Wednesday, May 21, 2008


THROW SOME WATER ON ‘EM: There’s an issue that’s tearing Kaua`i apart. It has spurred dozens of letters to the editor. County Council battle lines are drawn with no less than three bills on the table to deal with it.

And there are 61 (and counting) comments posted at Councilman Mel Rapozo’s blog on the subject since he wrote about his view there last Friday.

We decided to compile and reproduce some of the responses elicited here to give a taste of the emotional, often bitter, certainly wide ranging opinions on the subject.

To paraphrase our childhood hero, names have been left out to avoid a punch in the mouth. All comments are “sic”... as apparently are the commenters.

We have laws for a reason

People... who talk about (this) being
allowed everywhere else maybe should move there. you really
want to open this can of worms? would be

Mel, you are not an opponent of our rural
lifesyle, you passionalty fight for our keiki and our way of life. Mahalo to

Don't believe the spin.

If you want to talk about
spin, I think you will discover the work of masters by reviewing the history of
this issue over the last 18 months. Then you can talk about

Does Kauai really need another layer of notoriety as an
unfriendly place to live and to work?... Responsible people pay huge taxes
(because they go to work like responsible people do), buy all sorts of things
from our local businesses (because it is pono to buy local), and support our
charitable organizations (of which there are many here).... We want to support
responsible people in this world and on this island---we need them to pay taxes
for us and keep bloated government offices flush with cash.

world is watching us and we look like fools.... Set the rules and get on with

...instead of spending funds in this, as you say, tough
economic time. Isn't that one of your main tenets held in explaining your

Obviously you haven't been, or you would already know
that the... issue is a moot point, meaning of little or no practical value in
the argument... You would know that if you had been READING and understanding
the flow of information involved in this process.

It is clear that
anyone that suggests that is totally ignorant... Who are you trying to kid?
Please consider the children when you make stupid comments like

...why are we not surprised that you are also pro
superferry! I guess you think it is ok to change any laws that will benefit
yourself. You are a very pilau individual. Thank God for people like Andy Parx.
He is 100% right on!

You have said what many others are thinking.
It is funny how some people feel that their opinion is the only right one for
the people of Kauai. And most of these yahoos haven't been here very long. They
come to beautiful Kauai and try to change the way we live. If you are so unhappy
with the way things are here, go back to where you came from. This goes for you
too, Bynum.

The posts that are so worried about what other people
and areas think of us are not relevant.This is Kaua'i not the mainland.. Keep it
away from the rest of us who have the laws to protect us.

How fast
you all turn this into "Haole Go Home".

We want "our way of life"
back. We want it like the way is was insread of being punished for what we
haven't done.

It seems crazy to punish a large group... for the bad
behavior of a few. It's like forbidding everyone from driving because a few
people drive drunk. ...Let's show our aloha for one another.

Settle this matter soon so we can get back to enjoying what's left
of the simple pleasures in life.

The comment made recently about
"yahoos who haven't been here very long trying to change the way we live" is
upside down and whacked out... It's not the Yahoos doing the changing, it's the
Who's Who's.

...this issue has compromise written all over it...
why penalize tax paying law abiding citizenz? WTF would we want to make this
complicated and devisive; that's what the superferry is for! look for a
solution. it's right infront of us.

This is not the mainland. We
have laws in place for protection. Whoever is writing this crap needs to stop
thinking "me me me" and "I want, I want, I want" That is not the local way that
is the mainland way. You are disrespecting other people...

makes you think that people who bring up examples of how things are in other
places are not from here? Some of us travel.

It's a negative
change, and we need to turn it around.

What's all this shibai about
where people come from? The narrow-mindedness is

Stating "its da law" is a bunch of BS. Whose law are we
talking about? Put your efforts with law enforcement towards fighting ICE on the

Vacation Rentals? The Superferry? Unbridled development? Drugs? Rape of farmlands? GMO seed companies poisoning our kids? Tasers and police corruption? Chemtrails? Crop Circles?

All those issues apparently pale in comparison. If you still don’t know what it’s all about Alfie either go to Mel’s blog, re-read some of our past posts or thank your stars you’re not part of the discussion.


Anonymous said...

