Posted on: Monday, March 8, 2004

Letters to the Editor

Why modify a car?

In regard to Kevin Murata's letter "Modifying cars doesn't translate into racing" (March 2): True, but modified cars translate into more power and more speed. I don't buy the idea of him putting thousands of dollars into his car to go slow.

Bottom line is people modify their cars to see how fast they can go. This leads to an interesting situation — racing?

I'm an American by birth, by choice

You published two points of view in recent days, one that recalled the petition for statehood for Hawai'i in 1954 and another reminding the world that some Native Hawaiians didn't sign that petition nor vote for statehood in 1959. I was one who did neither.

In 1954 I was not of voting age (21 years). In August of 1959 I was in California and not registered to vote in that state or from the territory. Instead I went to a lu'au put on by Hawaiians in San Diego to celebrate the admission of Hawai'i into the U.S. as a state. There were so many people there wasn't enough food to go around. What were they celebrating out of state? The Hawaiians there were unhappy when Alaska became the 49th state. Hawai'i was the 50th, so Old Glory would add another star in 1959.

I am Native Hawaiian by 50 percent, but the other 50 percent is blood from Europe and Asia, from France (Jourdaine), Austria (Dierke), England (Mayflower Pilgrims) that came from Huguenot ancestors running away from persecution in England and France since the time the Bible was translated into English by William Tyndale, a relative who gave his life at the stake for reducing Biblical language into the unapproved vernacular at that time. Add Portuguese from a Catholic grandmother who came around the Horn at age 2 on the Vapor Hansa from Sao Miguel, Azores. A Chinese great-grandfather called Ah Chong (Pake) in Puna, originally from Fukien province, one of those with no interest in going home again.

I know his 50 percent Hawaiian daughter, my grandmother, wasn't around to vote for statehood in 1959 because she died in 1954, but everybody else in my family did — father, mother, sisters, brother (who fought in Korea and lies buried in the veterans' cemetery in Kona since April 2001). We were born when Hawai'i was a territory. All our children and grandchildren were born here and in other states in the union as Americans. We are descendants of aboriginal Polynesian navigators, Hawaiian chiefs and commoners (maybe even kauwa from La'auhaelemai) and immigrants. Color me American by birth and by choice.

Folks in Makakilo need second exit route

While stuck in traffic on Makakilo Drive on Friday, Feb. 27, trying to get down to H-1 and make a flight to Maui, I realized it was again time to address the lack of a second exit route for folks on the hill.

Previous letters, along with a proposal submitted to the O'ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee — to add an already approved project to extend Makakilo Drive to the new North-South interchange in the Transportation Improvement Program for the current period — have elicited no replies.

Apparently, we will have to experience a major disaster before anybody notices that (increasing numbers of) people live on the hill above Kapolei.

The city's worst driving nightmare

Recently, on a weekday at 11:15 a.m., it took 13 minutes to drive from the intersection of South King and Pi'ikoi streets (near the Wisteria Restaurant) to the Lunalilo Street on-ramp to the H-1 Freeway. Last week, again on a weekday, but at 12:30 p.m., it took 20 minutes to drive from the Lunalilo off-ramp (under the Ke'eaumoku overpass) to the Beretania and Pensacola intersection. It is absolutely ridiculous that it would take these amounts of time to drive such short distances at non-peak traffic hours.

This very heavily used square mile of streets to get on and off the H-1 is probably the worst driving nightmare in the city proper. It is especially bad at pau hana time for thousands of motorists driving mauka on Pi'ikoi to get onto the freeway. City traffic engineers have acknowledged in the past that reversing the one-way flow of traffic on Pensacola and Pi'ikoi streets would alleviate this congestion, but the change would not be made because of a lack of funds. However, money was available to improve access to the freeway from Punchbowl Street. Without question, the Pi'ikoi area traffic jam is far worse.

Perhaps it's because our city fathers work at Honolulu Hale that money was found for this project.

How can the city justify spending millions on the Queen Street extension project, on roundabouts that neighborhood boards are fighting and on the proposed $19 million expenditure in Waikiki, while continuing to ignore the traffic problem described?

I can only conclude the city just doesn't care or is run by a bunch of incompetent people.

Why investment firm wants phone company

In the past few weeks there has been much interest in the sale of Verizon Hawai'i. For over 100 years, Verizon Hawai'i, GTE Hawaiian Tel, Hawaiian Telephone and Mutual Telephone have provided telephone service in the state and territory of Hawai'i.

We have been purchased or merged in the past by phone companies who had long-term goals for our company and employees. The key was always to provide quality service to the residents of Hawai'i.

As an employee of 37 years I understand the reasons we were bought or merged with another phone company. They understood our business and our mission.

We now face our greatest test. We are faced with the probability of being bought by an investment company. They want to buy our company and raid the profitable parts of it, then sell it. For Verizon Hawai'i these items would be our property and pension plan.

These investment companies do not have the same goals as a telecommunications company. They buy and sell companies and make the highest profits possible as quickly as possible. They have no long-term expectations.

I am concerned for the residents of the state of Hawai'i and the quality of service that will be delivered by this type of company. I am also concerned for the employees. Will they gut our pension plan and sell off properties for their own profits?

