Posted on: Monday, March 14, 2005

Letters to the Editor

Shooting seems to be an effective deterrent

So, agricultural theft in Kahuku has dropped effectively to zero since Sept. 7 when Khamxath Baccam took proactive action to protect himself and his property ("Farm thefts sharply decline," March 5). What a surprise.

I hope these events will open the eyes of all the people out there who have bleeding hearts for career criminals. Years of lax penalties, second (and third, and fourth, and 10th ...) chances have led to a nation of people who don't fear the law and its consequences. I salute you, Mr. Baccam, for showing us all what can happen when criminals are given a little deterrence.

I only hope when your jury is selected in your shooting-death trial, you draw individuals who have actually done some hard, manual labor in their life. People who will understand what it is like to work all day, every day in the hot, dusty environment of a farm only to awaken to looted fields and stolen equipment.

Ice addicts and thieves may not fear the law but, in Kahuku at least, we've finally found something that gets their attention.

Senate must protect Arctic wildlife refuge

The budget votes this week by Sen. Daniel Akaka and Sen. Dan Inouye may protect or forever develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the last remaining 5 percent of Alaska's pristine tundra ecosystem. Science and Native Alaskan elders do not support claims that oil development of the refuge is balanced and safe.

Since no drilling is now allowed, this treasure is at stake in Congress in a strange scheme that ambushes the normal process to make energy policy. It is wrong to slip controversial drilling into the budget resolution instead of using extended Senate debate, as is usual with important issues. It's a political maneuver to open the door to more geologically promising prospects off the coasts of California and Florida.

Is it good to despoil a national refuge, and are cultures expendable? Gwich'in Indian and Inupiat Eskimo leaders have visited Hawai'i twice in concert asking for help in saving their culture and food subsistence. It is morally wrong and a violation of basic human rights for multinational corporations and national governments to place the survival of indigenous cultures and their sacred places at risk, especially to pursue wealth.

Hawai'i must kokua on the villagers' pleas to prevent resource exploitation and cultural genocide. We urge our senators to defend existing subsistence rights, rather than support risky drilling, and favor alternative energy resources and conservation programs. These actions are pono in the spirit of Hawaiian conservation values and ethics.

No Child plan isn't fair to good students

In a couple of months, Hawai'i's youth will be hunkering down and preparing for the time of judgment: test time. Teachers are scrambling, students are not caring, parents are ripping their hair out.

It's not like it's new or the test has changed or anything. But this time, the government has upped the ante. President Bush's No Child Left Behind raises the stakes significantly. Every test could make the difference of getting needed money or being deprived of it.

Every year more kids join schools, and every year more kids fail. With this plan, people are motivated to try to help the kids more. However, Bush's dream is unreasonable. Every kid has to learn to read by 2010 or something. There is no way to do that. Immigrant kids need time to learn English. Some people just don't want to learn.

We need more money to get some kids to do their work. We need more money for resources. But we won't get it if kids aren't willing to work and we don't have the resources to do this. It's an endless cycle.

So far we have done OK considering the extenuating circumstances. A lot of kids want to learn, and some don't. They shouldn't be punishing the victims: the kids who want to learn. It's not fair.

Do DNA testing to identify Hawaiians

Wow, Maui Loa, where have you been all this time? Your letter was the first truth I have heard in this whole Akaka bill foray.

Now, I have an idea on how to simplify this issue: do DNA testing. This simple, inexpensive cotton-swab-in-the-cheek test would tell who is Hawaiian and who is not. Science is now at the point that it can settle this question. This test would not only get rid of the wannabes, but could also qualify the true blood line, possibly including some folks who were adopted or otherwise unable to trace their heritage. Is this solution too simple or what!

Land Reform Act is unforgivably bad

Regarding the Land Reform Act letter of March 3: Just take a drive along Kahala Avenue and surrounding streets to see all of those grotesque mansions that have been erected in place of the "homes" lessees cried they wanted to keep — along with the land they were able to get from the landowners. Then those former lessees sold the land for millions of dollars and laughed as they went slithering all the way to the bank. It's easy to get the picture.

This unforgivably bad act "crafted" 38 years ago, forcing landowners to sell their leaseholdings in Hawai'i, has resulted in resale after resale of these properties at higher and higher prices, creating the worst unaffordable housing problem throughout the state.

