Posted on: Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Letters to the Editor

Yes, getting Democrats to change is frustrating

Stephen Matthews (Letters, April 6) correctly noted my frustration with the way business has been done in the Legislature. Of course it is frustrating, but who is going to fight for the people of Hawai'i?

When businesses asked us to reform workers' compensation, I offered an amendment. Democrats killed it. When the people asked to vote on local school boards, I pushed for it. Democrats killed it. When I called for a balanced-budget amendment, Democrats killed it. When I called for a "three strikes" law to combat crime, Democrats killed it. Reduced fees for businesses? Walk and Talk to reduce drugs on the street? Getting more money to local classrooms? Killed. Killed. Killed.

Yes, it can be frustrating when the good people of Hawai'i ask for change but legislators are biased against it. I am standing for all those in Hawai'i calling for change, but the Democrats are not listening. The people deserve better, and that is the reason I will keep fighting for their voices to be heard.

City should say no to high-rise proposal

Shame on the City & County of Honolulu if it approved a proposed zoning change to allow a high-rise on the corner of Kuhio Avenue and Kalaimoku in Waikiki ("High-rise proposed for Waikiki," March 26).

Many apartment owners in that area invested considerable dollars in their units, thinking their ocean view would be safe, with current zoning laws prohibiting another tall building.

What is needed here is a grocery supermarket to serve the thousands of potential customers who live within two or three blocks of the location. The spot is idea for a supermarket and is large enough to provide plenty of customer parking.

Added traffic, blocked views, fewer parking spaces, more noise and unhappy residents would seem to be the consequences of allowing this new 31-story building in Waikiki.

Here's hoping the city will stick up for the longtime residents of Waikiki by forsaking this big-money Mainland developer and disapproving a zoning change.

Proposal to increase speed limit off base

Island Voices writer Paul Flentge's recent commentary justifying an increased speed limit to 70 mph is so far off the mark it deserves comment.

First of all, he says that today's vehicles are built to improve survivability in a high-speed collision. It's true that certain safety features have been added to help in this regard. Nonetheless, the greater the impact force, the less chance you have of surviving. An example of this would be to drop a hammer on your thumb; it hurts, but you'll get over it. Then take that hammer and swing it at your thumb with force and see if you can tell the difference in the two impacts.

The argument that people will pay more attention to their driving if they are traveling at a higher speed is laughable. Take at look at the driver who is whizzing by you. There is a very good chance that this person is engaged in any of the activities he describes for a 55-mph driver.

Flentge argues that if the speed limit is increased to 70, then people won't automatically increase their speed by 10 to 15 mph. Sorry, this argument doesn't hold water.

I'm sure he's heard of the adage "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" (or 10 to 15 mph, in this case). There is no place on O'ahu that you cannot travel to in less than an hour driving at the current speed limit. What is the rush? Wherever you're going, it'll still be there when you get there.

When you measure that 60 minutes against a lifetime of pain from injuries (or death), it's not such a bad deal.

He also says that if we raise the speed limit to 70, we wouldn't have to be on the lookout for the police. If you drive the speed limit, you wouldn't have to be looking for the police. Instead of raising the speed limit, let's get some enforcement on our highways.

Traffic cams would be welcome with changes

Traffic cameras failed before due to little or no planning or foresight by our fuzzy-thinking public leaders. A profit-motivated "6 mph over the speed limit" program made no sense to most of our public and was doomed from the start.

The vast majority of the public would, however, go for a police-managed traffic-cam program that:

• Catches those who blatantly go through red (not yellow) lights.
• Catches those who go 20 mph over the speed limit.

And the fines for those who risk our lives and our loved ones' lives should be heavy. If we do not implement this new, efficient technology, we will all be guilty of allowing those reckless and selfish drivers to destroy the lives of those we love.

Camile's ousting must have been about ratings

I would have never expected that Hawai'i's Jasmine and Camile would have such a tremendous pull to our state, let alone to feel Camile's agony of defeat.

I do have reasons to believe that although Jasmine was in the bottom three, there's no way she could have had the second fewest number of votes. One must think that it is all about ratings, and below are my reasons it could have been fixed:

• Among Jasmine, Diana DeGarmo and Camile, only Jasmine had never been in the bottom. Diana was already in the pit.
• For two weeks in a row, red-headed John Stevens performed terribly, but producers would have him in there just to maintain the gender ratio.
• Jennifer Hudson has always performed wonderfully, but seems to always find herself in the bottom two. Where was she?
• With Jasmine and Camile both from Hawai'i, producers must have seen that to be more interesting than Camile and Diana standing last. Otherwise, it would have been too obvious that Camile would be the one to go if Diana were in the bottom two.
• The drama and intensity brought forth by Camile and Jasmine's face-off was needed in order to have viewers glued to their screen because following "American Idol" would be Fox's new reality show, "The Swan."