Maybe the best bet for Hawai'i residents is to buy Verizon Hawaii and turn it into a cooperative venture like Kaua'i Electric. That would provide local management, quality service and keep jobs locally.

Why can't amendment stand on the truth?

Bob Hampton's March 2 letter entitled "Let's stop wasting HPD's time, resources" is yet another act in Honolulu prosecutor Peter Carlisle's theatrical campaign of misinformation about constitutional amendment No. 3 relating to information charging of felony suspects.

Mr. Hampton's letter merely repeats a number of Mr. Carlisle's lies about the amendment:

• It will put a stop to "uniformed HPD officers sitting and standing in our courts' hallways when we need them out on the streets and highways."

Truth: the amendment has nothing to do with the reason why 95 percent of these officers are sitting and standing outside of our courts. As to the remaining 5 percent, if the amendment is adopted, all it will do is cause these same police officers to be standing outside courts to testify at trial instead of standing there to testify at preliminary hearings and before the grand jury.

• The present system "provides the bad guys with one more loophole to slither through so that they may get to their next victim, which might be any one of us or most likely our visitors."

Truth: If such a loophole exists in a case, criminal defendants will be able to take advantage of it even if the amendment is adopted.

• "Forty-four other states" use the system that would exist if this amendment is adopted. The present system "works against the victim and in favor of the criminal. Why are we one of the few states in America that still uses our archaic system?"

Truth: Crime victims are not required to testify before trial if they are unavailable because hearsay can be admitted before the grand jury in appropriate cases.

Further, only two states (Arkansas and Indiana) use anything even remotely similar to what is envisioned under constitutional amendment No. 3. Hawai'i's present system is used by 35 other states.

• The amendment "was overturned because of a technicality."

Truth: The Hawai'i Constitution, which was adopted by the people in an election, mandates that amendments must be approved following very specific and definite procedures.

If those procedures are not followed, the will of the people in adopting the constitution is thwarted. The mandate of the will of the people is not a technicality, but a basic and integral part of the democratic process. If the proponents of constitutional amendment No. 3 wanted it to be adopted by the people, they had the responsibility to see that the proper adoption procedures were followed. All of these matters set forth above are easily verifiable, yet the Hamptons and the Carlisles apparently believe that it is necessary to deceive the people in order to have this constitutional amendment adopted.

Regardless of the merits of this amendment, the people have the right to be told the truth and to make a decision based upon the truth. The question that the people should be asking is simple: if this amendment is so desirable, why do its proponents have to lie about it in order to get it adopted?

Give tourists heads-up

It strikes me that each time we endure another sewage spill and signs are posted alerting beachgoers of the contaminated conditions, none of the signs are in Japanese.

Don't you think our tourists would appreciate a little heads-up? After all, without tourism ... well, you know.

Negotiator wrong on arbitration

State chief negotiator Ted Hong's Feb. 23 letter is ripe with misstatements.

Example No. 1: Hong states the administration's proposal to impose a ceiling on arbitration awards is fair to the unions.

In fact, it is unfair because it would allow the employers to stall negotiations until the parties were forced to enter arbitration, where the award cannot exceed 1.5 percent no matter how much the employers can afford. This process is biased against the unions.

Example No. 2: Hong states, "In times of economic difficulty, the employers have nothing to bargain or negotiate with. As a result, the unions have no incentive to bargain and prefer binding arbitration."

The truth is, if the employers are broke, they should be able to prove it to the arbitrator, who by law must consider their financial ability. Also, the law does not permit the arbitrator to consider the employers' ability to increase or impose new taxes, fees or charges, or develop other sources of revenues. In other words, if they are broke, the employers are the ones who should prefer arbitration because it must consider their financial situation. The unions, on the other hand, have every incentive to try to settle and avoid arbitration.

Example No. 3: Hong states, "From 1996 to 2000, during Hawai'i's economic malaise, arbitrators increased the salaries and wages of HGEA members by over 17 percent."

The truth is, of the three contracts in this period, the arbitrator awarded pay raises in only one. Of the remaining two contracts, the parties settled one at the bargaining table and the arbitrator ordered no raise in the other. The across-the-board salary increases for:

• The contract starting July 1, 1995: The arbitrator awarded annual increases ranging from 2 percent to 3.54 percent for the HGEA's seven bargaining units, plus step movements for eligible employees.
• The contract starting July 1, 1997: Employers and the HGEA mutually agreed to annual increases ranging from 1.21 percent to 5.13 percent, depending on the bargaining unit. Eligible workers also received step movements.
• The contract period July 1, 1999, to July 1, 2001: The arbitrator awarded no pay raise and no step movement to all HGEA bargaining units.

Example No. 4: "The taxpayers, employers and union members are best served when both parties are willing to engage in a free exchange during negotiations where each party is able to win something and gain something during the negotiation process."

Hong is absolutely correct, but action speaks louder than words. The truth is, during our current negotiations, the employers refused to negotiate any cost proposals at any time up to arbitration. They finally made a wage offer at arbitration of zero and one percent for a two-year contract. The employers did not engage in a free exchange during negotiations.