"Vacation Rentals? The Superferry? Unbridled development? Drugs? Rape of farmlands? GMO seed companies poisoning our kids? Tasers and police corruption? Chemtrails? Crop Circles?

All those issues apparently pale in comparison."

Exactly. Most of us don't think the stuff you annointed "conscious" haole knights of the eco-roundtable put on your bumper stickers is anything like the big deal you think it is.

Anonymous said...

Is your traffic so low that you had to try 3 times to drag people over to read your scribblings. Bit desperate.

These areas were wild before. Pretty much anyone could use them as they pleased. Nitpickers aside, we'd have never reached a consensus to develop a path if there were going to be so many restrictive rules.

The nitpickers were classic examples of people demanding more services in the way of 4 lanes to rush their trip to appear on camera at council. Same folk pushed the tax cutting referendum. Didn't you do a post about that particular discontinuity?

Anonymous said...

Might want to read and consider your own writing:

"Now laziness is the stock on trade of the modern corporate journalist"

appears you are just as willing to take info in and regurgitate it without doing much digging as long as it fits your own existing bias'.


"Bicycling and walking for transportation and recreation have increased over the past decade. This increase has been fueled to a large extent by a growing interest and concern about health and the environment. Since 1991, the Federal government has provided significant amounts of funding for shared use paths through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Additionally, communities nationwide are converting abandoned railroad corridors to trails (rails-to-trails)."


warning moderately sized PDF

They list 12 "transportation enhancement activities" that qualify for the funding. The first 7 are the most common:

1) Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
2) Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic historic sites
3) Scenic or historic highway programs including visitor centers etc.
4) Landscaping and scenic beautification
5) Historic preservation
6) Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation facilities...

Perhaps your nit-pickers are just wrong about what qualifies for rails-to-trails funds. I won't do any more of your homework for you, but if you google around you'll find lists of projects. Many are far more boondoggle-ish than the bike path


"ISTEA amended section 217 of Title 233 by expanding funding sources for bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways to include nearly all of the major federal-aid highway, transit, safety, and other programs, including the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, the National Highway System (NHS) program (for construction of bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities on land adjacent to the NHS, other than the Interstate System). In addition, Federal Lands Highway Funds may also be used to construct bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways associated with forest highways, forest development roads and trails, park roads, parkways, public lands highways, and Indian reservation roads. Also, Scenic Byways and National Recreational Trail Programs funds may be used for bike and pedestrian projects. Further, Section 402 highway safety funds may be used for bicycle and pedestrian safety purposes, and federal transit funding may be used to provide access to transit facilities, shelters, parking areas, and facilities on transit vehicles to transport bikes.

The construction of pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities from funds from any of the above programs are considered highway projects and receive the same federal/state matching share of 80-20 percent."

Anonymous said...

Wow. How's Andy going to get out of that spanking? Just ignore it and bury it under more posts, or say that's not what he meant?

Andy Parx said...

Instead of doing generalize research anonymous perhaps next time you’ll research the specific project. this project was left hanging in the State coffers (and was about to expire) specifically because it was for a transportation bike path for commuting- Hawaii couldn’t give away these federal funds until Kaua`i agreed to take them. As we have published many times, the specific section of congressional law on this specific type of bicycle path says it must be “for transportation, not recreation” according to the specific regulation for this specific highway fund money and that certification must be signed off on by the Secretary of Transportation- which is hasn’t been.

If you want the docs contact Glenn Mickens- he will be glad to provide chapter and verse

Anonymous said...

sorry. I find Mickens generally incompetent when you get right down to the details. Info gets massaged to fit the agenda.

Anonymous said...

Q 9. TE Category #1: Transportation vs Recreation. Transportation vs recreation activities can be a confusing issue especially when we see what other States are funding. For bicycle and pedestrian facilities we consider connectivity, access to businesses, schools and other buildings, and going from point A to point B. Can you clarify the fine line for these facilities regarding transportation vs. recreation? (Linda Bailiff, Ohio DOT)

A 9. There is a restriction in 23 U.S.C. 217(i) that a bicycle project must be principally for transportation, rather than recreation, purposes. However, the restriction is only for bicycle projects, not for pedestrian projects or multiple use trail projects.

