Posted on: Monday, January 10, 2005

Letters to the Editor

Sprinklers are needed for wooden residences

Fourteen fatalities in structure fires in 2004 (reported in The Advertiser, Dec. 28) ought to be a signal to the Honolulu City Council that it is time to require wooden residences to have sprinklers.

In addition to the lives lost in fires on O'ahu that could be saved, the property damages in these and all wooden structure fires on O'ahu not only affect those who live in these wooden structures, but the damages also affect the insurance rates that all property owners must pay now and in the future.

The City Council is looking to require high-rise structures to install sprinklers at huge costs to owners. High-rise fires, especially in residential buildings, are rare, and the property losses are minuscule compared to what is happening in wooden structures because these high-rise buildings have one- or two-hour-rated concrete firewalls between units.

Instead of requiring sprinklers in high-rise concrete buildings, our City Council needs to review its priorities and do something about requiring sprinklers in wooden residential structures.

We all must make the bottle law work

Don't let the governor or businesses bottle things up.

A month and a half of bottle bill setup time was lost because Gov. Lingle failed to sign a measure to improve the bill. Staff hiring, public education and fine-tuning of the program all suffered.

The Retail Merchants of Hawai'i held a special meeting on ways to block and delay the bottle bill program. And many stores have not set up redemption centers.

So if you're frustrated, don't blame the bottle law. And remember:

• With no bottle law, our money ends up in the coffers of stateside corporations — while 75,000 beverage containers per hour, on average, end up on our 'aina.

• Beverage container litter fell about 70 to 85 percent in states with bottle bills.

• Glass lacerations in children fell 60 percent after a beverage container deposit law took effect in Massachusetts.

• Jobs have increased in almost every state with deposit systems. Beverage sales generally return to the national average in a few years in most states with deposit laws. And priceless beauty returns to unlittered landscapes.

• Collecting cans and bottles brings money to community groups.

• Most people in bottle law states support the laws. No state has ever repealed a state container deposit law.

Help our economy, our people and our 'aina. Don't bottle up this one.

For up-to-date information on redemption, visit www.Hi5deposit.com or call 586-4226.

Arctic wildlife refuge must be protected

Some New Year's resolutions could have lasting implications for America. The Bush administration's resolution to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas drilling is a perfect example. Despite the fact that the American public stands solidly against drilling in the Arctic, the White House appears more interested in giving a New Year's gift to big oil companies.

People in Hawai'i understand that the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is one of our last wild places. The area is the premier birthing ground for caribou and polar bears, and supports large populations of migratory birds.

I urge Sens. Akaka and Inouye to protect the refuge by voting against any attempts to open it up for drilling.

Instead of drilling, we should make a New Year's resolution to promote energy efficiency, increase fuel economy for cars and SUVs, and expand the use of renewable sources of energy, thereby working toward a more sustainable future that protects our wild places, cleans up our air and makes the United States less dependent on foreign oil.

I saw the announcement of the Department of Transportation's implementation of the free tow service on Hawai'i roadways. I couldn't think of a worse way to spend local and federal money.

I fail to understand how these six tow trucks are going to get through heavy traffic in order to reach stalled vehicles. There is no magic lane for them to pass all the congestion up to the point of the "stall." In many areas of our freeways, the shoulder is not continuous, so the trucks are going to get stuck anyway.

Furthermore, these trucks and their drivers do not have any actual authority to move or direct traffic and may run into trouble from some less patient drivers. Will the police still be dispatched to these same stalls? If so, that's a waste of resources.

I feel that Director Rod Haraga and the DOT need to re-examine this plan and realize that the 10-minute interval patrol will fail horribly. It seems like an ill-conceived plan to spend federal money before they lose it.

People, dogs should be restrained in back

Where is the logic in requiring drivers and passengers inside cars to be seat-belted and yet allowing animals and people to be transported in the beds of pickup trucks with no restraints?

An incident in Pearl City will stick in my mind forever. A dog on a leash had fallen over the side of the pickup truck and the driver had no idea his dog was being battered to pulp. An avoidable tragedy.

I shudder each time a pickup truck passes me on the freeway, doing over 65, with a loose dog trying to maintain its balance in the back. How many more senseless accidents will occur before action is taken?

I urge everyone to contact their representatives in an effort to introduce and pass legislation making this deadly practice unlawful.

Quit giving students the easy way out

If what was said about math standards in The Honolulu Advertiser is true, then the state has a school board that lacks common sense. Why would any school department let children in the second grade use calculators to learn math? In fact, even to use a computer because it has a spell check should not be allowed. Let the kids use a dictionary.

We should be teaching our kids the basic learning tools that let them develop their brains.

If I were a parent of a young child, I would be pounding on the doors of the Department of Education to get some answers on what is its idea of getting children ready for the higher grades of school.

Here's something for kama'aina to go see

There aren't too many attractions to lure local folks to Waikiki these days. The only reason we kama'aina venture there is to attend a wedding reception, party or concert. Even then it's got to be "worth our time."

There is one attraction that's well worth the time and effort. On Tuesdays from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., Ku'uipo Kumukahi and Danny Kiaha perform in the Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center's courtyard fronting Kalakaua Avenue.

