CHOSEN HAUULA LOCATION BEST OPTION

The Jan. 27 article on the city's purchase of property for the new Hauula Fire Station might have left readers with an unclear picture of why a new fire station is needed and why the time to buy the property is now.

The present Hauula Fire Station is in a stream floodway and a tsunami evacuation zone. It is too small for modern fire apparatuses and requires major renovations that would cost more than building a new fire station.

The Honolulu Fire Department has been working with other city agencies for more than 10 years to identify a suitable location and address concerns regarding the project. The proposed site is a good location for a fire station. It is outside the flood and tsunami inundation zones, is large enough for a modern fire station, and allows for quick response.

The proposed site also qualifies for federal funds to purchase the land, which makes it easier for the city to build a new fire station. Without the use of federal funds and the selection of a site that allows the HFD to respond quickly, the city will spend far more money to ensure that Hauula is adequately protected.

KENNETH G. SILVA | Fire Chief

SCHOOL BUS

SAFE ROUTES COULD BE SOLUTION TO CUTBACKS

The Advertiser article "Hawaii school bus service being cut back as costs soar" (Jan. 22) is a perfect example of why we need to get moving on Safe Routes to School.

Since 2005, Hawaii has received funds for SRTS to provide infrastructure such as sidewalks within a two-mile radius of schools. Hawaii, however, is one of 11 states that have obligated less than 20 percent of its funding as of Sept. 30, 2009. (By contrast, 19 have obligated 50 to 100 percent.)

The Hawaii SRTS Hui recently announced that Hawaii was selected to be part of the SRTS National Partnership Network Project. The goal of this project is to develop a comprehensive action plan for policy change and programmatic initiatives that make SRTS a great part of living, working and learning in Hawaii.

After safe routes have been implemented, we'll have more options to consolidate school bus drop-off points where kids can meet with others who live near the school and walk together. Physical activity can be built into their morning and afternoon routines to improve their health as well as reduce traffic congestion and our reliance on oil. I hope SRTS is included in the discussion as part of the solution to this issue.

NATALIE IWASA | Hawaii SRTS Hui member

FAIR ELECTIONS

WE SHOULD SUPPORT MERIT OVER MONEY

One way to decide the best candidate to win the special election for Neil Abercrombie's House seat is to ask who will champion Fair (Clean) Elections, which already has considerable support in the House. Since the Supreme Court now allows corporations' unlimited campaign contributions, our democracy depends on the public's having a campaign-finance alternative.

Freedom of speech requires equal opportunity of speech. If "speech equals money," it only means quantity of speech, not quality. Thus, an equal amount of money for each candidate would allow equal exposure by which to judge whose speech has most merit or quality.

A constitutional amend-ment could make that explicit and override the Supreme Court's mistaking of corporations for individual citizen-voters whose speech is more complex than how much of it money can buy.

The argument against taxpayer-supported campaign finance is that citizens should not be forced to support candidates they oppose. But your money would pay for the contest itself, just as your ticket to a game supports the whole event, not a particular player or team. Would you pay for a ticket where the rules favor the side who sells the most tickets in advance?

May one who favors merit over money win.

ROXANNE FAND | Kāneohe

SUPREME COURT

DISTORTING ELECTIONS NOT QUITE SO EASY

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, in his commentary in The Advertiser on Jan. 25, voiced his opposition to the recent Supreme Court decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns.

He said that the law restricting donations "was intended to prevent the enormous wealth of corporations from distorting elections and protect corporate shareholders from having their money used for purposes with which they disagree."

As far as corporations trying to "distort" elections, I will make the argument that when Dan Rather tried to distort an election by going on "60 Minutes" just weeks before a presidential election and holding up "documents" he claimed came from "unimpeachable sources," it only took Internet bloggers 90 minutes to prove those documents were fake.

And corporate shareholders have the freedom of choice to sell their shares any time they feel their money is being ill-served by the corporate board.

I say let freedom of speech take its own course and suggest to those who think they can distort elections do a Google search on "Rathergate" before they risk any of their shareholders' money.

PAUL E. STAPLES | Kailua

UHPACONTRACT

PROFESSORS GET RAISE WHILE OTHERS LAID OFF

There's something wrong with this picture. I and 20 or more of my fellow plant quarantine inspectors with the Department of Agriculture, lost our jobs this past December, but the professors at UH get a raise after taking a temporary pay cut that will be totally reimbursed after 18 months.

In other words, their big sacrifice to help our economy is an 18-month delay in receiving 6.7 percent of their salaries and then they get a raise as a reward for their so-called sacrifice.

I wish UHPA had been my union rather than HGEA, which in my opinion helped get my job terminated.

MARK DARBY | Honolulu