Dobelle has vision

When the president of an island university sets his goals not in terms of boundaries but in terms of horizons, he should be encouraged and supported.

Thank you, Evan and Kit Dobelle, for sharing your vision.

Developers should post sign on property

Some 'Ewa residents are justifiably upset that construction has begun on a massive concrete barrier across the street from their homes (" 'Ewa residents object to wall," June 5). They did not know that it would be built because they did not happen to attend either of two neighborhood board meetings at which the project was presented, or an informational briefing held by the developer in Honolulu.

Now, one of the residents has filed a lawsuit against the developer, and the judge has ordered that construction cease until a ruling on the matter is made. I imagine the project managers of the company developing the land are also upset, and justifiably so, because they assumed they had fulfilled all of the legal requirements to begin construction.

The dispute has escalated to this high level because the residents were not informed about the project in advance. Had they been informed, they could have told the developer, who could have changed the plans.

There's a simple solution to this kind of problem that I saw on a visit to Canada. A large sign was posted on a piece of vacant property notifying the public of the intent to develop the property, including a description of the project. This is a simple and inexpensive way that those living near a proposed new project can be informed about it. It would allow residents to express their feelings about the project while it is still in the planning stage.

The developer would be able to accommodate any objection before starting actual construction. The developer would likely save money because construction would not be halted, and residents would be happier about the project.

The City Council should require such notification prior to the approval of any new construction project.

Why must the living live in fear of dead?

Being of Hawaiian ancestry, I just cannot understand or accept all this hullabaloo going on about the Ali'i Parkway (highway) for Kailua, Kona on the Big Island.

Why cannot those burial sites simply be removed to a proper given place, such as a good old cemetery? Why must the living live in fear of the dead?

Yes, respect our ancestors, but I am sure they would never sanction themselves standing in the way of the living or acting as akua 'ai kahu (a spirit that destroys its keeper).

For example, if there is a burial on fertile land that is growing fine kalo/taro, would it be wrong for one to harvest this taro? I would believe that the interred would smile upon those the taro would be bringing joy and life to.

Defense of tailgating absolutely appalling

I was absolutely appalled by the printing of Russel Noguchi's letter promoting tailgating ("Don't like tailgating? Then get out of way," June 23). Tailgaters are terrorists.

Noguchi claims slow drivers are endangering themselves. Wrong! He obviously hasn't read the driver's manual on safe stopping distances and should be required to immediately take a written driving test. Shame on you, Mr. Noguchi!

Anyone with basic math skills realizes that driving 10 percent over the speed limit saves negligible time on the order of single-digit minutes for any O'ahu trip. Are the one or two minutes saved worth endangering other drivers, Mr. Noguchi?

I find it utterly disgusting that drivers like Mr. Noguchi can justify their dangerous habits. These habits are akin to holding a gun to someone's head.

And for a minute or two time savings? See you at the next red light, sir.

Blame the tailgaters for driving too fast

In his June 23 letter, "Don't like tailgating? Then get out of way," Russel Noguchi assumes that those who are tailgated driving in the left lane are driving too slowly. Another interpretation is that the person tailgating is driving over the speed limit.

I saw three pedestrians nearly get killed crossing Kalaniana'ole Highway a few weeks ago by a car in the left lane running a red light. Had there been someone in that lane ahead of that driver, this near accident would not have happened.

The police seem not to be able to keep up with ticketing speeders and red-light runners, so I thank God for left-lane drivers who are doing the speed limit, or the 10 percent higher limit that seems to be the norm approved by the police.

Incidentally, why should the real speed limit not be posted? This brings disrespect to the law, which is one obvious cause of speeding and red-light running. And, when no police are around, the norm seems to be at least 50 mph in that 35-mph zone.

I've never lived anywhere that had more dangerous driving conditions and less police enforcement of the traffic laws.

Military discount should include us all

Who would have thought that going to the movies would be such a tearful experience? I am not talking about the high prices to watch a movie. I am talking about a sign on the window saying that the military discount is now limited to active-duty personnel, spouses and active-duty retirees.

Normally it doesn't bother me; however, with units already in Iraq, and with the possibility of other units in the National Guard and Reserves deploying, I felt that we were suddenly unappreciated. The thought of all the men and women in reserve units who gave their lives brought me to tears. It suddenly felt that a military discount meant nothing more than a business ploy rather than an effort to show appreciation.

I ask everyone to please rethink your impression of the Reserves as "Weekend Warriors." The expression is an insult to all active and reserve personnel who have already given and will be giving their lives to defend freedom. I am proud of the entire military, and proud to be part of an organization that defends our way of life. Please appreciate all of us.

