Letters to the Editor

New homeless policy won't work in Hawai'i

I recently read a newspaper article regarding the city's desire to move the homeless from public parks and downtown streets. This registered as not only a flawed policy, but also a morally questionable policy.

The city's plans resemble that of "broken-windows policing," the policy that strongly enforces laws against minor infractions to discourage more serious crimes by sending a signal that the community is in control.

Broken-windows policing has seemed to work on the Mainland. However, I feel it is time Hawai'i's Legislature take a look around and recognize that public policy that flourishes on the Mainland may not work here. We live in a much different environment than Mainland cities do.

If we force the homeless on a nomadic adventure, where will they end up?

Jason Kane

Antitrust exemption better than merger

I am wondering why Aloha and Hawaiian airlines haven't used the temporary antitrust exemption to coordinate flight schedules, security arrangements and airline operations.

I think this exemption would be the saving grace to maintain any semblance of competition in the interisland market if it were put in place permanently. Then this potential merger of Aloha and Hawaiian airlines would not be needed.

My interpretation of this exemption is that it would allow Hawaiian and Aloha to save money on reducing the interisland flights that are not making money, and would allow the coordination of security arrangements and airline operations (again to save money), while maintaining some semblance of integrity of competition in the interisland market without having a monopoly, which a merged Hawaiian and Aloha airlines would be.

From what I have seen and read, the forces behind this merger have conveniently pushed this exemption under the rug and instead have gone forward with the merger plan, which will handsomely line their pockets with money. I strongly urge this other option be considered before allowing this merger.

Aaron M. Stene
Kailua, Kona, Big Island

Arrogant smokers are getting their due

Up to now, I've been ignoring the letters decrying the smoking ban in restaurants and other public places, but when nonsmokers and vegetarians are compared to Adolf Hitler, well, enough is enough.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I am a long-time ex-smoker who, at one time, owned all the arrogance and self-absorption that I see in smokers today. You smokers have marginalized yourselves with your behaviors that are annoying and noxious to the rest of us.

You've finally become a minority — one that I have no sympathy for because your habit is so filthy and most of you refuse to police yourselves. You still act as if the world is your ashtray and that it's OK to toss your butts wherever and blow your smoke at whomever.

So boo-hoo, come July you aren't going to be able to ruin my lunch or dinner with your cigars and cigarettes. The worm has turned — about time, too.

Michel Grotstein
Kane'ohe

Long-term-care plan a bureaucratic mistake

I couldn't believe your March 7 lead editorial on the long-term-care program. Such a program would end up just like our Hurricane Relief Fund — a farce.

Leave the running of such programs to private operators. At least private operators watch the bottom line; government workers don't. Government bureaucrats have nothing to lose personally and are rarely called upon to account for money spent, and it shows in the way they squander public (our) money.

Randy Leong

Why don't we just replace June Jones?

What are the chances of getting former UH coach Dick Tomey to replace June "It's Not the Money" Jones, who once said it was his dream to return to Hawai'i and coach college kids?

We no longer idolize or respect Coach Jones, whose financial aspirations have taken precedence over his football players. True, we may not have as successful a team without Coach Jones, but at least we'll have a coach with integrity and the true aloha spirit.

Kathy Endo

Lobby for the return of our hurricane fund

I urge all who were contributors to the Hurricane Relief Fund by way of premiums to call or write their representatives and senators to protest the proposed use of the fund to shore up the state's budget shortfall.

We can look at our contribution to the fund as a special tax levied on a select population (homeowners) for a very specific purpose. Instead of benefitting those who paid, there is a proposal by the governor to use the fund for general purposes, which was not the intent of the fund.

The House apparently thinks it is being magnanimous by holding the illegalmoney grab to 50 percent. How about returning our contribution plus interest to the homeowners who came up with the money in the first place?

Rose T. Pfund