A facility serves a transportation purpose when it is used to get people from Point A to Point B, and could likely substitute for motor vehicle trips. Transportation includes going from home to work, home to school, home to shopping, home to a social or recreational activity, work to shopping, school to shopping, one social or recreational activity to another social or recreational activity, etc. Recreation trips also may occur on the same facility.

A facility is a recreation facility when the primary purpose is to use the facility itself. For example, a backcountry hiking trail is a recreational facility usually not eligible for TE funds.

Anonymous said...

Thank God for people like Andy Parx.
He is 100% right on!

Anonymous said...

There's no reason to bar dogs from a transportation trail. What, you can't walk your dog from your home to the vet or the groomer?

Anonymous said...

I'd much rather ban the nit(wit)pickers from the Council chamber for 2 weeks every time they are found to be wrong in their research. Should speed up the proceedings enormously.

Anonymous said...

In 1994, the Hawai`i Department of Transportation completed a statewide master plan. Based on
public input at community meetings on Kaua`i, a 16-mile coastal bike and pedestrian trail from
Nawiliwili to Anahola was included in the plan.
In 1999, with the impetus of the Lydgate Park Master Plan and with active support from Mayor
Marianne Kusaka, the County was able to secure $2.6 million of Federal Highway
Administration funds for the first section of the trail. County funding and volunteer labor for the
bridge construction provided a match for Federal funds. After completion of the project, the
County was reimbursed for almost all of the costs.
This 2.5 mile, 10-foot wide concrete path runs from the Wailua River to the Kamalani Kai
Bridge. In conjunction with this phase of the overall path project, additional amenities were
added: landscaping, a campground, refurbishing of an old restroom facility, new restrooms with
showers, and an arts pavilion. All are linked by the path and are key elements of the overall plan
for expanding Lydgate Park.
Also in 1999, then Councilmember Bryan Baptiste chaired public meetings to get input for
planning the coastal trail. The path was named Ala Hele Makalae, “the path to walk or to go
along the coast”. An advisory group was formed and continues to meet. Today, Mayor Baptiste
is a strong advocate for the project. The overall goals for the Nawiliwili to Anahola
bike/pedestrian path are:
· Protect shoreline access for residents and visitors, including those with
mobility impairments.
· Promote health and fitness.
· Enhance access to culturally significant areas.
· Preserve historic railroad corridors.
· Provide alternative transport routes.

FHWA provides what are called “Transportation Enhancement Funds”. These funds are to be
used for providing facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, safety and educational activities for
pedestrians and cyclists, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites,
scenic/historic highway programs, landscaping and historic preservation. The Nawiliwili to
Anahola Bike/Pedestrian Path fits exactly into this category of federal funds. In addition, FHWA
provides congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program funding.
The federal funds provided to the Kaua`i project are designated specifically for bike/pedestrian
trails. They can not be used for other highway related needs. The County does not have the
discretion to use these funds for any other purpose

both from

There once was a fellow named Mickens,

Who crowed even more than the chickens......

Apparently the chapter and verse are for the wrong novel..

Moreover, all the legislation's sections say something like "subject to the approval of the Secretary". Approving the funds is the approval. DUH.

Once again, our fearless blogger didn't let any facts that didn't fit the picture interfere with a good rant. Talk about lazy corporate journalists. Perhaps if you incorporate, they'll let you in the guild.

Andy Parx said...

Annon- I have never seem something written on the bile path that is more insanely wrong and apparently made up out of whole cloth.

There was no 16 mile coastal "bike path" or even a plan before early 2002. Bryan and Mariann cooked it up to try recover face after it was discovered and publicized they wanted to almost gave away the section as a private beach for McCloskey. I sat through every council meeting on the subject and reported on them at the time. Wrere you there? Couldn’t have been.

The bike path came as a result of the deeding of the coastal section of Kealia Kai to the County and this new use of county land to “match” for the $40 million in the bicycle transportation monies. Whatever was and is going on at Lydgate, the “bike path” project was not part of it prior to 2002. The portion of the path through Lydgate as a matter of fact did come from the $40 million.

I am growing tired of your misinformation and having to correct it whomever you are. Rather than look into what I’m saying- and please ask Bryan, Doug or even Mariann or anyone on the Council at the time if you can’t bring yourself to cal Glenn for the documentation- you continue to sit in your smug anonymous butt and troll around. You can just look for the funding sections of the segmented EA’s for each area or go back over the county budgets under the Public Works Department Budget.

