Letters to the Editor
Bill would've given negligible benefits
This is in response to the July 21 commentary by Michael Hamnett, Gary Chock, Scott Clawson and Gerald Peters regarding the hurricane retrofit grant program that was vetoed by Gov. Cayetano.
The governor vetoed the $2 million funding because the program's fundamental laws, identified in an earlier veto, were never corrected.
I have no doubt that the authors of the commentary are well-intentioned individuals. However, the hurricane retrofit grant program proposal contained in the bill has several fatal flaws.
Some of these flaws are enumerated below:
• Very few would benefit. The vetoed legislation limited access to the retrofit grant program during its first year only to former policy holders of the Hawai'i Hurricane Relief Fund (HHRF).
Given the small amount of the appropriation, this limitation would have unfairly denied access to the vast majority of Hawai'i's citizens. While the program is noble in concept, it would have provided negligible benefits.
• Insufficient funding. The programs' appropriation was so small that most homeowners would not befit from it — again an unfair result.
There are approximately 240,000 single-family homes in Hawai'i and many additional multi-family dwellings. Without even taking into account the cost of administering the program, if the maximum grant amount of $2,100 per home were given out, only 952 homeowners would benefit. Even after three years, the program would not have reached even 1 percent of Hawai'i's homeowners.
This means that most of Hawai'i's citizens would not see any of this money, and the vast majority of the homes in the state would not benefit from the program.
• Taxpayers' money. The legislation proposed to appropriate money from the general revenues to pay for the program, not from the HHRF. This means that the program would have to be paid for by monies that could have gone to other worthwhile programs, such as education. Given that direct benefits can be realized by applying taxpayers' money to programs such as education, the governor's decision was a very prudent and responsible one.
At this time, the state simply cannot afford the ambitious and expensive undertaking that would be required to retrofit enough homes to have any discernible impact on homeowners' rates.
• Collateral events. Much of the property damage caused during a hurricane is from collateral events, such as a neighbor's roof blowing into another house, falling trees and debris flying through the air at high speeds.
Although a particular house may be retrofitted to mitigate windstorm damage, it would still be subject to the same collateral damage as homes without the retrofit. Without mitigation devices being installed in most residences throughout the state, it is unlikely that there would be any positive impact on homeowners' insurance rates.
• Not very effective. The only way to effectively mitigate property losses in a hurricane would be to have a very ambitious program that would allow for the retrofitting of most homes in the state. By limiting the number of persons who could receive a grant, this program would have fallen far short of this goal.
The governor is not opposed to hazard mitigation. The governor is opposed to government programs that do not make good use of taxpayers' money.
Kathryn S. Matayoshi
Director
Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
Humane Society need not do government work
I was surprised and a little alarmed by Anne Kobayashi's Aug. 2 comments about the handling of nuisance animal complaints. She seems to want the Humane Society, a private charity, to underwrite the costs of government work.
I donate to the Humane Society. I do so to help the animals and Humane Society programs. Does Kobayashi really think it would be right for my charitable donation to be diverted to fund a government responsibility? I don't think so.
Jeff Babcock
Award should be taken when group is inclusive
I would have preferred that Vicky Cayetano did not accept an award from the Boy Scouts.
There is no question that the Boy Scouts of America officially, openly and explicitly discriminates against gays and atheists.
It will not allow a man known to be gay or an atheist to be a scoutmaster, and it does not permit gay or atheist boys to be members.
The Boy Scouts discriminates against children, as well as adults. This discrimination has been held by the highest court in the land to be legal.
The Boy Scouts has been strongly criticized for its discrimination and it will continue to be strongly criticized, as long as it continues to discriminate, by those who support tolerance, inclusiveness and fair treatment of all.
The Boy Scouts wants to keep its tax-exempt status, which amounts to a subsidy by all taxpayers, and it would like to continue using the facilities of our governments and other groups, many of which have policies against discrimination on the basis of religion and/or sexual orientation.
It also wants to recruit in our schools, many of which have nondiscrimination policies regarding sexual orientation and/or religion. I see conflicts and problems.
It should be noted that other groups that serve young people, such as the Girl Scouts, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys & Girls Clubs and other organizations, do not see the need to discriminate in the same way as the Boy Scouts. It just shows that the Boy Scouts are backward and behind the times.