Camile, it is truly not the end of the road for you, but rather the beginning. You have started this competition one of 70,000, but now, you are one in a million. Congratulations!

After roosters, we could ban dogs, car alarms ...

V. Hildebrandt's letter regarding rooster noise lacks common sense. Declare roosters as pests, outlaw them and prosecute their owners? Absolutely ridiculous!

I love dogs, but they make more noise in every corner of the Islands by any measure and affect many more people by a wide margin, not to mention the mess they and their thoughtless owners leave behind. I guess we should outlaw and prosecute them too while we're at it.

But why stop there? Let's outlaw and prosecute every car owner with car alarms, as well as owners of loud cars and loud motorcycles, too.

Roosters are at the bottom of the list as far as noise nuisances go. Stop picking on the roosters.

Only valid comparison for gas is with Costco

Congratulations to readers George Fox and Warren Higa for their interesting, insightful and informative letters on the subject of the gas-cap law. Were both of these gentlemen to run for the state Legislature, they would most assuredly have my vote.

I would like to add just one observation on the question of gas prices. Clearly, any comparison between prices here in Hawai'i and elsewhere is apt to be of very limited utility, due to the many variable factors that affect these prices here and elsewhere. Why did our legislators choose California as their point of comparison? Why not Oregon or Washington state? Why not the whole Western region? Why not the national average?

To my way of thinking, there is only one valid comparison; it is between the price of gas at Costco and that at any or all of the Shell, Chevron, Tesoro, Aloha, etc. stations on O'ahu. Costco has the same costs as every other gas dealer on O'ahu (transportation, taxes and all the rest), it has only a very small number of outlets, yet it sells gas for around 20 cents a gallon less than any other station in town. How does it do it? Could it possibly be that it is content to take a reasonable profit on its sales rather than gouging captive customers for all the market will bear?

Anyone who argues that we do not need legislative action is closing his or her eyes to the reality of the situation.

Privatizing schools is surely worth a try

There is a lot of debate about education and the need for more funding for our public schools.

More money doesn't necessarily create better schools. It is the culture and the incentive and motivation of the teachers.

More textbooks don't make the students read. Besides, with new technology, textbooks are obsolete. We can recycle computers from companies (now thrown away) for the schools.

If I am not mistaken, the amount the state spends on each child is almost the same as one going to private school, and yet the finished product is not the same. So, we must change or innovate.

I would like to propose that the state downsize the DOE/BOE, and instead contract with private industry to do the job of educating our students.

All the teachers would be transferred to a private employer or contractor, and they would be paid salaries plus bonuses and incentives for performance.

It is worth a try, don't you think?

It's important to open up view from highway

Hats off to Mayor Harris' attempt to block Best Buy from setting up shop along Kamehameha Highway in 'Aiea. As it is right now, there is no view of Pearl Harbor as one travels along the highway in the sweet-spot area to view Pearl Harbor. At this sweet spot, the Arizona Memorial and battleship Missouri could probably be seen from the highway were it not for the blight of commercial buildings.

It is a shame that "big box" shopping malls, large auto dealerships and other commercial outfits were allowed to block the view of Pearl Harbor along this stretch of Kamehameha Highway. A site next to Home Depot would have been a better site (more parking and a better selection site for the residents).

The residents of 'Aiea-Pearl City have worked out a vision plan with the mayor to open up the shoreline along the highway with improved access to the shoreline and development of a Pearl Harbor historic trail, with parks and preservation of the wetlands. There was even a plan of bringing back the old railroad in these places.

The addition of another "big box" like Best Buy would only make it harder to open up vistas of Pearl Harbor.

U.S. hasn't signed on to global tobacco treaty

The Advertiser's editorial supporting the global Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is welcome and wise. However, one point may cause readers confusion.

Last May, after aggressively working to weaken the draft treaty's terms, the United States joined a unanimous decision of the world's nations to send the treaty out for ratification. In doing so, the United States approved, but did not sign on to, the treaty. It only agreed to having the treaty be considered by the global community. Presently, the United States has no commitment to join the treaty or follow its rules.

In contrast, 102 nations, including the United States' top trading partners — Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom — have signed the treaty. These governments are agreeing to bring the treaty to their legislatures for ratification. (And so far nine nations have formally ratified the treaty.) After 40 nations ratify the treaty, it will automatically "enter into force" and become effective 90 days later.

Tobacco now plays the music at 4 million funerals a year. In 15 years, and even assuming improved results for tobacco-control policies worldwide, the World Health Organization expects that 10 million people will be dying each year — on average about 15 years ahead of their "normal" life expectancy if they were not smoking. The vast majority of these deaths will be in developing nations even while the ownership and profits of multinational tobacco businesses remain in the U.S., U.K. and Japan.

Therefore, you are absolutely correct in urging the United States to join in the rest of the world's efforts to address this problem. Sadly, the current administration seems unlikely to take action, but public opinion matters, and we can hope the Advertiser's voice on this issue will be heard in Washington, D.C.