Letters to the Editor
We've been paying for trash pickups all along
When Mayor Harris and City Council Chairman Gary Okino claim taxpayers have been receiving trash pickup services "for free" all these years, it makes me see red.
Somebody should remind them that trash pickup services have always been among the city services paid for by real property taxes. This fact has been noted in numerous budget presentations by the Harris administration to the City Council.
To claim the services were never paid for is a pathetic attempt to mislead the public into accepting, without question, this new $8 fee they would like to charge everybody.
We understand the council's dilemma in trying to balance the new budget, but it is not helpful to apply such a deceptive "spin" on the argument for new taxes.
We all know the reason we don't have enough money to pay the city's bills: The mayor has misspent so much for his pet projects and vision teams to win votes. But if we're going to raise taxes — through fees or an increase in property tax — please stick to the facts.
Frances Cypher
Curbside recycling doesn't seem to work
For several years I lived in a suburb of Seattle with curbside recycling. It seemed to make sense. Then, little by little, I started discovering that there actually was no way to recycle most of the stuff that was picked up.
Nobody around there melted down glass, nor do they anywhere, as far as I know. There are too many varieties of plastic to be recycled, except for milk containers that constituted a sufficient volume of one kind of plastic to be worth recycling. I don't know what happened to paper, but normally recycled paper comes mostly from paper trimmings in the paper mill itself. You need a large ratio of fiber to ink before it is worthwhile to recycle paper.
We already have a lot of recycling regulations directed mostly at big commercial or governmental agencies. It seems we are about to impose more regulations (and expense) on individual families.
I hope that both politicians and environmentalists will take a good look at recycling, to see what the added effort and expense actually will accomplish.
I note from the newspaper that Seattle has given up curbside recycling.
Harold Loomis
Misconceptions exist about freeway study
Some readers complained about spending "big bucks" on a five-year freeway research study at the University of Hawai'i published in The Advertiser ("H-1 gridlock study offers help," March 15) and about Department of Transportation engineers doing little for our freeway system. While our study was looking for improvements to the central part of the H-1 Freeway between Middle Street and 6th Avenue, the state DOT completed the H-3 Freeway, deployed the zipper lane and constructed an additional lane on the H-1, west-bound by Aloha Stadium, to mention some major freeway projects.
The cost of the study was $188,000, of which 80 percent was contributed by the federal Highway Administration. The study produced several well-researched recommendations and provided financial support to nine engineering students. Two students completed master's theses and one a doctoral dissertation using data from this project.
This type of contract is a win-win situation for the state and the university. In fact, the California Department of Transportation spends millions every year on research done by transportation centers of UC campuses at Berkeley, Davis and Irvine. We hope to create a transportation center at UH, which is something we tried unsuccessfully to do in 2002.
The study also proved that some "common-sense" suggestions are actually bad ideas because they will cause more delay and inconvenience.
The implementation horizon depends on federal and state approvals, funding for design and construction, and political priorities.
Panos D. Prevedouros, Ph.D.
Associate professor of civil engineering, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Convention-goers should get free ride
Recently, I have had city transportation experiences in Melbourne, Australia, and Park City, Utah, that should be blueprints for improving the local bus transportation in Honolulu.
Last year in Melbourne, participants in the World Masters Games (20,000 athletes) were provided with a pass that allowed the bearer to travel free on the extensive transportation system (buses, trains and trolleys) for the period of the games. In Park City, everyone travels on the Park City/Summit County bus system for free.
Suppose participants of conventions held at the Hawai'i Convention Center were provided with a bus pass that allowed the bearer free transportation (TheBus) for the duration of the convention. This would be a major enticement for convention-goers — to take advantage of the free transportation to travel to locations inside and outside the urban areas.
Also, suppose the bus system were organized to provide "free" transportation within downtown Honolulu to Diamond Head/-Waikiki. Buses that traveled outside that area would originate in downtown or in Waikiki, and charge the nominal fare of $1 or so. This would provide the tourists and locals the advantage of having free transportation within downtown and Waikiki on TheBus.
To travel outside of that area, anyone could still have TheBus service (as it now exists) for that nominal fee. Is this too hard to do?
Phil Powers
Reporting one-sided in quarantine story
I am a member of the Quarantine Coalition and I am dismayed at the terrible reporting of the March 30 "Pet owners resist quarantine plan." Your reporter consistently couched the argument as "pet lovers," "animal lovers" (emotional), against the one true, concerned authority, Dr. James Foppoli (unemotional, rational).
You do not present the facts against his arguments; you do not challenge his claims. You make the issue into one of competing emotions and competing "credentials": his "unemotionalism" as a "scientist," presenting his claims as mere factual assertions, against our self-centered, over-the-top emotionalism about mere animals; his "qualifications" as our state vet vs. us "lay people" who know nothing.
This is disingenuous, fallacious and unethical.
We are not challenging his position with unresearched opinions we have accepted because "some experts in the field" and "some veterinarians" say so and we like the way it sounds, but because the highest authorities on rabies and its prevention, control and eradication in the world and our nation say so, unanimously, proof of which you didn't even bother to ascertain.
Tom Molloy
Ha'iku, Maui
Degrees don't make better teacher subs
I am writing this for all the wonderful, hard-working substitutes — those who don't have a four-year degree but have years of experience in the classroom. Come this September, the Department of Education will be in for a big surprise when teachers are in need of substitutes.
