Posted on: Friday, November 1, 2002
Letters to the Editor
Voting for Mazie, Matt despite endorsement
I disagree with your Oct. 29 endorsement of Linda Lingle for governor. In fact, your explanation of "Why The Advertiser recommends Lingle" fails to offer convincing evidence of why we should follow your recommendation.
You admit that you disagree with Lingle's position on home rule and decentralization of the school board, and the only reason you give for your endorsement is that you "hope" she will bring change. Sadly, you, too, have been taken in by her slick sound bites and glossy rhetoric.
You want us to "hope" for the kind of change we saw in 1996 by Republican House leader Newt Gingrich to kick welfare recipients off assistance, knowing full well that there are not enough jobs in our economy for all those who want to work?
You want us to "hope" for change in women's right to choose (Roe vs. Wade) and women's access to athletics and academics (Title IX) as the Republicans have threatened to do?
You want us to "hope" for change in our current peaceful lifestyle as the Republicans are getting us into war? I think not.
You also openly praise Mazie Hirono as a state lawmaker and lieutenant governor and that she has "conducted herself with integrity and honor." I am voting for Mazie and Matt despite your recommendation.
Debbie Shimizu
Hawai'i voters can see through the Democrats
I am appalled at the Democratic Party. In recent ads, it claims that the Republican Party thinks the people of Hawai'i cannot govern themselves.
The Democratic Party should look at its own actions: using fear and bullying tactics just to keep power. It's the Democratic Party that thinks it needs to govern Hawai'i.
The people of Hawai'i should not tolerate this hypocritical and deceptive behavior any longer. We know who will make the better leaders. We can make our own choices by ourselves, thank you.
Alan Kim
Lingle won't be able to assist Hawaiians
To Hawaiians and those who support us who are thinking about voting for Linda Lingle, who says her relation with the Republican administration in Washington will benefit us Hawaiians, we would like to offer one reminder:
The current U.S. solicitor general appointed by President Bush, Theodore Olson, was the attorney who attacked the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the Rice vs. Cayetano appeal before the Supreme Court, the case that opened OHA voting to non-Hawaiians.
Before being selected as Bush's solicitor general, Olson had announced his intent to file new suits to dismantle all federal- and state-supported Native Hawaiian programs, including OHA.
So will Lingle protect Hawaiians against attacks from the likes of Olson in her own party? We think not.
The GOP is obviously no friend to Hawaiians. If you support Hawaiian programs, we strongly urge you not to vote for Lingle on Nov. 5.
Kunani Nihipali
Union got it all wrong in its attack on Lingle
The patently obvious smear campaign against Linda Lingle by the Democratic Party and its allies seems to be nearing a fever pitch.
The Hawai'i State AFL-CIO just sent out mailings to all its members (promoting Mazie Hirono) and slamming Lingle because she will "cut 1/2 of the Department of Education's budget" and "she wants to stop the Dept. of Accounting and General Services (DAGS) from providing the building repairs our schools need," citing Lingle's pamphlet, "A New Beginning for Hawai'i," as its source.
Contrary to the AFL-CIO, Lingle actually stated she wants to "redirect 50 percent of the money currently spent on the DOE's centralized bureaucracy so it is actually spent in the classroom or at the local level." On repairs, she would "manage and implement all repairs and maintenance on the district level, removing DAGS from its current role as statewide carpenter, plumber and painter."
Why would ordinarily sane and sensible people smear a decent woman like Lingle unless it derives from a fear of change? To resist change leads to corruption, decay and stagnation, which is where Hawai'i is today.
John Jaeger
Hirono obvious winner in debate with Lingle
I can't imagine what gubernatorial debate Kevin Dayton saw (Oct. 26 analysis) if he could describe Linda Lingle as "grabbing the momentum" and "appearing relaxed and at ease." He was obviously living in a world of biased fantasy since most of the post-debate TV commentators, including your paper's own Jerry Burris, appeared to feel the opposite.
When Ms. Lingle smiled her forced teeth-gritting smile, she looked so stiff and uncomfortable.
By contrast, the lieutenant governor spoke naturally, smiled normally and gestured confidently and appropriately. It was obvious she was speaking with more experience and from the heart.
Faye Kennedy
Linda, Duke are right on key moral issues
Linda Lingle and Duke Aiona, along with 70 percent of Hawai'i voters, are against same-sex marriage.
The issue now is partial-birth abortion. At least 30 states ban partial-birth abortion. Linda and Duke would do the same for Hawai'i.
Linda and Duke are the right choice to lead our Aloha State for this moral issue.
Leonardo S. Jamias
A Hirono administration would hurt our state
The Oct. 27 comparison of the records of Linda Lingle and Mazie Hirono is very enlightening.
Linda Lingle's record as mayor of Maui shows a history of pragmatism, budgetary responsibility and good sense about what is in the best interests of the community at large. She took advantage of Maui's tourism appeal to strengthen Maui's economy and quality of life.
Mazie Hirono has a consistent history of advocating big, intrusive government, even in the face of economic disaster. She has supported arbitrary caps on gasoline prices, mandatory rollbacks on automobile insurance premiums, putting the state government into competition with private-sector worker-comp insurers and confiscatory taxes on real estate capital gains. And more.
