Posted on: Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Letters to the Editor

Souvenir tents don't belong at memorial

This is about the ugly new commercial tourist tent at Pearl Harbor right next to the USS Arizona Memorial and USS Bowfin Submarine Museum. I used to work at the Bowfin, so I know the area well.

The Arizona Memorial opened in 1962, the sub museum opened in 1981, and the USS Missouri came in 1999. All these groups have spent millions of dollars to set up and run their exhibits educating the public about the huge sacrifices made by the military to protect the country during World War II. Now suddenly we have these Johnny-come-lately profit seekers show up with their carnival tent to try to leech off all the years of hard work done by the nonprofit museums next door. Don't people realize that every dollar spent at the tent on jewelry and T-shirts is one less dollar that will be spent at the museum shops to help them maintain their ships and exhibits?

These are war memorials and gravesites, not an amusement park and shopping mall to make people happy. So if these promoters want to run a tourist swap meet, the place they should do it is Aloha Stadium or Waikiki!

Blame Bill Clinton for U.S. sanction deaths

In his March 1 letter, Willis Butler of Kailua stated in his criticism of the Bush administration:

"It is undeniably tragic that many little people were killed and hurt on 9/11. Is it less tragic that in Iraq, U.S. sanctions in the interim between the two Bush wars — not military action, but 'sanctions' — killed more than 100 times as many people, mostly children, as died in the towers? (Source: The Lancet, one of Britain's most distinguished medical journals.)"

Let's see, who was president during that "interim"? Oh yeah, that was Bill Clinton who served during those eight years. So I guess that makes Clinton responsible for the deaths of all those Iraqis who died from the sanctions that he imposed on Iraq.

Sports officials need to be protected

Athletic events without officials are nothing more than scrimmage games. They do not count toward gaining state recognition as the best in the sport.

When the current crop of officials retire or quit due to the lack of interest in being abused, perhaps our legislative body will step up and devote the time and effort to become certified officials and ensure that state champions are crowned each year or explain why Hawai'i has no state champions.

Perhaps that athlete counting on a college scholarship can look toward a grant for school when he or she has no sport to showcase the talent.

Officials are special and need to be protected. The last time I went to a sports official clinic, the numbers were dwindling and not a line was forming.

Akaka bill's impact needs clarification

The Associated Press reports that a U.S. Senate panel will soon vote on the Akaka bill. I am concerned that this vote may be taken without sufficient information on the justification and probable impact of the bill.

The subject bill proposes self-government for indigenous Hawaiians, similar to that of American Indians. As to justification for a separate indigenous government, American Indians had their land taken away by the U.S. government through treaty defaults. Hawai'i crown lands were transferred to the United States in connection with annexation at the request of the government of Hawai'i.

With respect to impact, American Indian self-governments generally have reservations on separate land areas. How would a native self-government function in Hawai'i without separate land reservations? In such a case, members of the native government and all other citizens of the state of Hawai'i would use the same state public services.

If the proponents of the separate indigenous government assume that the members of that government will not be obligated for state taxes to support the state infrastructure, there could be a real dilemma. Will the members of the Native Hawaiian government still receive the same federal benefits as all other citizens of the state of Hawai'i plus the special benefits negotiated directly with the federal government?

Mayor Hannemann's disappointing already

I thought we were going to have exciting new leadership with the election of Mufi Hannemann. Well, it appears, he and the City Council can only think about how to spend more. The only positive voice I hear is Councilman Charles Djou — but he seems to be a voice in the wilderness.

What about making government work more effectively? I hear nothing about using more effectively the money that is already being raised by the high gasoline taxes, or where what the city has already collected has gone to — perhaps down the deep potholes! There is something really wrong with how we are patching the potholes; they should stay patched longer than a few days.

I hear nothing about more efficiency and productivity in government, just how abused the public workers are by being paid so poorly. Well, wait till they retire — then they'll know who is really being abused. Those poor public workers will have a larger retirement from the city's coffers than I have. I even had to pay my own health insurance when I was working.

We can talk millions more in taxes, yet people are homeless. I hear nothing but promises about seeing that everyone in Hawai'i has shelter and food. Isn't that more important than potholes?

What a disappointment! I thought Mufi would be more creative. Just higher salaries and more taxes.

We're paving over Hawai'i; it must stop

I have been increasingly worried about the ongoing development and building going on in Hawai'i. From Pupukea to

Honolulu, it seems to never end.

Uncontrolled immigration to our Islands, military buildup, developments, malls and a proposed tunnel under Pearl Harbor all stand in the way of preservation of our Islands. The state and city governments talk of closing off fishing to the local people to preserve for future generations while allowing development to continue. All this makes no sense to me.

I believe it's time we put an end to development and immigration to Hawai'i.

It's time we tell the developers and our elected "representatives" we don't need their money and the filth that comes with it. If we ever expect Hawai'i to be just a part of what Hawai'i used to be, we must stop this assault on our lands. For those from outside Hawai'i, I urge you to do research and see what Hawai'i once was and what it has become.

