TRY WAIT: The kvetch-fest over Governor Neil Abercrombie's "emergency" declarations- and the fact that he failed to tell anyone about one of them for months- suspending environmental and planning laws to clear ordinance from the beaches and oceans and nene from the Kaua`i Airport area would be deafening if it weren't for the paywall blocking the state's "newspaper of record," making it an unproductive endeavor to link to columnist Dave Shapiro’s traditional harangue or, surprisingly, Cynthia Oi's tome on the subject.
But while some debate whether these are in fact emergencies under state law, another "emergency" proclamation by his Governorship has got to be the slowest developing crisis in history showing that if you wait until the molehill becomes a mountain you can create a pressing matter of epic proportions out of anything.
The fact that a stretch of the highway near Lumahai has been falling into the ocean is no surprise to anyone who has driven the stretch in the past decade. But Abercrombie's "emergency declaration" on September 7 would make you believe that rather than it being a result of glacial-paced erosion, some menehune came in last month with pickaxes and chopped away at the coastline all in one night.
The fact is that the declaration is the result of almost a decade of trying to get the state to get its act together. We can remember current State Senator Ron Kouchi as Kaua`i County Council Chair- that would place it before 2003- grilling then County Engineer Cesar Portugal about what was thought to be the imminent loss of the northbound lane of the state highway.
What should be a state problem has since been a subject of concern for every council and county engineer ever since. While the county has been making temporary fixes, the state has dragged its feet in moving the highway 40 feet inland- the current "emergency" solution which was first proposed 10 years ago.
But that would have taken due process, pubic hearings and most importantly environmental impact statements, certified shoreline determinations and, quite probably, a plan to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers, as we heard in council testimony over the years.
But noooo. The state's solution is to wait until it is an actual emergency and give the finger to due process, public hearings, transparency and, most importantly, any thoughtful review of the fact that if this section is falling into the ocean, what's next? That might raise the nasty problem of why we're putting things like bike paths- and even new homes under the county's new process for granting exemption from what had been widely acknowledged to be the strongest shoreline protection law in the country- 10 feet away from the shoreline in an age when climate change could well remove that 10 feet in as many years.
Is this the future of how the state's environmental and shoreline protection laws will be handled when the ocean come in to stay? Wait long enough to suspend them?
Apparently.
Showing posts with label Bike Path. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bike Path. Show all posts
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Monday, May 10, 2010
ENHANCE THIS
ENHANCE THIS: Words matter. And when words change so can facts related to them.
It’s all part of the way the “big lie” works.
Just this morning, as if designed to give us a lead-in to how the coastal “bike path” became a “shared use” or “multi use path”, Ian Lind quoted a Mike Middlesworth article at Truthout.org, explaining how the media plays its part:
The oligarchy that owns and runs our government and controls our mass media has learned Goebbels’s lesson well: A lie unanswered is a lie believed – more so if the lie is repeated, over and over again.
Accordingly, a successful propaganda campaign must accomplish two essential and coordinated tasks: (a) tell the lies, and (b) see to it that they are not effectively refuted. The six media conglomerates that now control most of the US media accomplished both tasks supremely well.
So it’s no surprise that the somewhat clueless Leo Azambuja led his latest article on the bill that will no doubt be passed this Wednesday- after what he called “a long day of contrasting testimony from both sides of the dog-path issue” (emphasis added) last week- by saying:
The question of whether the county should allow dogs on the shared-use path has carried on for several months...
But why not? He has bought into the same big lie that any number of genuinely confused constituents have swallowed after being bombarded with propaganda by any number of “don’t confuse me with the facts”, misinformed misanthropes who insist that it’s not a bike path but one for any and all uses... even uses that make bicycling so dangerous to all as to make it all but impossible.
The fact is that the path originated through $40 million dollars of federal monies distributed by the state called Transpiration Enhancement (TE) funds.
The funds are specifically to be used for one of 12 activates acceding to 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(35), the most common being bike paths that provide for, well, transportation enhancement.
TE funds require a 20% match from the recipients. In our case that 20% came from donated lands the biggest portion of which, until recently, came from the Kealia Kai “gift” of coastal lands between Kealia and Kuna Bay (aka Donkey Beach).