These ideas suggest a socialist ideology that either ignores — or is ignorant of — the basic economic advantages of free markets. These are precisely the types of government policies that discourage investment and create hardships not only for the despised "big" businesses but also for the smaller businesses that create jobs Hawai'i so desperately needs.
Thankfully, Mazie has not been effective in getting all of her bad ideas implemented. But her history certainly tells us what direction change would take in a Hirono administration.
Robert R. Kessler
Commissioner must side with the public
It was recently reported that Linda Lingle made the statement that if she wins, she will replace the insurance commissioner because the insurance industry does not like him.
What is troubling about Lingle's announcement is that she wants a commissioner whom the insurance industry likes.
This is the philosophy, however, that led to the Enron and WorldCom disasters. When government regulators forget that they work for the public's interest and become too cozy with the businesses they regulate, the results are the corporate scandals that have cost millions of Americans many billions of dollars. These recent scandals on the Mainland should have served as a wake-up call that the function of government regulation is to keep business in compliance with the law, not to keep them happy.
Since the 1990s, the Insurance Division has ordered rate reductions for both workers' compensation and auto insurance, saving Hawai'i's consumers and businesses hundred of millions of dollars. This is money that has stayed here in Hawai'i instead of going to the profits of Mainland insurance companies. It is no wonder that insurance companies don't like the insurance commissioner and support Lingle.
As far as Lingle's statement that I favor attorneys, the insurance commissioner regulates insurance companies, not attorneys. Disputes before me generally involve attorneys for insurance companies and consumers, not between attorneys and insurance companies.
Wayne Metcalf
Real estate market on Kahala Ave. thriving
Regarding the Oct. 28 article on the Kahala Avenue real estate market: I wanted to provide details that would give a more well-rounded picture of the market.
In the article, a Realtor is quoted as saying that "there have not been any big sales on Kahala Avenue in some time." However, if you check the local MLS system, you will find that in the last two weeks alone, there were three sales on that street: 4439 Kahala Ave. at $7 million on Oct. 17; 4670 at $3.8 million on Oct. 22, and 4663 at $9.7 million on Oct. 24.
By those few examples alone, you can see that the real estate market along Kahala Avenue is alive and well.
Real estate continues to be a bright spot in the local and national economy thanks to low interest rates and favorable tax advantages rather than a move toward real estate speculation as a replacement for an unpredictable stock market.
Donna Yamagishi
Here's how Question 2 would work
First of all, we are pleased that there has been much conversation regarding Constitutional Amendment Question No. 2. It is so important as a community that we understand the issues that will affect us now and, more so, the generation hereafter. I am happy to respond to Robyn Blanpied, whose Oct. 29 letter to you requested more information on the issue.
Scenario 1: "What happens if a group whose affiliations you don't care for applies for bonds? There seems to be an assumption that it will only be those we all like that will apply."
If a private school is interested in applying for a special purpose revenue bond issuance, the details of the construction project would have to be presented to the Legislature in the form of a bill. During the legislative session, Hawai'i citizens would be welcome to submit testimony either supporting or opposing bills that may affect them. For these bonds to be issued, a two-thirds vote by both houses and approval by the governor would be needed. Ultimately, the school's construction project must be found to benefit the general public.
Additionally, private investors, like you, would be able to choose whether or not you would want to purchase these bonds. If you "don't care" for a particular group or organization, you don't have to buy their bonds. On the other hand, for those folks who like buying tax-exempt bonds for their investment portfolio, they would have the opportunity to buy bonds that support Hawai'i's students and possibly a school in their neighborhood.
Robyn Blanpied mistakenly wrote that "the state ends up giving them the money." The state would not give any money to private schools. The state would only authorize the issuance of these bonds, and bond underwriters would sell them to the investors. The bonds would not be secured by any credit of the state and there would be no obligation on the part of the state to repay any of the bond proceeds. Scenario 2: "A church school decides it needs a new parking garage. After its completion, the school folds and it sells for a handsome profit. Thanks, state taxpayers. Private profit at public expense."
Again, no state funds would be used for the issuance of special purpose revenue bonds to private schools. It's important to know that the projects presented to the Legislature must have an educational purpose such as the construction of classrooms, libraries or science labs.
Scenario 3: "You live in a historic district. The private church school gets bond funding to put up a huge monstrosity next door. Your property values just sank."
As with all construction projects, zoning requirements would have to be met and building permits obtained.
With many checks and balances in place, the fact that no public funds would be taken away from the public schools, that this wouldn't cost Hawai'i taxpayers one cent, that the state would not guarantee the bonds, and the state's credit rating would not be affected, it is our hope that you will vote "YES" on Question No. 2 — 52,000 children and youth are counting on you.
Robert M. Witt
'Aiea
Ho'oipokalaena'auao Nakea Pa
Bumpy "Pu'uhonua" Kanahele
Wahiawa
Insurance commissioner
Coldwell Banker Pacific Properties
Executive director, Hawai'i Association of Independent Schools
