Bypassing the EIS doesn't make sense

I remember becoming aware of the newly popular concept of environmentalism when I was 11 years of age, in 1970. That was the year of the first Earth Day.

Whether or not the use of environmental impact statements predated the first Earth Day, I don't know. However, certainly by 1970 it had become clear that humans had messed up the world quite a bit with unintended consequences of choices we had made. The idea of a full analysis of potential impact ahead of time, before something could be approved and carried out, made sense and became increasingly something to be expected, especially with any major project, and certainly with ones involving state or federal funds.

Planning ahead, rather than having to clean things up afterward, sometimes with great pain and difficulty, and allowing, encouraging and insisting upon public oversight of thoroughly transparent ideas, for the long-term good of all, are the bases for the EIS process. The EIS is an essential part of our "getting it together" as "civilized" people.

The attempt to bypass the EIS for the Hawaii Superferry project is an example of gross ignorance of what one would hope would be common sense by this point, 35 years after the symbolic celebration of the first Earth Day. The lack of respect for, and protection of, the unique and delicate environment that we are fortunate to share here is reprehensible bad management on the part of our so-called public servants at the state level.

The comparison of our situation in Hawai'i to other ferries elsewhere does not work, precisely because of the unique characteristics of this particular group of islands.

Facts were omitted in funeral plan letter

A Feb. 16 letter regarding prepaid funeral plans contains several half-truths ("Prepaid funeral plans should not be changed").

First, the writer does not differentiate between so-called funeral insurance and putting money into trust. There is a big difference.

Second, the writer states that with the proposed 100 percent trusting, pre-need sales would not be possible. I come from a state that requires 100 percent trusting and am aware of flourishing pre-need businesses there.

Third, the writer speaks of certain consumer groups having their own agendas. True. The agenda for the consumer activist group I know about is to inform the public about its options for at-death services and pre-need contracts on the premise that an informed public is better than one kept in the dark.

Fourth, the writer states that even AARP pushes insurance. True. It pushes life insurance and automobile insurance. AARP won't even accept advertising for funeral insurance.

Fifth, the writer states that the FTC regulates the pricing for funeral homes. This is not true. FTC rules state that funeral homes are required to show price lists to prospective customers. Each funeral home sets its own prices, and they vary widely for the same services.

Finally, the writer fails to mention that funeral homes get a commission for selling so-called funeral insurance.

We're fed up with the high tax burden

The taxpayers of Hawai'i need reminding that Hawai'i's 4 percent general excise tax collects as much funds as an equivalent sales tax of 10 to 11 percent, according to the Tax Foundation of Hawai'i.

Both the Honolulu City Council and the state Legislature are now trying to raise our GET by 25 percent (a rise of 4 percent to 5 percent is a 25 percent actual increase in the tax). That tax increase would mean an equivalent of as much as a 13 percent sales tax.

Where else in the United States is there a 13 percent sales tax?

Hawai'i is also the worst tax environment for businesses in all the 50 states, according to the Tax Foundation (federal level). And Honolulu is also currently the fourth most expensive place to live in the United States.

I urge all Hawai'i taxpayers to let your elected officials know we are fed up and won't take it anymore. Call or write your elected officials today.

Superferry opposition just same old same old

After I retired seven years ago from a lifetime in transportation and we bought our place here, I couldn't understand why Hawai'i, which is a natural for interisland ferry services, had none.

An old Pacific hand explained it to me. When you come over from the Mainland with a great new idea for a public service that is going to break the rice bowls of important people here, they'll stop it, and they'll be so smooth you'll never know how they did it.

No surprise to me, then, that the interisland ferry plan is being torpedoed — by people who profess to be acting in the public interest. That's what your editorial did. And surely no one in your building, from the managing editor to the delivery truck loaders, really believed your editorial argument that missing the ferry's financing window of opportunity this summer won't be fatal.