter.org

(Linda Elliott is the president of Hawaii Wildlife Center in North Kohala.)

Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.

(Janice Palma-Glennie is involved in numerous environmental causes and is a member of the Kona Community Plan Action Committee)

If the State Land Use Commission (LUC) hadn’t reclassified Kohanaiki (“Pine Trees”) out of its former Conservation status for resort and urban development, the community wouldn’t have had to fight for 20 years to secure access and a shoreline public park there.

In fact, without its resale value continually increased by government-added entitlements and speculative purchases, Kohanaiki’s 500 acres may well have been saved from bulldozing and now set aside as public, open space (as it should have been).

Add that to the enlarging Hokulia and Palamanui debacles (and next door Shores of Kohanaiki’s hulking shell) and a slower economy, and it seems there’s a pretty significant lesson here for the LUC as it makes its decision whether or not to reclassify Ooma for more urban development.

Ooma Beachside Villages LLC development plan may look good on paper, but it won’t on Kona’s diminishing coastal, Conservation land. As for the real estate and construction industry’s worn-out and, frankly, sickenly repetitious claims that more approvals of grandiose development will provide needed jobs… more than 7,000 building permits are already on the books in the North Kona district alone with potential to start building today if anyone wanted to.

Construction jobs aren’t lacking due to too little urban zoned land or County generosity in handing out building permits. In fact, Kona’s economy and infrastructure are helter-skelter at least partly due to a history of poor decision-making by both government leaders and greed-driven investors pushing too much development. That short-sightedness includes rezoning and allocating land for haphazardly-located, unplanned-for, mega-projects, accompanied by false hopes and promises given to construction workers and investors.

Now that the County is legally bound to uphold an integrated, long-range, regional plan (the Kona Community Development Plan), there’s no excuse for accepting the fudged need or false claims of appropriateness of “anything, anytime goes” projects, like Ooma.

Unfortunately, the Kenoi administration has thrown its dated, “all development is good” hat into the fray, proclaiming the Ooma development plan to be more mana from heaven. But both they, and the landowners, know clearly that Conservation land is unsuitable for dense, urban growth.

The Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) provides a community-driven, sustainable mapping of regional development that includes better ways to link communities with adequate infrastructure, recreational opportunities, and other services. It’s good planning to follow the KCDP guidelines, and it’s the law to do so.

The KCDP’s No. 1 guiding principle, “Protect Kona’s natural resources and culture,” is blatantly ignored by County support for urbanizing Ooma.

Even during the last boom, it was hard to buy into the idea that Kona needed to have seven or eight thousand building permits on the books at one time. With intensely lagging infrastructure and build-out of earlier permitted projects not happening, there’s even less rational justification for adding an approximate 20% increase to that number (which is what Ooma’s proposed 1000-plus residential and commercial spaces would do).

And no matter the pretty promises of roads, schools, ad nauseum, anyone who lives here knows that Kona’s infrastructure, as well as natural, cultural, social and recreational resources have already been compromised without adding even one more building, no less a mega-development, to the mix.

Coastal Ooma is made up of two parcels owned by a group of morphing investors. Those investors currently have entitlement to build on their mauka 80 acres (bordered by Queen Kaahumanu Highway) of the total 300 acres.

This land use battle would likely ease if 1) the landowners dropped their request to change the classification to Urban and 2) the LUC would vote – for a third time – to protect the Conservation status of the 200 makai acres. If that happened, the community, landowners and government would be on the way to a win-win compromise, instead of fighting for a few more decades.

All parties could start directing their energy toward finding a permanent solution to living in harmony on and around that treasured coastal land without destroying coastal resources, the economy, and the community that depends upon the existence of adequate natural open space for its long-term well-being.

If, unlike the County, you’ve gotten the lesson that sensible development doesn’t include bulldozing coastal, Conservation land to build a small city, then please let the “powers that be” know how you feel about saving what’s left of Kona’s Conservation-protected lands.

No decision will be rendered until all parties to the case are heard, so you can send testimony to luc@dbedt.hawaii.gov If you haven’t testified in person or were unable to attend the May 5 hearing.

And please stay tuned for confirmation of the next hearing which is slated to be held in June in Kona. We need to keep the pressure on for the LUC to vote in favor of protecting Ooma.

Janice Palma-Glennie

More 2% News:

The Charter Commission has submitted its charter amendments to the council for comments (as required by the Hawaii County Charter). The council’s comments are due to the charter commission by mid-May. The following resolutions are recommendations to the Charter Commission about what will be placed on the ballot.

The following three Resolutions recommending changes in the 1% Land Fund Charter amendment will be heard 9:45 a.m. Wednesday, May 5 at the Sheraton Keauhou. We recommend you support Resolution #335. We have been working with Dominic Yagong and his staff to bring forward this resolution.

Two things to remember: You will see charter amendments on the ballot in November. The 1% amount as part of the charter guarantees that at least 1% be placed in the fund each year. The open space ordinance in the code still exists at 2% and is set to resume July 1, 2011.

