KAKA'AKO

HCDA WILL WORK WITH COMMUNITY PANEL

Advertiser reporter Mary Vorsino's Sept. 24 article provided an excellent overview of the Kaka'ako Makai Community Planning Advisory Council meeting and issues with which the council is grappling. Vorsino's story should be read by those interested in Kaka'ako's future, and we hope it will encourage more stakeholders to attend the advisory council's meetings.

To clarify a few points, CPAC was formed to meaningfully participate in the development, acceptance and implementation of any future plans for Kaka'ako Makai. CPAC's role is to make recommendations to the Hawai'i Community Development Authority on a vision, guiding principles and possible actions in the area's development.

At its Sept. 19 meeting, CPAC was very clear about its objectives and direction. We see this as an interactive process where CPAC presents its vision and principles and HCDA will involve the group in developing more explicit plans for the area.

As to uncertainty expressed by some in the article, we reiterate that HCDA is committed to working with CPAC in developing Kaka'ako Makai in a manner appropriate for this valuable community resource.

SUPERFERRY

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS SHOULD BE RESPECTED

I'm indifferent about the Superferry, but am concerned about its impact on whales and its potential to spread invasive species.

That's why an environmental assessment should have been done, with ample opportunity for public scrutiny.

Our courts made correct decisions. The legal issue isn't whether the Superferry is good or bad, but whether the law was followed.

There is no doubt that the Superferry is significantly different than other interisland shipping services, and that it warrants an EA. I would expect the same treatment if someone wanted to start supersonic flight service between the islands.

Harbor protests, acrimonious hearings and interisland mudslinging get lots of attention, but that's not why the parties were in court.

And while it appears the state was wrong to grant the exemption, Superferry officials should have realized they have too much at stake to think that someone wouldn't challenge an exemption.

Finally, the request to provide service while the EA is being conducted is nonsensical. What other major projects are allowed to start operations or construction before an EA is completed?

Ultimately, there may be nothing fatally wrong about the Superferry that effective mitigations can't address. But I wouldn't want it or any other significant project to get a free pass through the environmental process.

Hawai'i's environmental laws are there for a purpose, and we should respect that.

Some may say the Superferry was killed off by opponents, but it sounds more like suicide to me.

ONE MORE WAY TO GET FROM ISLAND TO ISLAND

Judge Joseph Cardoza based his ruling on the Superferry "being clearly a new technology and a new chapter in transportation in Hawai'i."

I don't understand. I can ship my car today, along with hundreds of other cars, to another island. I can fly today, to another island. Superferry is just another option for getting from one island to another.

I can walk in my backyard today, get Fiddle Wood (an invasive species) seeds stuck in my slippers, fly to Maui and spread the seeds. If Superferry should not be in business because of the spread of invasive species, should any other mode of transportation be allowed to move people from island to island?

Look at our ocean waters. There are parasail boats, fishing boats, personal water craft, Coast Guard boats, Navy ships, rescue boats, etc., racing around. Some are able to go as fast as Superferry.

If Superferry should not be in business because of a possible whale collision, should any other fast boat be allowed in Hawaiian waters?

Every day, many thousands of people fly to Maui and Kaua'i and rent cars. If Superferry should not be in business because of increasing traffic by adding a few hundred cars to the mix each day (remember Superferry would also be taking cars off Kaua'i and Maui) should any cars be rented on Kaua'i or Maui?

Is Superferry "clearly a new technology and a new chapter in transportation in Hawai'i?" No, it's not that new, it's just another boat that carries people and cars from island to island.

SUPERFERRY SUPPORTERS ALSO RESPECT THE 'AINA

The Superferry has become an emotional issue for many in our state, and economic issues have reached beyond our borders to cast doubt on the wisdom of doing business in Hawai'i.

Even with the latest ruling, it appears, legally, the line is blurry at best. It is also clear the majority of the state's population feels the Superferry would be a positive for the state.

Some environmental groups against the Superferry have cloaked themselves in the mantra of saving the 'aina.

