State, recyclers win with the bottle law

To find out the root of legislation in politics, "follow the money," the adage goes. That money trail is pretty short when it comes to why the Legislature has forced a nonworkable bottle law on its citizens.

Prior to the bottle law, the recyclers were making their profit by buying the aluminum cans brought to their centers by people wanting to make a little money. When the price of aluminum dropped to 25 cents a pound several years ago, the number of cans coming in also dropped dramatically, so what to do? Persuade the Legislature to pass a bottle bill that coerces the average person to recycle and then not only pay the recyclers a penny a container, but also give them the aluminum (commodity) that they used to have to pay for.

Deputy Health Director Larry Lau says that recyclers will be paid by the state $13 million to collect the same items they used to pay people to bring in. Since the recyclers now get their aluminum for free, how much more are they making selling the aluminum to the Mainland — another $20 million or more?

It doesn't take a bloodhound to follow this trail of money; it starts with the beverage consumer, drops off millions with the state and more millions with the recyclers. The only loser is the consumer.

O'ahu ferry system can work this time

Cliff Slater's recent column critical of an O'ahu ferry system didn't take into account the significant improvements between Mayor Hannemann's proposal and past attempts. We have the capacity to learn from the past, fix the things that caused the earlier systems to fail and finally end up with a successful solution.

The mayor's idea makes the ferry part of an integrated city transportation system, where buses deliver you to the ferry terminal and pick you up on the other end. A single ticket buys a commute from point A to point B with only a part of it over water. The old attempts not only lacked capacity and frequency (the new one uses multiple vessels to solve those problems), but also lacked cooperation between the city and state.

With a downtown Honolulu ferry port being built as part of the statewide interisland ferry, half of the needed infrastructure will be in place. With an equally accessible port in west O'ahu and an integrated bus component, there is no reason why a short-hop ferry system can't work.

Our traffic problems will be lessened by a combination of city and state solutions that all work together and can be implemented relatively quickly. In the short term, the state's new zipper lane extension, optimized traffic lights and continued expansion of the city bus system will all help.

The one thing we can all agree on is that if we do nothing, things will only get worse.

Not all can afford sprinkler systems

If the Fire Department and the City and County of Honolulu want older buildings to install sprinkler systems, they should pay for it. Most of the people in my building are retirees, and I don't think any of them could afford the average $8,000 cost, let alone the additional thousands of dollars to "pretty up" the ceilings to cover the system.

And while all this work is going on, where are people supposed to live? They most certainly can't remain in their condos, eh?

I'm looking at retirement in the next three years, and I'll be on a fixed income. I most certainly don't plan on working any longer to pay for a sprinkler system. I agree that something needs to be done. Perhaps installing sprinklers in all common areas such as hallways on each floor could be a negotiable point?

Last, I'd be interested to know whose palms will be getting greased for all those millions of dollars this little puppy's going to cost. Somehow, I don't think people should be "forced" to dole out all that money. I most certainly hope that public meetings will be held for public input.

Secret research isn't in our best interests

Was a recent Advertiser commentary intended to push the University of Hawai'i further down a slippery slope to cynical, unexamined acceptance of secret research?

According to that commentary, "military research on university campuses ... has been conducted in ivy-draped laboratories without undermining academia" (Jan. 21).

That claim depends on one's values.

First, let's not be dazzled. In grocery shopping and in universities, prestige and quality do not always walk hand-in-hand.

Second, secret research by prestigious faculty members at prestigious Ivy League and other universities associated with the Institute for Defense Analyses was exposed to public scrutiny in 1968. The undermining of mutual trust and collegiality alarmed faculty and administrators. In response, Columbia University, the University of Chicago and other prestigious supporters of IDA's secret research then withdrew.

Third, the U.S. Department of Defense already funds military and civilian research institutions in Pearl Harbor and Waikiki.

If secret research continues, controversies (and perhaps the outing of secret researchers) will not likely disappear.

Driving simulator should test all drivers

I would like to thank Rep. Jerry Chang for the political courage to address the issue of elderly drivers. I agree with K. Abraham (Letters, Feb. 3) that a better bill would require all drivers to take a virtual road test via a driving simulator.

After producing a television segment on accident-avoidance simulators, I came to realize that this technology is the most cost-effective way to test a driver's ability to drive safely. Simulators can not only test the knowledge of the rules of the road, but also test split-second decision-making ability by creating emergency situations. This technology is inexpensive and would take no longer to administer than a written test.