I won’t even bother going sentence by sentence through what you’ve presented since it’s ranges from non-information to bad information to irrelevant information all the way to outright made up stuff. This is my last post on this.

Anonymous said...

Poor Andy.

While you attend meetings, you have no idea what is really going on or make any effort to understand the rest of the framework. Can you not read? Perhaps if you actually paid attention or did some homework other than yakking to Mickens and Stauber, you might be less ignorant.

Here's a link for you

Bike Plan 2003 written by the State DOT. It refers to the 1994 plan and the original 1977 plan neither of which are on line, or at least I can't find them.

The 16 mile Anahola to Nawiliwili bike/pedestrian path is a featured element.

here's the link to where that info came from:

the "more" is a MaDougall and associates report giving a history of the path including reference to the 1994 plan.

Your credibility is nil when it comes to facts. Either refute the info with hard info or STFU.

More for you

from GIN 10/28/2001

"For Kaua'i, the proposed plan calls for the development of 173 miles of bikeways - mostly in Lihu'e, Kapa'a, Po'ipu and Koloa - at a cost of $61 million.

The state proposes building 103 miles of the Kaua'i paths at a cost of $23 million. Kaua'i County would be responsible for building 63.1 miles at a cost of $15.2 million, according to DOT. Another seven miles would be built at a cost of $1. 6 million by either the state or the county. Federal funds also would be used.

Before any bikeways can be put on Kuhio Highway in Kapa'a, major portions of the roadway must be widened, DOT officials said.

DOT sees potential for a 16-mile coastal bike path from Kapa'a to Lihu'e.

Three years ago, community leaders discussed the project from Nawiliwili Harbor to Anahola. The plan includes a three-mile section at Lydgate Park.

Tanner said little progress has been made, partly because of a desire by some islanders to include all potential users of the trails, including horse riders, walkers and skateboarders. Their needs could be accommodated after the bicycle/pedestrian path is completed, Tanner said."

note mention of discussions re Nawiliwili to Anahola bike/PEDESTRIAN trail in 1998.


GIN 5/28/2002

"The FHWA approved $547,383 in credit for the required local match.

The credit is the estimated value of community labor used to build the bridge.

When completed, the path will connect the Kamalani Kai Bridge portion of the park with the main Lydgate Park area. A groundbreaking will be scheduled in the next month, and the project is expected to be completed before the end of this year.

The concrete path will be the first phase of the Kaua'i Health Heritage Trail. The trail would run the length of the island's East Side."

Note reference to East side Heritage Trail.


GIN 10/30/2000

" Cheryl Lovell Obatake, a member of a citizens

advisory committee that worked on the General Plan, said Kaua'i has been chosen

as the pilot island for a statewide Coastal Zone Management initiative

regarding Native Hawaiian access rights. She expressed concern about potential

burial sites being disturbed during construction of a planned bike and walking

path from Kalapaki to Anahola."

BIKE and WALKING Path. On the Gen Plan in 2000.

and more

"Some residents voiced support for Yukimura's plan, saying bicycling on a 23-mile bicycle and pedestrian path from Nawiliwili Harbor to Anahola could ease traffic woes from Wailua to Lihu'e.

One phase, a 2.3 mile section at Lydgate Park, has been completed. That phase and five other phases are proposed by Kaua'i County and will be developed with federal funds, according to Kaua'i County Public Works spokesman Doug Haigh."

Just how do you break ground on a phase of a trail BEFORE you claim a plan was coming into being?

You're an embarrassment to yourself. Can't you even use Google?

Again, either prove dozens of newspaper articles and government reports don't exist or STFU.

Anonymous said...

one last quote for you

Bike Plan Hawaii 2003 update

"Lihue, Kauai
November 7, 2001
Workshop Participant: Does “shared bike path” mean share with runners and walkers?
Response by Glenn Kimura: Yes.
Response by Charlie Denney, Sprinkle Consulting, Inc.: Ten feet is the minimum design
width for shared-use paths; but if many different types of users are expected, then it should
be even wider"

Shock and amazement. Even more data prior to 2002 that the bike path was to be a shared user facility.