For two hours one Tuesday evening, my husband and I enjoyed beautiful Hawaiian music and were entertained by lovely hula dancers. And it's all free! Ku'uipo has a voice that's strong and sweet — so good for the heart and soul to listen to. What a perfect evening — sitting outside and listening to really good Hawaiian music.

People should take some time from their hectic days and check this one out. Mahalo, Ku'uipo, and mahalo to the Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center for bringing back a little of old Waikiki.

Good Samaritans helped out in rain

On the night of Jan. 1, my car stalled near the Pearl City off-ramp on H-1, town-bound. An elderly couple, Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Yara, stopped alongside the freeway to help me out. They drove me to the nearest gas station, where I was able to get what I needed for my car, and drove me back to my car.

It was a night of frequent showers and probably a few drivers who had one too many beers, so walking that distance and back would've been miserable, if not perilous. Stopping along the roadside to assist me put the Yaras in danger as well.

Please publish this letter to honor this generous couple for their altruism and heroism. I will be eternally grateful for their kindness.

Grant Mizuno | Honolulu

Bottle bill brainstorming must have been a gas

Well, folks, here we go again. The most current demonstration of our local government's incompetence, or is it? I'd love to have been a fly on the wall during the "real" discussions among our leaders about the bottle bill. I can just imagine the laughter:

"Ha ha, let's kick the fees in a solid month before anyone can actually recycle anything ... just think of the revenues."

Or: "Ha ha, let's not allow the cans to be crushed. Make it more inconvenient ... just think of the revenues."

Or: "Ha ha, let's set up inconvenient hours ... just think of the revenues."

Let's face it, folks, it's obviously about the revenues, not the ecology or even the waste-disposal problem.

What about the requirement the containers must be washed before recycling? Do we truly have an endless supply of water here?

Consider whether or not TheBus will allow oversized lawn bags full of empty beer cans on it, and do you want to share your seat with them if it does?

I'm certainly looking forward to the gridlock within six blocks of the 20 centers.

How about those hours? Most will be closed one full hour for lunch, just about the same time most working people might have a chance to do their recycling.

Going with the current flow, I've got an equally bizarre idea. Why not use that nice, shiny (though not so new) asphalt truck we taxpayers paid tens of thousands of dollars for but can't be used, hire someone to drive it through the neighborhoods and we'll just toss our containers onto the back? Maybe bizarre, but no more so than the current system.

A note to any politician with a brain: Quit trying to reinvent the wheel. Call the city of Tacoma, county of Pierce, Washington state. Its system works.

Poverty line is inaccurate

Have you ever looked at the Census Bureau's poverty line for a certain household group and said to yourself, "That is too little"? Many of us have, and we're right. The poverty line is inaccurate, the formula is obsolete, and this has been detrimental to awareness of poverty.

Poverty is underestimated.

As you may know, the first formula for the poverty line came into use in the early 1960s and was equal to the minimum cost of food (at the lowest level of nutrition) multiplied by three (since the typical American family spent about a third of its income on food). Then in the late 1960s, the Census Bureau began fixing the poverty line to the consumer price index, to account for inflation. According to John Schwarz and Thomas J. Volgy, authors of "The Forgotten Americans: Thirty Million Working Poor in the Land of Opportunity," "The cost to obtain basic necessities increased faster than the general inflation rate." This means that basic necessities actually cost more than what the poverty line says.

According to Schwarz and Volgy, if the government measured poverty with the original formula, the poverty line for 1990 would be over $20,000 for a family of four, compared to the government's figure of roughly $13,000. This is closer to the public's perception of what the minimum amount of income needed to survive is.

Official poverty figures say that in 1989, almost 26 percent of poor households headed by able-bodied, non-elderly adults had household heads working year-round, full-time. Volgy and Schwarz say that by using the original poverty line formula, it would instead be 49 percent. This shatters the conception that laziness is the cause of poverty.

Looking more into the full-time working poor, Volgy and Schwarz say in their book that, "over half are over age 30, and nearly three-quarters have a high school degree or have gone to college."

This is not the only problem with the poverty line. Today there are important expenses needed to survive that weren't around in the '60s. Some expenses cost more than others. Multiplying the minimal food cost by three doesn't work either. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1995, the average family spent 14 percent of its total expenditures on food, as opposed to about 33 percent. Does this mean that the minimal food cost should be multiplied by seven rather than three?

In some areas, housing costs are substantially greater than are those in other areas. This means that food might actually take up much less than a third of expenses needed to survive, and shelter would take up a greater percentage. Therefore, the poverty line calculated by multiplying the minimum cost of food by three might be less than the amount of income really needed.

Childcare is another example. In the 1960s, when the formula for the poverty line was developed, some parents could stay at home to watch over the kids. Today, it's much more common to have both parents working, so there are childcare costs as well. With new childcare costs, food costs make up less than a third of expenses, so again the formula doesn't work in today's nation.

Another problem with the poverty line is how the poverty line for those who are elderly is less than that of younger people, just because they usually require less food. At the same time, the elderly require more extensive healthcare, so healthcare costs for the elderly are much greater. An elderly person can hardly survive on the poverty line for his or her age.