The matter almost came to litigation when Attorney Bill Sweeney, representing several condos in Wailua that were slated to have the path run between their complexes and the ocean, threatened suit causing the county to move the path behind the condos.
Here’s the pertinent part of what he wrote at the time in convincing the county to change the route of the path lest they be sued for misusing the TE funds, according to administration testimony before the county council:
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Must Relate to Surface Transportation.
It is questionable whether the shoreline path relates to surface transportation and not recreation as required by applicable law. Each transportation enhancement (TE) project must relate to surface transportation and meet one of the 12 eligible activities [23 U.S.C. 101(a)(35)]. Applicable federal regulation clearly indicates that TE funds cannot be used to fund bike & pedestrian facilities that are solely for recreational use.
According to the language under 23 USC 217(1), "No bicycle project may be carried out under this section unless the Secretary has determined that such bicycle project will be principally for transportation, rather than recreation purposes".
Public support for modifying the pristine beach along the shoreline path with a concrete path or boardwalk is likely based on their misconception that the path will provide recreational opportunities. For example, in several articles in the The Garden Island Lester Chang reported as follows:
December 22, 2003: "The entire project would greatly enhance recreational needs in the Kawaihau District, the largest population area on the island, county officials have said."
March 6, 2004:
"The entire project is intended to enhance recreational opportunities in the Kawaihau District, which boasts the largest population of the island." (Emphasis added) The State of Hawai`i and Kauai Count must justify the shoreline on the basis of primarily benefiting transportation and not for recreational purposes.
The Inland Roadways route (Alternative 2) and the Canal Path route (Alternative 3) more clearly satisfy the objective of enhancing transportation in that they have a closer relationship to Kuhio Highway and are more likely to serve a transportation purpose. As discussed, the Inland Roadways route (Alternative 2) and the Canal Path route (Alternative 3) also avoid potential significant environmental, archeological and ecological concerns.
The number of examples and quotes have increased exponentially over the years, now numbering in the dozens from the newspaper and no doubt hundreds in minutes from county meetings.
And now, with the evolution of bike path to shared use path to dog path, the proof is in the pudding... or piddling as it were.
No one, despite dozens of requests- including a formal letter from then Councilperson Shaylene Iseri Carvalho to the state DOT just before she left office- has ever produced a determination from the federal secretary of transportation.
Some have gone as far as to claim that there never were any TE funds. But a simple visit to the county public works department will turn up the paperwork, as Building Division Chief Doug Hague will provide and attest to.
This weekend after reading in the announcement of the reelection bid of “shared use path” proponent Tim Bynum that he “wrote the initial funding proposal that started the shared-use coastal path project and continues to support its expansion” we asked him to explain and he confirmed that the $2.5 million in his proposal for the Lydgate Kamalani "Bridge", a maintenance shed and part of the path- as well as the other $40 million- came from TE funds.
So what? Well the addition of dogs to the strollers, kids roller-skating, people in wheelchairs and any number of future cat and even turtle walkers on the path (as has been discussed in council sessions) it has been said that it is now simply unsafe to have bicycles there- especially those using the path for 30 mph “transportation”- and perhaps we should move to ban bikes.
Banning bikes from a transportation-use bike path would seem pretty absurd. But when you call it a shared or muli-use path, well, anything goes doesn’t it?
We’re sure some troll will comment that we’re wrong. But then again that’s how the big lie works.
It’s all part of the way the “big lie” works.
Just this morning, as if designed to give us a lead-in to how the coastal “bike path” became a “shared use” or “multi use path”, Ian Lind quoted a Mike Middlesworth article at Truthout.org, explaining how the media plays its part:
The oligarchy that owns and runs our government and controls our mass media has learned Goebbels’s lesson well: A lie unanswered is a lie believed – more so if the lie is repeated, over and over again.
Accordingly, a successful propaganda campaign must accomplish two essential and coordinated tasks: (a) tell the lies, and (b) see to it that they are not effectively refuted. The six media conglomerates that now control most of the US media accomplished both tasks supremely well.
