Posted on: Monday, April 5, 2004

Letters to the Editor

BOE has failed us in improving schools

Regarding the state Legislature's inability to cope with the Board of Education: How much longer must Hawai'i's public school system continue to rank near the bottom in the nation before someone will make positive changes?

It must be clear by now that the Board of Education is failing in its task to ensure that the public school system prepares our children for the challenges awaiting them in the future. How can we as a community continue to turn our backs on our children? It is accepted here in Hawai'i that in order to get a first-rate education, you must send your child to a private school such as Iolani or Punahou. I ask you, why is this the case?

We all pay our taxes, which help fund the public schools. We should demand better from our legislators and the members of the Board of Education. Perhaps we should give the governor's proposal a chance.

There's a dark side to outsourcing of work

Congratulations to Richard Rice for turning adversity into opportunity ("Outsourcing can actually benefit workers," March 24).

Unfortunately, there is a dark side to outsourcing, and a balanced public policy is needed to provide some safety net to workers who lose jobs to outsourcing to foreign countries.

I wonder how many private-sector firms that outsource jobs to foreign countries actually provide free training opportunities for jobs not with the company, and provide equal to or better pay to employees who lose these jobs? Will they also pay for childcare, eldercare, rent, food and the cost of living while unemployed workers retrain?

Most companies will rely on government to retrain laid-off workers. We now have about 15 million unemployed American workers; where are the jobs for them to be retrained for?

Exporting of jobs should not be considered part of "free trade." In a trade relationship, both sides gain. We lose more than a job when we export; we lose valuable expertise and resources, especially in the knowledge industry.

Further, the United States is getting deeper into domestic and foreign debt, and we must borrow in the foreign financial markets to pay for foreign goods made by foreign workers who took our jobs in the first place. Is this "win-win"?

We must pursue a rational and enlightened policy on the national level that balances the need for companies to remain competitive, and yet not cast aside the American worker as just another commodity to be used and discarded. We've lost several million blue-collar jobs in the manufacturing sector; are we now to give away professional white-collar jobs and destroy the backbone of our economy, our middle class? God help America.

Makena Resort plan will improve Maui area

This is in response to Lee Cataluna's March 14 column regarding Makena Resort's rezoning application. I only wish that Ms. Cataluna could have reviewed the facts we've presented before coming to her conclusion.

The Makena area has been designated as a resort since 1969; rezoning of the resort is required to ensure conformance with the approved Kihei-Makena Community Plan. In fact, conformance with the island's community plans was recently mandated by the Maui County Council.

Road congestion in the south Maui area has been addressed by widening of Pi'ilani Highway, which would not have happened without Makena Resort. Other infrastructure improvements to the area (water development, new roads, public restrooms and parking at the beach, and a new wastewater facility) have cost the resort $30 million — and benefit not only Makena but all of south Maui.

Affordable housing is a recognized need and will be addressed by this project.

Makena Resort Corp. has proven itself to be a good steward of the land and a good neighbor. The Makena Homeowners Association (as well as the Wailea Community Association) came out in strong support of the rezoning. The resort's careful, long-range plan (with a 20-year build-out) is expected to bring significant benefit to the Maui economy while continuing to preserve the natural assets of the Makena area.

Golf course staffers are credit to the city

I play golf regularly at Kahuku and Ted Makalena, and want to commend two staffers who are doing an outstanding job and are a credit to the City & County.

Eleanor Crisostomo, a starter at Kahuku, does her job well, but more than that, she is friendly, personable, sweet and always greets everyone with a smile.

Glenn Kakuni is the course superintendent for both courses and motivates his crews to keep the fairways and greens in good shape, despite budget and other constraints such as leaching or soil considerations.

Government should go with the flow of traffic

Outside of rush hour(s), when traffic is at a standstill, most of the people on H-1 are driving at 65 to 70 mph. In this government of the people, by the people, for the people, haven't the people showed how fast they are comfortable traveling?

Maybe the Legislature should stop working on van cam legislation and start working on raising the speed limits around the island.

There's no right to cross-examine camera

Brandon Hicks (March 31 letter) argues that van cams are unconstitutional in that "you have a right to call witnesses in your defense." What I believe he meant is that you have the right to cross-examine your accusers and that a camera cannot be called to the witness stand to be cross-examined. This is the reason he asserts its use is unconstitutional.

While it is true that a defendant has the right to cross-examine his accusers, that constitutional protection refers to live human accusers, not circumstantial evidence. If it were not so, then the courts must reverse all convictions of bank robbers who were convicted when evidence used in their criminal trial consisted of bank security cameras.

If one does not have the propensity to speed, then one need not fear the existence of the camera.

Our inalienable rights were 'by our Creator'

I agree with Kaimana Pueo's March 28 letter reminding us that all people have a right to happiness. However, I must take exception to the way in which the idea is stated: that these rights are granted to us, presumably, by government.

The Constitution says, to the contrary, that we are endowed with our inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government.

Yes, I know that that quotation gets us into a so-called church-state argument, but I would ask this: If it is government that awards us these rights, is it not government that can take them away?