Council member Yagong’s Resolution #335 recommends:
* 2% of property taxes are deposited in the fund at least twice per year (2% is what 63% of the public voted for in 2006 and approx. $4 million per year- this would reinstate the 2% amount)
* The Land fund is an interest bearing account ($400,000+ in interest has been earned over the last 4 years).
* The fund shall be used for acquisition and NOT for maintenance (This is a Parks and Recreation function, they have a $23 million per year budget- the mayor and council can appropriate funds for maintenance)
* To protect the lands purchased by taxpayer’s money, we must have a clause to protect these lands from being resold. This clause shall run with the land and be recorded as part of the Deed on all past and future purchases: “This property was purchased with monies from the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund. It shall be held in perpetuity for the use and enjoyment of the people of Hawaii County. This land may not be sold, mortgaged, traded or transferred in any way.” (This is necessary because we have seen that the State sells off conservation land in the regular course of business. Who’s to say that the county won’t start selling land to balance their budget? A good case in point is the sale of the Hamakua Sugar lands.)

Council member Guy Enriques’ Resolution #336 recommends:
* Land fund deposits shall be at 1% per year (which is only approximately $2 million per year)
* Monies in this fund shall be used solely to:
(c), (3)- ” Maintain and manage lands purchased by this fund. Ten percent of the annual fund deposits shall be designated for such maintenance and management of the lands purchased by this fund.”
(My comment: The great gift of the fund is to attract matching funds. The matching funds are for acquisition only. We may not be able to attract matching funds, with this clause in the charter. ALSO all of the Land Fund money will be used for maintenance- which is like adding the money back to the general fund. )

Council member Ford’s Resolution #337 recommends:
* Much the same as council member Yagong’s resolution, and recommends to reinstates he 2% amount BUT does not include Yagong’s #4 because it would conflict with Ford’s
(g) which states: “Other funds for purposes other than public access, opens space or natural resources preservation may be used on a prorated basis to purchase a portion of a proposed public access, open space and natural resources preservation fund acquisition. Other funds shall consist of County operational or capital improvement project funds, grants or proceeds form the sale of bonds from any other sources of revenue or funding. The prorated portion of the land purchased with other funds may then be used only for County public health, safety and welfare purposes.”

Debbie Hecht
Campaign Coordinator 2% for the Land Fund
(808) 989-3222

Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.

(Linda Smith is senior policy advisor to Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration)

April 27, 2010

The opportunity to eliminate Furlough Fridays in the next school year has been made possible through the Legislature’s willingness to make available $67 million from the Hurricane Relief Fund for this purpose. These funds however do not address the elimination of the three remaining furlough days this school year. The opportunity to do so rests entirely with the Board of Education and the Hawaii State Teachers Association.

Unfortunately the chairman of the Board of Education and the leaders of the teachers’ union are not willing to take even the first step that will allow children back into the classroom for the remainder of this school year and the next.

Linda Smith

Governor Lingle, responding to teachers and principals who have expressed interest in ending furlough Fridays, suggested on Sunday that Department of Education personnel consider voluntarily returning to schools for the last three furlough days of this school year. As the Governor said, “This would be a welcome and significant gesture to heal our community.”

State law (Chapter 90, Hawaii Revised Statues) allows individuals and organizations to volunteer their time and talents to help the public. Many dedicated DOE employees already volunteer their time to help out before and after school and with many school-related activities outside of their normal teaching assignments. These individuals give generously of their time and talents and we are thankful that they do so.

While federal labor laws place limits on some hourly public workers that limit their ability to volunteer for work they perform in their normal paid capacity, the Department of Education could easily identify these individuals and process appropriate compensation for the additional hours they give back to allow children to return to the classroom.

We know however, that decisions can be made at each school to return on certain furlough days. Late last year parents, teachers and school administrators at 184 of the 256 public schools decided to eliminate one or more furlough days by giving up non-instructional days.

We also know that 17 public charter schools voted against taking furloughs. These actions are commendable and demonstrate that teachers and school staff members are able to make decisions in the best interests of the children.

Volunteering to provide three days of service on behalf of the children and tax payers of our state can make it possible to recover what will otherwise be lost educational days in the remaining time of this year.

Rather than deride the Governor’s recommendation and continue their opposition toward reasonable, responsible and fiscally prudent solutions, the HSTA and BOE continue to fight the financial reality facing this state.

Across the country, schools are struggling to sustain educational opportunities despite the financial crisis that has necessitated reductions in education funding and classroom hours in addition to massive teacher layoffs.

In order to cope with this situation during these difficult times, sacrifice and volunteerism combined with the reasonable expenditure of limited state funds offer opportunities to alleviate the furlough situation we face today.

The Governor is willing to allow the DOE to decide who their critical employees are but the union and the chair of the BOE feel otherwise.

But if they are reasonable and realistic, solutions are available. In short, where there is a will there is way. The HSTA and the chairman of the BOE are saying “no way; no can” at the very moment when the community needs to hear “yes we can and yes we will.”

How sad.

Linda Smith
Senior Advisor – Policy, Office of the Governor