Lingle delivered

Last month's unemployment rate in Hawai'i was the lowest in the nation.

Aren't you glad you voted for Linda Lingle?

Don't wait till it's too late to get involved politically

Turnout was high last week for a Hawai'i Democratic Party-sponsored presentation by Ann Wright (a former U.S. diplomat who resigned to protest the Bush administration's policies). Longtime members and party leaders were pleased at the size of the crowd.

I want to believe that's good news for your average Hawai'i Democrat. Too bad there weren't many average Hawai'i Democrats in the audience.

"Wait a minute, I thought you said turnout was high."

Yes, it was, but it wasn't what I'd call a room full of average citizens ready to take back their government. Perhaps I shouldn't have been too surprised by the polite representatives from the Revolutionary Communist Party offering their propaganda to fellow citizens (of the proletariat?) as those in attendance socialized.

But the open discussion following the notably informative speech left me with the uneasy yet familiar feeling that when the majority of clear-thinking, easygoing, solution-minded people stay out of the political process until Election Day, they forfeit the debate and available options to people with proposals, agendas and views they may not agree with.

This election will have direct impact on the shape of our state, our nation and our world. Not since the Great Depression and rise of totalitarianism has our world needed pragmatic solutions so urgently. So I encourage all of us to look beyond the immediate demands of modern life and into our communities, beyond the borders of our state and into the world that affects us and that we in turn affect with our choices, beyond the present anxiety and into the future that we can make better for our children.

Right now there are a lot of energetic and determined voices entering the political process. But I would like to see more "regular people." More soccer moms and troop leaders, bus drivers and supermarket checkers, office workers and Wal-Mart shoppers. And while I'm wishing, more people for whom religious faith guides their life (the modern Democratic Party has grown far too uncomfortable, and perhaps intolerant with that one).

This election should be about our concerns, our ideas and our common sense. Don't leave it up to others or they may leave you with no good choices.

The history of Hanauma fund

Please allow me to comment on your May 30 editorial "Hanauma Bay can't be the city's cash cow." I would like to clarify the record with respect to the history of the city's receipt of the park, creation of the Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve Fund ("Hanauma Bay Fund"), establishment of the different fees and their intended purposes, and the rationale for the proposed transfer of concession revenues, not admission fees or parking fees, to the General Fund.

The Hanauma Bay Fund was created, and an admission fee was initiated, by ordinance in April 1996. This ordinance provided that the proceeds from the admission fee were to be deposited into the Hanauma Bay Fund to benefit "certain lands in the Koko Head, Hawai'i Kai and Koko Crater areas, including Hanauma Bay, that were deeded in December 1928 to the city for public park purposes" by Kamehameha Schools for park use.

The admission fees were intended to operate, maintain and improve all of these gifted lands, which include Koko Head District Park, Maunalua Bay Beach Park, Koko Head Rifle Range and Koko Crater Botanical Garden. The concession revenues, at this time, were being deposited into the General Fund.

In June 2000, the City Council passed an ordinance that transferred concession revenues from the General Fund to the Hanauma Bay Fund. On Nov. 29, 2002, the U.S. District Court subsequently entered a judgment that determined, among other matters, that Hanauma Bay admission fees could not be used for the operations, maintenance and improvements to Koko Head District Park, Maunalua Bay Beach Park, Koko Head Rifle Range and the Koko Crater Botanical Garden. This judgment placed the responsibility of maintaining these parks on the General Fund.

The proposed return of the concession revenues from the Hanauma Bay Fund back to the General Fund was designed to fulfill the original intent of the creation of the Hanauma Bay Fund to operate, maintain and improve all of these park lands gifted to the city in 1928. The admission fees, which were the subject of the federal court litigation, and parking fees were proposed to remain in the Hanauma Bay Fund.

Mayor Harris has dedicated considerable resources to preserve and enhance the beauty of Hanauma Bay. While the budgets of all city departments and funds are scrutinized to ensure fiscal discipline, the operation of Hanauma Bay has been generously funded. Hanauma Bay's expenditures have risen by 9 percent to 10 percent each year since 2001. By comparison, the city's executive departments have risen only about 5 percent. Hanauma Bay's budget in fiscal year 2005 increased by 12.75 percent or $512,429.

Even if the transfer of concession revenues from the Hanauma Bay Fund to the General Fund had been approved, which the City Council declined to do, the Hanauma Bay Fund was projected to have a healthy $877,000 fund surplus at the end of fiscal year 2005.

With the mayor's commitment, dedication of the bay's staff and passion of the Friends of Hanauma Bay, this natural wonder will continue to be one of the top-rated beaches in the United States and a valued educational resource for the people of Honolulu.