I, for one, would be willing to pay increased taxes to pay for those improvements.

SHARED BLAME

PROPERTY TAX: I CAN'T WAIT FOR ELECTION DAY

I noticed that someone suggested that older property owners take out a reverse mortgage. Why do that when it's easier to get rid of the people who raised the property tax?

It's easy to just overtax the people who buy and sell property here (it doesn't take a brainiac to figure that out). Every time the budget is in trouble, we homeowners get whacked with higher taxes.

The council is also to blame. It must have known that our taxes were going to be raised, and it let the mayor get away with it.

Should we be satisfied with a $200 tax break? You know what you can do with that $200. In fact, I should charge the city $100 a month for storing the blue trash can that it left on my property. Can't wait for election day.

TOILET EDITORIAL

AT FIRST FLUSH, OPINION LACKS HANDLE

While I respect The Honolulu Advertiser’s right to call my restroom equity bill “half-baked,” I must point out a number of inconsistencies in your Jan. 3 editorial. My bill, now law, requires female restrooms to have twice as many toilets as male restrooms at event facilities.

First, your editorial implies that although my restroom equity bill passed on a vote of 9 to 0 and went through the normal hearings process, it was not carefully thought through. The truth is that this measure was based on similar legislation passed in over 20 cities in 15 states. I also took the time to ask for review by the major contractor and architectural organizations in Hawai'i prior to introducing this bill. This is tested and proven legislation.

Second, this bill was specifically crafted in line with the Model Building Code as set forth by the International Codes Council. To adopt The Advertiser position that this law has “gotta go” would mean Honolulu would have a building code that is in compliance with modern building code standards, except for accommodations made for women’s restrooms.

Third, my measure was limited to event facilities because event facilities are where large crowds gather and the problem of long lines at female restrooms is the most acute. Nothing in my bill otherwise prevents any private developer from adopting the "innovative ways" your editorial suggests.

The reality, however, is that most commercial buildings and certainly most residential facilities do not have problems with long lines at female restrooms. Indeed, your suggestion that specific formulas be created for different use levels would create a regulatory nightmare. The city would need a new potty police under The Advertiser’s fix.

Fourth, your editorial amazingly suggests that portable toilets are a good alternative. Respectfully, I must disagree as I have personally yet to meet a person who actually wants to use a portable toilet if another viable option exists.

Furthermore, your criticism is misplaced. If you reviewed Honolulu’s ordinances, the city already requires portable toilets at crowded spectator events where no other options exist for restroom facilities.

I simply do not agree with your position that our community’s quality of life would improve if the Blaisdell Center Concert Hall or the Hawai'i Theater filled the lobbies with foul-smelling port-a-potties.

Fifth, your editorial quotes "pressure from transgendered folk" is forcing changes toward unisex restrooms. At no time in any City Council public hearing have I ever seen even the smallest "pressure from transgendered folk" exerted. Indeed, while I welcome comment from all members of our community, no constituent has ever contacted me about modifying the municipal building code to better accommodate "transgendered folk."

Your editorial opinion that my restroom equity bill is “much ado about nothing” is certainly witty, but perhaps your points aren’t well flushed out.

PUBLIC EDUCATION: WHO WILL STEP UP TO THE PLATE?

(Editor’s note: This is another in a series of letters from previous Advertiser Community Editorial Board members on the 2006 Legislature.)

In the mid-’70s, legislators took away statutory, incremental raises from public school teachers — a move that took Hawai'i’s teachers from near the top of the national salary schedule to near the bottom.

A few years ago, legislators voted in favor of pulling teachers out of their popular and beneficial VEBA health benefits program. Its return has been promised; however, it has yet to be formally implemented, and it will be a crippled shadow of what it was previously.

Currently, legislators may feel that they are supporting public school teachers with Act 51, which was designed, in part, to bring greater decision-making power and funding at the school level. What teachers do need: smaller classes, specialists for music, art and PE; additional time for planning and articulation; and in-servicing for standards-based curriculum, instruction, assessment and report cards.
Resources are scarce. Teachers are having to do more with less. Our schools are in disrepair, and yet it is expected and demanded (rightfully so) that we provide safe, nurturing learning environments for each and every student who enters our classroom doors.

Legislators’ impact on the personal and professional lives of public school teachers cannot be overstated. Sadly, the connection between supporting teachers and how those actions benefit public education, as a whole, are often not given great value.

Additionally, the DOE is rarely viewed as supporting its employees in creating working conditions conducive to the pursuit of educational excellence. Even our own HSTA, with its current president a self-professed “friend to legislators,” appears to lack the ability to be a proactive organization with the specific interests of teachers in the forefront.

Public school teachers are looking for allies to create quality public education. Who will truly step up to the plate and support us in this endeavor? Will legislators in the 2006 session set a new standard beyond the typical rhetoric and platitudes?