I really appreciate Cayetano's statement that she would like the Boy Scouts to be inclusive. It would have been better if she had passed on her award until the Boy Scouts are actually inclusive.
Jim Bill
Governor telling truth and just doing his job
There's nothing quite so appealing as a politician promising us a tax cut. They never tell you the whole truth; they never drop the other shoe. Don't you feel deceived? Aren't you ashamed you cashed that $300 tax-cut check now that you know President Bush's tax cut has destroyed the surplus and brought back huge deficits? I sure do.
Well, Gov. Cayetano has told us the truth. And the Linda Lingle supporters are outraged. He says that he had the right to do so. I say he had the responsibility to do so. If the governor doesn't protect us from this folly, who is going to? He was just doing his job.
Rick Lloyd
Lingle plan helps to stimulate economy
Mr. Cayetano, your wrongs do not make a right. You announced that Linda Lingle's proposal for a new food-tax credit and other changes (by the way, they are not taxing the sick and injured) would cost the state $428 million in lost tax revenue in four years.
The way I see it, those taxes are reduced by $428 million, which means there must be cuts of equal value that fall under the current "wasteful spending" category. But wait, if the $428 million is being put back into the hands of the people, they would be able to buy more products and services, which can only help stimulate and build a strong economy.
Debra Parmley
Waipahu
Still waiting for analyses of other candidates
I and many other residents are waiting for Gov. Cayetano's analysis of the plans of other candidates. Where is his analysis of D.G. "Andy" Anderson's plan for a Hawai'i Gas Authority that will reduce the price of gas on O'ahu by 40 cents a gallon? How about Anderson's plan for a "Pineapple Lottery" that would somehow raise $30 million to go to schools.
While he's at it, how about an analysis of Vicky Cayetano's elder-care plan that would charge every person in Hawai'i $10 a month for life, then pay back $2,100 a month for 12 months even when nursing homes charge more than $4,000 a month? Who will pick up the difference?
I'm waiting, Governor. Were you telling the truth about analyzing everyone's plan or blowing hot air?
Erm Gartley
Kane'ohe
Princess' will is not law, but subject to it
Is it the money, or is it the children?
The Bishop Estate trustees know very well the thin ice upon which they skate. On the topside is the "trust" operating as a tax-free organization based fundamentally on two issues (one not necessarily more important than the other):
1. Community chest (Kamehameha Schools i.e. education for the disadvantaged).
2. Religious autonomy (presumably, the Protestant version).
On the bottom side is the tremendous wealth which the trustees are charged with protecting and compiling, and most importantly, keeping from the sticky fingers of the tax man.
As many of us have alluded to many times, the IRS has a provision in which it has allowed certain organizations to become and remain free from certain taxes. However, the IRS simply mirrors and incorporates current federal law and Supreme Court decisions.
The ultimate discriminator is federal law and its interpretation relative to the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court. And here, the laws are very clear. Specifically 26 U.S.C. 501, Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. of which the Supreme Court has upheld consistently, most recently in the Bob Jones University case.
Here, Bishop Estate, aka Kamehameha Schools, has failed the test in that it has repeatedly violated the law and has either lost or settled whenever challenged.
Many clamor to the ring of the "Will of the Princess." The fact is that the will is not law. Quite conversely, it is subject to law.
And although the spirit of the will might seem to fall within reasonable interpretation of constitutionality, it is implementation of the will that renders it and its benefactors on a constitutional sandbar.
It is not insignificant to note that the fine princess was married to a savvy New York investment banker who probably had much to do with the inception of the will and its contents. I am quite sure he was prudent enough to try to shelter as much of the estate as possible from taxes and encroachment from the federal government.
What he (or she, it doesn't matter) did not know, nor could have known, is that sweeping civil rights legislation would be passed less than 100 years later and would render the trust in jeopardy or that a pack of self-serving political goons would mismanage and violate the spirit of the trust and U.S. law.
The needs of the children and the community have long ago been playing second fiddle.
Daniel O. Lloyd
Wailuku
One right answer — one wrong name
In the July 7 Advertiser, David Shapiro writes: "Gov. Ben Cayetano's Achilles heel as a leader is that he thinks there's only one right answer — and that he's the only one who knows what it is."
Excuse me, but as usual, Shapiro's got it wrong.
That sentence should read: "David Shapiro's Achilles heel as a columnist is that he thinks there's only one right answer — and that he's the only one who knows what it is."
DeWilton George