For shame! And the Land Reform Act is to blame.

The Land Reform Act is a mockery.

Search-and-rescue bill is bad legislation

State Sen. Shan Tsutsui has introduced a classic piece of bad legislation in Senate Bill 1222.

Classic because it is an issue that resurfaces almost every legislative session, and bad because it would authorize county or state officials to charge for rescue services if the rescued individual "fails to exercise reasonable care or violated laws against trespass or laws intended to protect the public safety, or disregarded warnings."

Sen. Tsutsui has said, "There are times when guys go out in rough seas, or they are unprepared and they go hiking, and it puts the search and rescue personnel at risk."

Has it occurred to the senator that most people who are in need of rescue get into trouble precisely because they are unprepared? Or that search-and-rescue personnel are engaged in a public service that is inherently dangerous?

Or that unprepared and reckless citizens are also taxpayers and have in effect paid in advance for rescue services?

Senate Bill 1222 is an attempt to legislate common sense, something that seems to be in short supply in Hawai'i's rough seas, steep cliffs and state Senate.

Since Superferry would use state harbors, EIS is needed

I have been following the story of the Superferry with some interest. As a longtime resident of Hawai'i, I recall the days of the interisland passenger ferry system SeaFlite that was in existence in the 1970s.

While I favor the proposed Superferry, I would like to point out that wanting the service to get started, even wanting it badly, is no excuse not to critically examine the project.

Hawai'i Revised Statutes Chapter 343, the state's EIS law, requires a critical examination of proposed projects. The law states in the section on applicability, 343-5, that any actions that:

"Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds, other than funds to be used for feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or funds to be used for the acquisition of unimproved real property; provided that the agency shall consider environmental factors and available alternatives in its feasibility or planning studies," are subject to the requirements of the chapter.

Since the Superferry proposes the use of state-owned harbor facilities, it must comply with the requirements of this chapter. The law requires that the agency which is taking the lead in permitting the activity make a determination on whether an EIS is required. The determination hinges on the key phrase "may have a significant effect on the environment." If a project is deemed to have a significant impact, then an EIS must be prepared.

I cannot speak for the opponents or whether they are using the state's EIS to try to delay the project. I know, though, that the outcome of the EIS process is not to stop a project from going forward but rather to examine it, hopefully making it better through the introduction of imitative measures, and then allowing it to proceed armed with the knowledge of what positive and negative effects it will have on the environment.

Bribery accusation irresponsible

I am outraged that the attorney general and the county prosecuting attorneys have accused me and the House of Representatives of supporting bribes (March 7 letter).

The prosecutor's office testified that in the last 20 years, it has not investigated anyone for the offense of bribery. This is another example of sensationalizing an issue, playing to the media with catch phrases, without the justification to back their claims.

If any one of the writers had been present at the hearing, he would have understood that the bill was riddled with loopholes, exemptions and other problems. Here they are:

• For reasons that are still unclear, the bill did not include the governor and the lieutenant governor. Therefore, in essence, the governor and lieutenant governor could receive unlawful gifts and not be charged with any crime. If we are to pass a "No More Bribery Act in 2005," doesn't it make sense that the law should apply to all public officials?

• Under the unlawful gifts section, the attorney general's office testified that any gift over $250 would be illegal under this act. Republican and Democratic committee members pointed out that the governor, lieutenant governor and the attorney general himself, in the last year, accepted trips to the Mainland and to foreign countries such as Japan and Israel for official business.

The attorney general's representative stated that such trips paid by an outside entity would be illegal. We believe that there are times when such travel is legitimate and within the scope of doing business for the public benefit.

• The attorney general's office also stated that, under this act, public servants should be paying for every expense and every meal personally. This would affect the governor much more than the legislators. That would mean, for example, that if the governor were included, she would be expected to personally pay for all the meals served at events and functions during which she has been invited to attend and speak.

We should encourage our governor to attend events to represent the state. Making her responsible to pay her own way when she is invited to be a keynote speaker could have a chilling effect on the number of appearances she would make. Both Democrats and Republicans on the committee found this to be unreasonable.

We want to work with the attorney general and the county prosecutors to develop legislation that addresses bribery of public officials and other important issues. I'm disappointed that the producers of the letter did not contact me directly to discuss the problems. Speaking through the media hurts our ability to work collaboratively on other important issues for the future.