Mayor, remember campaign promise

I'd like to remind Mayor Hannemann about the criteria he promised as a candidate to use to evaluate new projects: Do we need it? Can we afford it? Can we afford to maintain it?

Shouldn't those criteria be applied to light rail? The Legislature and the Honolulu City Council seem hell-bent on adding a mass-transit GET surcharge so they can pursue federal funding for a light-rail project that may not be the right answer. All of the arguments in favor of light rail ignore the large body of data that shows it does not reduce traffic congestion.

And we certainly can't afford to maintain it. The looming GET surcharge, according to professor Karl Kim at UH-Manoa, will have to be augmented by new taxes on property owners and businesses to cover the operating costs. That means unless we raise taxes, operating light rail will put Honolulu further into debt.

Now, can we afford to buy it? The full-court press on light rail is being driven by a rush to get to the federal trough so that the federal government will pick up most of the construction costs. But if light rail isn't the right answer, isn't that a waste of federal money as well as a waste of the GET surcharge?

Before Mayor Hannemann jumps on this train, I suggest he sit back, take a breath and remember his campaign promises.

Mayor Hannemann, if it isn't broken ...

The Tuesday letter from Glenda Hinchey stated my concerns perfectly. I also voted for the mayor even though I had some concerns about his plans for the city, but I did not expect him to start dismantling projects that had been paid for and working.

I am as aware as anyone that the city needs more parking, so we need to open up the areas that are vacant and can be used for parking lots or parking garages.

What the mayor is doing on Punchbowl is beyond my comprehension. Maybe he could send a letter to the editor and explain his position on all the changes he is making. There are so many things to be done and he says money is tight, so if it isn't broken, don't fix it — and work on the things that are broken.

Bond money to pay city workers is OK

There is nothing wrong or improper about funding city workers involved with a construction project with bond money, as stated in your March 11 editorial.

The parallel in the private sector is paying for the architects and engineers involved in constructing one's home or any other type of building with a mortgage or another form of long-term debt. All of these individuals, as well as carpenters, welders and masons, are required for constructing a building. The only difference is that the city has engineers and architects on staff to fulfill these functions and contracts with a construction company for that component. Thus, it is sound fiscal policy.

Having said that, we do want to reduce our debt service, and paying for our workers out of operating funds rather than long-term debt is an easy way to do this. When we can afford it, we will start paying for these workers out of operating funds.

Inouye, Akaka have shamed Democrats

If you're one of those people who believe a national wildlife refuge is no place to be drilling for oil, you might want to call Hawai'i's Sens. Inouye and Akaka to let them know how you feel about them casting the deciding votes that opened up the magnificent Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy interests.

Don't believe their rhetoric about doing this for the "native people" there. They crossed party lines to support this key component of the Bush administration's shortsighted and destructive energy policy. Their vote didn't honestly represent what is best for Hawai'i — or Alaska.

Looking at a whole spate of Inouye's recent votes (ANWR, support for Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, the Stryker brigade, etc.), he can only barely be considered a Democrat anymore, and far from a progressive voice at that. Akaka hasn't proven much better. It's time to start looking for viable candidates to replace them in the next election.

Island channels are no place for a ferry

It's obvious that very few, if any, of the ferry advocates have ever sailed these channels.

The channels between O'ahu and the Neighbor Islands are not San Francisco Bay. That's the real Pacific Ocean out there and it can be fierce. Trust me, I've sailed the channels dozens of times. Unless the ferry is the size of the Lurline, you will have numerous cancellations and more seasick passengers than you can count. Neither of these events will be good for business.

One can ferry around the 'Au'au Channel between Lanikai, Moloka'i and Maui, but don't count on a pleasant journey crossing the Kaua'i, Kaiwi and 'Alenuihaha channels. Old sailors called the 'Alenuihaha 'ale as in jolly, nui as in phooey and haha as in crutch.

Suit against tsunami warning center wrong

I was deeply troubled to learn that the surviving family members of the Dec. 26 tsunami are suing the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, alleging the center failed to provide an adequate and timely warning. While I appreciate and understand their profound loss, the finger of blame is being pointed at the wrong people for the wrong reason.

Given that the center does not have responsibility for that region of the world, to hold them responsible for the consequences of the December tsunami is like holding the Ho-nolulu Fire Department responsible for a fire in Los Angeles. It defies reason.

My family and I sleep well at night knowing that the staff of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center and our civil defense system watch over us. These people deserve our respect, admiration and support — not baseless litigation designed to capitalize on losses that can only be attributable to the natural forces of the Earth.

Land Reform Act has benefited many

Mahalo for printing former Sen. Fred Rohlfing's admonition about repealing Hawai'i's Land Reform Act of 1967 (Letters, March 3).

Residential land leases have a set time period with a low ground rent to take into account the developer's cost of improvement to the land. Rent is renegotiated later to a normally higher amount. Given skyrocketing land values in Hawai'i, these amounts will be much higher.

What happens to local people living on leasehold residential land when ground rents go sky-high? They become homeless. Repealing the act will, in around 20 to 35 years, bring back the the 1980s when many homeowners in East Honolulu and other areas were faced with this prospect.

Americans strive to own their own homes — house and lot. The act moved Hawai'i toward this with more people owning fee-simple homes. In the process, a few large landowners, forced to sell to individual homeowners, also substantially benefitted monetarily.