I am one of the many subs without that bachelor's degree but have spent more years in the classroom than many regular classroom teachers. Doesn't experience count? Many of us have more than 20 years experience. We love working in the classroom and hope to make a difference.
When a woman becomes a mother, does society say she needs a degree? No. We, also, work hard at home. So we do in the classroom. Having a degree will not make better "substitute" teachers. We don't grade report cards, pass/fail students or talk to parents about their child. We do work with the children and try to help make them better people.
So, DOE, before you let us go — think about what you are doing. If necessary, observe us, ask for recommendations from classroom teachers, but don't let us go!
Barbara Kajiwara
Kailua
Getting the story on revolution straight
Thurston Twigg-Smith's March 27 letter, "Few Americans were part of 1893 revolution," contains three errors:
• H.S. Willis, the U.S. minister to Hawai'i, could not "order" the revolutionists to reinstate the queen to the throne, in return for amnesty, considering that he was an "arbitrator," as correctly stated in Twigg-Smith's book, "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?"
Besides, the Harrison administration and all the powers in the Pacific had already recognized the provisional government of Hawai'i, and it was sovereign.
• The queen said that if she were reinstated, she would have the revolutionists decapitated, not "hanged."
Again, in his book, Twigg-Smith uses the correct quote, "decapitated." (See also "Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen," where she denies having said "decapitate" and that decapitations were never used in Hawai'i. They were. For adulterous chiefs. See "Journal of William Ellis," 1827, British missionary in Hawai'i.)
• President Cleveland, after hearing of the decapitation plans, in November 1893, ended negotiations and referred the matter to the U.S. Congress, but did not at that time "recognize" the Republic of Hawai'i.
The republic was declared on July 4, 1894, and recognized thereafter.
George Avlonitis
Do we hike taxes or scale back services?
Jerry Burris' Sunday column was excellent in pointing out the somber yet simple reality of Hawai'i's economic future. He referred to a national study that used honest dollars-and-cents projections to prove that Hawai'i will consistently fall many millions of dollars in deficit if we don't either increase taxes or decrease services.
Even if we pull out of our current slump and return to our normal vibrancy, the study found, our budget will inevitably fall on average 3.6 percent short — if we don't raise taxes or increase services.
This sobering conclusion is important to consider as we head into a series of public service union contract negotiations in the coming months. We now must ask ourselves what we want. Do we want our taxes increased? That might take care of the problem, but as Hawai'i is one of the highest-taxed states in the country already, it could also result in further economic stagnation. Alternatively, are we willing to accept a decrease in governmental services?
Our current political machine is heavily weighted to public unions and the perpetuation of excessive governmental rosters. (Do you get a paid day off to go vote? I don't.) We are already seeing property tax and other increases under Mayor Harris. Unless we want our taxes increased again, we must collectively steel ourselves to absolutely necessary decreases in state government, giving up the 40 percent pork-barrel buildup that Gov. Waihee piled on.
These are the two choices; there are no others.
Ron Kienitz
Why should Kalihi be a dumping ground?
I grew up in Kalihi, close to the Sand Island area, and most of my family still lives in the Kalihi area. I was deeply offended by Michelle Spalding Matson's March 14 letter suggesting that a facility for the homeless be set up at Sand Island because some homeless people "prefer the outdoor lifestyle."
Why does Kalihi have to be a dumping ground for the homeless? Why should the residents of Kalihi have to deal with the problems that the homeless will bring with them, including mental illness, drug use and an increase in crime?
What I have become all too familiar with, seeing homeless people's behavior in Waikiki and in the downtown area, is that many homeless, due to a lack of possessions of their own, have little respect for the possessions of others. Kalihi residents would find themselves being panhandled by vagrants, or their homes and apartments being urinated and defecated on, their cars being broken into, etc.
Perhaps not all homeless are mentally ill, drug users or criminals, but enough of them are that it would affect the quality of life for the people of Kalihi.
I wonder if Ms. Matson lives in Kalihi and wouldn't mind sharing her district with the homeless — or does she live elsewhere and views Kalihi as far enough from her own home so that she wouldn't be affected?
I have news for her: Kalihi, and the people who live there, are not expendable.
Duane D. Browning
Animals being used in war deserve protection
The Bush administration proudly proclaims that our military is all-volunteer. This is not true for animals that are unwilling conscripts in a war in which they have no interest.
During this war, the gas-detector chickens have all died — to be replaced with pigeons whose fate is unknown, but not promising. Dolphins and sea lions have been trained to detect mines and carry underwater cameras; they have also been trained to attack enemy personnel and even conduct suicide detonations of ordnance. They have no choice regarding their service. These animals have no enemies in this war. They have been placed in harm's way just as horses, elephants, dogs and others have been used in battle over the ages and have died in the thousands.
Those numbers pale, however, compared to those animals that suffer in Department of Defense laboratories (such as Tripler Army Medical Center) and biohazard facilities. Those animals receive absolutely no protection under federal or state law. They are shot, poisoned, vivisected, irradiated, deliberately exposed to disease and, when their usefulness is over, incinerated.
Cathy Goeggel
Director, Research & Investigations, Animal Rights Hawai'i