I don't believe any of us who love Hawai'i oppose the respectful use of our home. I do take exception, however, to some statements. Many barges loaded with cars, etc., ply between the islands. Many come by boat or air without us knowing what they might bring and what their intentions are. If I really wanted to go camping on Kaua'i, I could still fly over with my gear, rent a car and do so.

I hope the governor and Legislature find a compromise that will help the Superferry stay in Hawai'i while satisfying those with legitimate concerns.

One unintended consequence might be that some environmental groups seeking continued funding may find their appeals falling on deaf ears. This would be a shame because many do good work. Wouldn't it be ironic, if when asking for funds, potential donors ask them for an environmental impact statement prior to giving to assure their donations do not have any unintended consequences?

WAIMANALO GULCH

MAYOR DIDN'T PROMISE TO SHUT DOWN LANDFILL

I'm not sure to what Kioni Dudley ("2 boards tell mayor 'no' on landfill extension," Page B-1 Oct. 8) was referring, but to set the record straight, Mayor Mufi Hannemann never promised to close the Waimanalo Gulch landfill.

It was former Mayor Jeremy Harris who told Leeward residents that he would close it in 2008.

After his election and before taking office, Mayor Hannemann said he'd try hard to make good on the Harris promise. Having examined the possibility of locating a landfill at other sites, the conclusion is none is suitable for development at this time.

Mayor Hannemann has, however, more than fulfilled the promises that he did make to Leeward Coast residents.

Mayor Hannemann has made sure the landfill operator, Waste Management, is doing a better job of operating the landfill. The mayor has appointed a group of Leeward residents to oversee the company's running of the landfill.

He promised to provide the community with a benefits package, and has, to the tune of $2 million and $2.5 million the past two years.

And the mayor is doing more in the areas of recycling, waste-to-energy conversion, greencycling and bulky item pickup, which, was not available on a regularly scheduled basis until he came into office.

The mayor has told the people he understands their frustration, but that the bottom line is if the landfill does not remain at Waimanalo Gulch for now, the city may be forced to landfill its garbage closer to their homes.

VISUAL BLIGHT

IT'S TIME TO BRING BACK CITY GRAFFITI TASK FORCE

In recent months, Reynolds Recycling Redemption Centers statewide have been the victim of senseless and costly tagging and graffiti. Like the traffic signs on the freeway, repairing the damage will cost thousands of dollars, and our company has to pay for it, not the perpetrators of these crimes.

While we are taking measures to prevent further incidents, eliminating graffiti from our communities requires all of us to do our part. That includes: being proactive and teaching good citizenship and personal responsibility in our schools, being good neighbors and calling 911 when we see suspicious behavior taking place, participating in community cleanups and working with law enforcement on community policing efforts. It will take all of us working together to ensure that graffiti on our trailers today do not become vandalism and theft tomorrow.

Previously, the city had instituted a graffiti task force to combat the rise in vandalism. Perhaps the writing is on the wall for us to revive this task force and erase graffiti from our communities.

EYE CARE

LASIK SUCCESSFUL FOR MAJORITY OF PATIENTS

It was with obvious interest that those of us at the Laser Eye Center read the Oct. 6 front page story: "LASIK a nightmare for some."

LASIK surgery has been a popular choice for millions of Americans to correct their vision, and has been successful for the great majority — the article quotes 97 percent or more. It also outlines the risks associated with LASIK and Food and Drug Administration warnings about complications.

The article states that as an elective surgery, the long-term effects of LASIK are not tracked by health insurers or the FDA.

What people may not know is that the FDA approval process for the laser surgery is long and arduous. As a result, the possible risks and complications with LASIK are well known. While the percentages are low, there are important factors for every individual to consider with guidance from a doctor.

Mistakenly, the article warns people to be wary of surgeons who have high volumes of surgeries, equating them to an emphasis on numbers at the expense of quality. In fact, doctors who perform many surgeries may have an advantage. Experienced surgeons have amassed a high volume of procedures. The best keep up on the latest technologies and invest in new equipment. Years of experience, board certified surgeons, team approach with credentialed eye-care professionals and the latest FDA-approved technologies are things to look for.

As with any surgery, risks exist. The best results come from a well-informed patient and reinforce why choosing the best place and eye-care professionals for laser vision correction is important.