Letters to the Editor

Loss of lives means park should stay closed

I have just read the April 15 article regarding the opening of Sacred Falls still being an option. Needless to say, I am stunned.

My husband, my daughter and two very close friends were at Sacred Falls on Mother's Day 1999. Since the landslide, my family and I have become very close to the other families in this tragedy. I can't believe the state is thinking of re-opening that park.

Wasn't the loss of eight lives enough to say the park should remain closed?

Debbie Nichols
Jacksonville, Fla.
(Formerly of Schofield Barracks)

What's all the fuss about UH's Dobelle?

The investment portfolios at some foundations are now down as much as 25 percent over last year. Adding 15 percent to the UH endowment over the next three years would make Evan Dobelle a hero. I say, let him try.

The lawsuit over Dobelle's salary is curious — none of the petitioners complained about June Jones' impressive salary when it was announced.

A public search for Kenneth Mortimer's successor would have quickly become political. At the University of Florida, all of the finalists for the presidency have withdrawn after 270 faculty members signed a petition complaining about the lack of faculty participation in the search.

Richard Thompson

ADB Watch must get liability insurance

Our city officials are correct in requiring ADB Watch, an umbrella group representing about two dozen organizations, to provide liability insurance, as required of other organizations seeking permits to use our city's properties (streets, sidewalks and parks).

In the best interest of the people of Honolulu, if ADB Watch is unable to obtain liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage, which may be caused by its 2,000 to 5,000 demonstrators at the Asian Development Bank meeting at the Hawai'i Convention Center on May 7 to l4, then it should be barred from our public properties.

Wilbert W.W. Wong

Homeless proposal would deny rights

The March 22 article headlined "Homeless fear weeding" brings to light a perplexing question on homelessness.

The City Council is asserting that it is all right to criminalize the act of being without shelter. This idea is outdated and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court previously outlawed debtor prisons, making it illegal to jail an individual for not having any money. How does this country, which prides itself on being the land of the free, deny the most basic of rights — existence?

This proposal, although aimed at controlling protesters during the Asian economic conference, has much broader-reaching goals. The way the bill is written would criminalize all people even suspected of being without a sustainable shelter, and homelessness is not illegal.

Throwing people in jail for being without a house would increase the burden on the state by holding these individuals for up to 48 hours in a city jail. And even though the council will say this bill is targeted at protesters, it does not have an expiration date on it.

If shelters were readily available for those individuals without housing, the problem would not exist on the scale it does. This proposal is wrong, and only harm can come from it. We do not live in a police state, and this would be a fundamental infringement on our most basic of human rights.

Jennifer Perry

Mama, don't let your kids become educators

In 1973, I applied to the UH College of Education. The adviser discouraged me from becoming a teacher because of the lack of teacher openings at that time. I instead chose electronics and graduated with a two-year degree from Honolulu Community College.

This decision changed my life because today I make more than any of the HSTA and most UHPA educators. I also tried to discourage my daughter, Kristy, from becoming a teacher, who just walked a picket line with other HSTA members. The message is clear:

• Discourage your sons and daughters from being educators in Hawai'i.
• Go away to the Mainland for a college education.
• Never vote for a Cayetano again.

Lindsay Tamashiro

Ex-officer Arakawa hasn't been convicted

In a recent "red couch" studio interview with City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, Channel 2 newscaster Leslie Wilcox asked about retired police officer Clyde Arakawa's DUI case. My question is, what DUI case? Arakawa's intox results were nowhere close to the illegal limit and his videotaped demeanor at the accident scene clearly shows unimpaired walking and normal speaking.

Further, if Carlisle's pretrial grandstanding predicted a "slam-dunk win" for the prosecution, then why hasn't he proceeded? Possibly to let civil action proceed first, hoping its circumstantial evidence would improve a weak criminal case?

He certainly has encouraged the local media to vilify a presumably innocent man before any fault has been determined and already hurt the chances of finding an impartial jury.

Tom McBride
Kailua