Letters to the Editor

Typo altered meaning of long-term-care letter

The purpose of my April 23 letter was to clarify the details around the very important issue of long-term care. However, your readers need to be made aware of a typographical error that reversed the meaning and confused my statement. The correct wording should read as follows:

"The benefit was never intended to cover the full costs of nursing-home care, although it could help supplement amounts not paid by insurance or Medicaid. Instead, one of the ideas behind this program is its ability (not "inability," as printed) to allow some patients to remain in their homes if all they require is a little extra assistance with daily activities such as bathing or eating."

Cheryl Nakamura
First vice president
Faith Action for Community Equity

DNLR needs a new mission statement

I am glad to hear that, with the teamwork among the Department of Land and Natural Resources, U.S. military and environmental groups, the salvinia invasion in Lake Wilson has been controlled.

However, I am not glad to hear that the DLNR has its own internal "weeds" to deal with: lack of cooperation between the specific departments and lack of public support. I agree with suggestions by Mike Markrich (a former DLNR worker) to help the DLNR with its situation.

First, the DLNR should get an organizational psychologist to help it get focused on a refined mission statement. I am a member of the Sierra Student Coalition, an environmental activist group of students, and the group recently formed a mission statement. After, the coalition was much more focused and goal-orientated on what should be accomplished.

Second, the public should stop criticizing the departments for doing their job. Give these hard-working individuals a break. By "demanding and screaming rather than dialoguing and problem-solving," as stated by organizational psychologist Irwin Rubin, nothing gets done and the DLNR loses its confidence in its purpose for protecting Hawai'i's environment. The DLNR will continue to struggle with its problems until department and public support is achieved.Ê

Jared Yokoyama
Sierra Student Coalition

'Olelo's audience isn't worth the trouble

In a country where the average citizen watches between four and six hours of TV per day, can it reasonably be asserted that what is needed is access to more TV?

The $6.5 million 'Olelo receives each year is more than ample for its mission, as is evidenced by its $14 million surplus.

While something must be done to give the community its own voice, it is unrealistic to suppose that a few classes and access to production facilities put citizens on a par with commercial TV. Indeed, if Nielsen or Arbitron ratings were ever conducted, they would undoubtedly prove that 'Olelo's audience is minuscule.

Therefore, it seems fair to ask "Who is being served?" The most likely answer is: Those who receive the direct benefit of the funds. Which, not atypically, is the organization itself and its cohorts.

"We serve the little guy, the voiceless, the under-represented! We protect freedom of speech!" is the rallying cry of 'Olelo's proponents.

Really? What percentage of the voiceless "little guys" can afford about $40 per month for cable to begin with? And of those who do subscribe, how many are tuning in to 'Olelo? How often? What are they watching? What are their ages, genders and ethnicities? In short, who is being helped?

If you're doing such great things, 'Olelo, if your mission is so vital to the community, why fear the ratings?

Max Twain
Kailua

Recyclable receptacle should be provided

Currently, we have two pickups a week. Green waste is picked up the first and third Tuesdays of the month.

If we go with the mayor's proposed plan of one trash pickup a week and alternate the recycle and green waste pickup every other week, what will the residents do with the regular trash that is being accumulated every day? I don't want to pay more taxes by being charged $8 for an additional trash pickup each week. Also, a mandatory $8 fee for an extra pickup suggested by a City Council member is an added burden on all residents.

Instead, why not have the city supply the homes with a recyclable receptacle as we presently are using with the automated pickup? Then we could use one for regular trash and the other for recyclables one week and green waste the other week. That way, there won't be an infestation of rats and roaches attacking the regular garbage trash.

A proposed scheduled pickup: Week 1, regular trash on Monday and green waste on Tuesday. Week 2, regular trash on Monday and recyclables on Tuesday. Week 3, regular trash on Monday and green waste on Tuesday. Week 4, regular trash on Monday and recyclables on Tuesday.

As we get accustomed to this program, the recyclables collected should pay for the additional automated bin.

Paul Hatae
Mililani