To put it in secular rather than religious terms, our Constitution says that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is inherent in all of us as human beings. They belong to us uniquely.

It's not about 'cheap oil' but about solutions

The Focus article of March 28 " ... cheap oil about to end" perpetuates myths:

• "Oil has been cheap." Only by not factoring two huge costs into the price — endless oil wars and oil's environmental impacts — can that be said. A $10-per-gallon "petro-war tax" would rationalize prices.
• "Americans 'like' big cars." Consumers often "like" products because advertising persuades us. We "like" to smoke, "like" fast food.
• "The U.S. isn't well prepared for a high-cost oil future." Not for lack of trying by advocates of appropriate tech — wind, fuel cell, solar, biomass, ocean tidal — whose development has been thwarted by the oil-garchs. These can be brought to bear quickly with less destabilizing impact than current oil-based technologies.

Manipulating us to "need" gas-guzzling SUVs, trucks or big sedans is a very profitable scam; it drives manufacture and endless promotion. Plus, no oil company likes conservation; profits attend selling extra gas for inefficient vehicles.

The article ignores viable solutions; it leaves us worried and wondering, not energized and anticipating the beneficial changes we can initiate once the power of the oligarchs is smashed.

Persecution reinforces need to decentralize

Hawai'i has had its own version of "The Passion." It happened last week when Laura Thielen was crucified by her fellow members of the Board of Education in public at their board meeting.

Her crimes, they say, were speaking her own mind, being brutally honest and standing up for the children. And now that they have done that to one of their own, what parent or community member is going to feel comfortable coming to the meetings and asking a question or voicing an opinion?

Over a year ago, I tried doing what I felt was my civic duty by speaking at a BOE meeting on the issue of local school boards. I became nervous as I heard one of the members make what I felt was a disparaging remark about the number of letters of testimony in favor of local boards that had been sent in, but I waited my turn and spoke.

What came next was very upsetting. I was talked down to and pretty much verbally attacked by several members of the board. They seemed to be looking at each other and laughing at what they felt was my lack of knowledge of "the system," when what I was actually speaking against was "the system." Two of them even came over to me at the break to continue their offense. It was very uncomfortable, especially with the room packed with educational professionals.

I feel that with local school boards, this sort of thing would not happen. The meetings would be less formal and opinions of parents and community members would be valued. The people I would be talking to could be my friends or neighbors and would be more respectful. They would actually know the individual needs and be directly accountable, along with the principals, to their community for the success or failure of the area schools. If details on the school were more readily available to parents, they would feel more empowered and more of an active participant in their child's education.

Even if members of the BOE do not appreciate Ms. Thielen's efforts, I'm sure there are generations of students who will benefit from her efforts and sacrifices.

Hawai'i needs its gas-cap law

Although we were one of the original sponsors of the gas-cap legislation and continue to lobby for its careful amendment and implementation, like others, Advocates For Consumer Rights (AFCR) does not like price controls.

However, as with the car-insurance battle waged successfully by AFCR during 1995-96, there are some specific situations where something has to be done to stop certain rapacious large corporations from taking undue advantage of consumers. The very same arguments are now being used by the giant oil company spin machines against the gas cap: "Increased regulation will drive business from the state and cost us jobs."

So what happened with car insurance? Well, according to Hawai'i's current insurance commissioner, J.P. Schmidt, "Hawai'i had the second highest rates in the nation in 1995, but dropped to 21st in 2001." Schmidt also said, " ... total premiums written in Hawai'i declined to $480 million from $558 million — about $78 million." That's $78 million left in the pockets of Hawai'i's consumers to spend on rent, food, clothing — and gasoline.

Did any insurance companies go broke or leave the state as prophesied? None that we know of.

It might be interesting to note here that many of the very same highly paid lobbyists who were involved in the car-insurance reform battle are showing up at the gas-cap hearings.

When the world price of petroleum rises, Hawai'i gas prices go up, as do the prices across the country. But when the world price of petroleum comes down, gasoline prices all across the country come down — everywhere but in Hawai'i, where the prices stay up or at best only come part of the way back down.

Senate Bill 3193 SD2 would amend the gas-cap law, Act 77, by capping wholesale prices instead of at retail. This would allow the retailers to buy at a lower price that would assure the oil corporations a fair profit and leave the more than 300 retail dealers in the state free to charge whatever the market will bear, to be more competitive. If anything, the retailers would make more money — despite the scare tactics now being used by Chevron-Texaco and Tesoro's lobbyists.

Act 77, passed during the 2002 session, is slated to take effect July 1, 2004. DBEDT says in its testimony against the cap that the Public Utilities Commission needs time to "get up to speed" to be able to monitor the gas cap. DBEDT doesn't say what the PUC has been doing for the past two years since the gas-cap law was passed — but it obviously wasn't "getting up to speed."

If the PUC truly needs more time, then the date should be set at Jan. 1, 2005, which should provide plenty of time to "get up to speed." Until then, however, the consumers will continue to be fleeced.