If highway safety is a top priority of the Legislature, as Rep. Chang stated, I would like to call on all of our legislators to support a new, more effective way of testing all of Hawai'i's drivers.

'Queen Lil' reference disrespectful, sickening

Thank you, David Shapiro, for saying what needed to be said (Volcanic Ash commentary, Feb. 2).

Even though I am a haole transplant (since 1960 and with substantial knowledge of Hawaiian history), I was stunned and felt sickened by Thurston Twigg-Smith's disrespectful reference to "Queen Lil."

May I suggest he spend his retirement years seeking a more gentle, loving and caring attitude for those who are far less fortunate than he?

My heart aches for the subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on the Islands' indigenous people. How can anyone live in these Islands and not feel the goodness, kindness and caring of the Hawaiian people and everything they represent?

They were doing what they believed in

I think it's a fine thing you're doing in publishing a short biography and picture of our fallen service men and women. I took the time to look at their pictures and read each and every one.

These men and women were doing something they believed in and were willing to pay the ultimate price for.

They didn't do it for recognition or glory. They were someone's husband, father, wife, mother and child.

Our prayers and gratitude go out to them and their families.

With repeal of conversion law, rent limit now needed

My friend read me your great article about the repeal of Chapter 38. I am now a blind man in the Magellan, a leasehold property. I can well understand why the big landowners wanted the reversion law repealed, but is that really fair?

Are the thousands of families who invested their life savings to buy their residences on leased land not entitled to own it later for their old age and their heirs? Shall those families become homeless when the unaffordable lease rent renegotiations come up with gigantic increases every 10 years? Did the original lessor warn the buyer under our strict disclosure laws that the lease could go up by 1,000 or even 2,000 percent? That has happened to me.

It was the original intent that the lease rent at renegotiations should never have a greater increase than 6 percent of the raw land value, but attorneys added after the 6 percent the words "or the then prevailing rate." What is the prevailing rate? Who sets the prevailing rate? Landowners are not even required to supply three fair and honest appraisals for the raw land value or tie it to the assessment value or any other fixed index. I am a mathematician and real estate broker, and even I fell for that fine print.

The remaining 17 lessees were constantly threatened with high attorney fees, appraisals, mediations and arbitrations to be paid by the lessees. The new proposed lease rent was sky-high and unaffordable without any help from the city. He was asking 21 times the original lease rent while the resale price of each apartment only increased three times of original purchase price.

So where is the fairness?

Would it not be a fair solution that with the repeal, a new law should be adopted to state that the new lease rent shall never exceed the ratio of the increased original property value? This means that if the total original property value was $50,000 and increased to $150,000, three times the original value, then the original lease rent would go no higher than three times the original rent.

Focus on the real polluters, not the cigarette smokers

Your Feb. 2 editorial "Get cigarette butts out of our beaches" and the earlier story on possible legislative initiatives on banning smoking in parks both miss the mark. There are more serious issues of health and air pollution that need to be addressed.

Reducing the number of motor vehicles that clog our rutted roads or repairing the sewage systems that routinely overflow into our ocean are two problems that are far more important than harassing smokers.

Is there no connection between automobile exhaust and public health, no effect from sewage overflows? Cigarette smoking is not even in the same league as these enemies of clean air, clean water and public health.

Will the legislators adjourn this year and congratulate themselves on passing a bill that further criminalizes a minor offense? One can hope not.

One can hope that, instead, they will address real issues, suburban sprawl, Byzantine traffic and outdated sewage systems. One can hope.

Of all the sources of pollution in our state, smoking is certainly the most easily identifiable but clearly it is a minor one. The perpetrators are visible and might even be a minority. In the contemporary climate of Puritanical repression, they are also cowed by do-gooder vigilantism, excessively taxed, socially marginalized and publicly ostracized. Why not go after them? They are easy targets.

Much easier than going after real polluters.

The shameless use of an image of toddlers munching on cigarette butts may move the holier-than-thou to rally around this ersatz issue, but it was intellectually dishonest.

One is reminded of former Mayor Eileen Anderson's ill-fated rounding-up of innocent beer-drinkers on the beaches. That went well, didn't it? For those who have forgotten, she was not re-elected.

Pass a bill like this and then what? A return to Prohibition? Banning hibachis?

Enough is enough. This isn't Singapore.