Prices out of whack; time to wait and see

As a potential homebuyer, I've noted the fall of single-family home sales volume with some amusement. The March 3 article "Homes resell at record price" highlights how single-family home prices have broken records again at an average price of $525,000 and that home buyers are choosing condos because they simply cannot afford a house.

Mortgage insurer PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. notes in its winter 2005 Risk Index report that there are signals of misalignment in home prices in the top 50 metropolitan markets. Personally, I think these may be signs of a coming correction in the Hawai'i real estate market. I think Hawai'i real estate prices have simply gone beyond the reach of the average Hawai'i resident.

The idea that people will continue to pay a premium for property just because they can afford it is running out of steam. Even when the premium price being paid for residential real estate is affordable, it is still dumb. I think that people are starting to feel the material effects of this. I for one can and will wait.

Marine reserves bill would end Island saltwater fishing

Gordon Pang's Feb. 18 article on the progress of a marine reserves bill moving through the House touches on a subject with a much deeper story: the end of saltwater fishing in Hawai'i.

House Bill 131 HD1 requires the state to set aside a minimum of 20 percent of our Hawaiian nearshore waters toward conservation. Because nearshore waters are defined as the upper reaches of the shoreline waves seaward to a depth of 600 feet, nearshore waters extend outward in many instances for miles.

Using this definition as a base for the 20 percent computations, the proposed conservation districts would involve enough waters to completely encircle each island's coastal area! This is likely the scenario since offshore pelagic species are free roaming and most coral reefs are coastal.

Of further concern is that the bill requires a minimum of 20 percent and does not state any maximum.

Despite these facts, and the written and spoken testimony of over 300 individuals against the measure, and the lack of support by the DLNR, the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to pass this legislation through committee. Why?

The state needs to manage this neglected resource instead of closing it off. The decline in the state's fishery is multifaceted. Raw sewage spews into East Honolulu after every heavy rainfall. Kane'ohe Bay is smothered in siltation from the development of its perimeter. Lighting from our residences and hotels flood the reefs and affect fish behavior and coral reef reproduction. The reefs at the Ihilani resort were dynamited to provide swimming areas for visitors. Vast areas of reef were sheered off when the Cape Flattery recently ran aground.

Chemical and light pollution, siltation and intentional and accidental reef destruction take a heavier toll on our fishery than that by hook and line. The lack of current enforcement only exacerbates the situation. The only true leadership has come from fishermen who asked for the tighter catch restrictions themselves.

This legislation would remove us from an activity that bonds us as a unique culture. It would drive fish prices sky-high and market supplies to scarcity. The economic repercussions would be enormous. Imagine living on an island where no one could fish. Incredible.

Title IX is a disservice to males

I just saw another article in the newspaper about soccer. I'm upset to read that soccer stars are here in Hawai'i to play because it reminds me that the chances of local boys being soccer stars are less likely because UH-Manoa cannot have a men's soccer team.

Title IX, which was created in 1972 to make equal opportunities for both men and women, is discriminatory against college men. In 1980, the Department of Education re-interpreted Title IX to be a "quota law."

Their consent decree judges "gender equity" by male-female enrollment ratios instead of student interest levels. Numerous studies demonstrate that female college students, in general, are less interested in competitive team athletics than males are, and women are more interested in personal fitness activities (jogging, aerobics, etc).

The attempts by some schools to comply with this decree are made even more difficult by the fact that women have come to dominate the enrollment on most college campuses, leading 57 percent to 43 percent nationwide, but these numbers are also misleading. Many of the female students are non-traditional students in their 30s through 60s who are not interested in playing competitive sports, but they are counted under "gender equity," and schools have to respond by eliminating male athletic programs.

Title IX is responsible for the elimination of 20,000 men's athletic positions over the past decade, while at the same time colleges are desperately struggling to get women interested in sports, so as not to cut more positions for men.

A college should offer the same opportunity for female athletes as it does for male athletes by allocating positions for both gender athletes, but not punishing one or the other if one gender shows lack of interest. (Example: If a college allocates positions for 20 male and 20 female swimmers, and only 10 female swimmers show interest, then it would be unfair to eliminate 10 male athletes to comply with the current unfair interpretation of Title IX.)

Title IX offers unlimited athletic opportunity for women, but opportunities for men are severely limited to the amount of women interested in competitive sports. Enrollment at UH-Manoa is 42 percent male and 58 percent female; thus, UH-Manoa has no men's soccer team or water polo team, but UH provides soccer and water polo teams for women; thus, many local boys who would have relied on those positions to attend college join thousands of minority men nationwide who are not able to go to college because of Title IX.

I don't believe that punishing high school boys and college men was the initial reason behind Title IX, but that's what it has become. For decades, society has rallied behind equal rights for women; now we should focus on equal rights for both men and women.