So it’s no surprise that the somewhat clueless Leo Azambuja led his latest article on the bill that will no doubt be passed this Wednesday- after what he called “a long day of contrasting testimony from both sides of the dog-path issue” (emphasis added) last week- by saying:
The question of whether the county should allow dogs on the shared-use path has carried on for several months...
But why not? He has bought into the same big lie that any number of genuinely confused constituents have swallowed after being bombarded with propaganda by any number of “don’t confuse me with the facts”, misinformed misanthropes who insist that it’s not a bike path but one for any and all uses... even uses that make bicycling so dangerous to all as to make it all but impossible.
The fact is that the path originated through $40 million dollars of federal monies distributed by the state called Transpiration Enhancement (TE) funds.
The funds are specifically to be used for one of 12 activates acceding to 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(35), the most common being bike paths that provide for, well, transportation enhancement.
TE funds require a 20% match from the recipients. In our case that 20% came from donated lands the biggest portion of which, until recently, came from the Kealia Kai “gift” of coastal lands between Kealia and Kuna Bay (aka Donkey Beach).
The matter almost came to litigation when Attorney Bill Sweeney, representing several condos in Wailua that were slated to have the path run between their complexes and the ocean, threatened suit causing the county to move the path behind the condos.
Here’s the pertinent part of what he wrote at the time in convincing the county to change the route of the path lest they be sued for misusing the TE funds, according to administration testimony before the county council:
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Must Relate to Surface Transportation.
It is questionable whether the shoreline path relates to surface transportation and not recreation as required by applicable law. Each transportation enhancement (TE) project must relate to surface transportation and meet one of the 12 eligible activities [23 U.S.C. 101(a)(35)]. Applicable federal regulation clearly indicates that TE funds cannot be used to fund bike & pedestrian facilities that are solely for recreational use.
According to the language under 23 USC 217(1), "No bicycle project may be carried out under this section unless the Secretary has determined that such bicycle project will be principally for transportation, rather than recreation purposes".
Public support for modifying the pristine beach along the shoreline path with a concrete path or boardwalk is likely based on their misconception that the path will provide recreational opportunities. For example, in several articles in the The Garden Island Lester Chang reported as follows:
December 22, 2003: "The entire project would greatly enhance recreational needs in the Kawaihau District, the largest population area on the island, county officials have said."
March 6, 2004:
"The entire project is intended to enhance recreational opportunities in the Kawaihau District, which boasts the largest population of the island." (Emphasis added) The State of Hawai`i and Kauai Count must justify the shoreline on the basis of primarily benefiting transportation and not for recreational purposes.
The Inland Roadways route (Alternative 2) and the Canal Path route (Alternative 3) more clearly satisfy the objective of enhancing transportation in that they have a closer relationship to Kuhio Highway and are more likely to serve a transportation purpose. As discussed, the Inland Roadways route (Alternative 2) and the Canal Path route (Alternative 3) also avoid potential significant environmental, archeological and ecological concerns.
The number of examples and quotes have increased exponentially over the years, now numbering in the dozens from the newspaper and no doubt hundreds in minutes from county meetings.
And now, with the evolution of bike path to shared use path to dog path, the proof is in the pudding... or piddling as it were.
No one, despite dozens of requests- including a formal letter from then Councilperson Shaylene Iseri Carvalho to the state DOT just before she left office- has ever produced a determination from the federal secretary of transportation.
Some have gone as far as to claim that there never were any TE funds. But a simple visit to the county public works department will turn up the paperwork, as Building Division Chief Doug Hague will provide and attest to.
This weekend after reading in the announcement of the reelection bid of “shared use path” proponent Tim Bynum that he “wrote the initial funding proposal that started the shared-use coastal path project and continues to support its expansion” we asked him to explain and he confirmed that the $2.5 million in his proposal for the Lydgate Kamalani "Bridge", a maintenance shed and part of the path- as well as the other $40 million- came from TE funds.
So what? Well the addition of dogs to the strollers, kids roller-skating, people in wheelchairs and any number of future cat and even turtle walkers on the path (as has been discussed in council sessions) it has been said that it is now simply unsafe to have bicycles there- especially those using the path for 30 mph “transportation”- and perhaps we should move to ban bikes.
Banning bikes from a transportation-use bike path would seem pretty absurd. But when you call it a shared or muli-use path, well, anything goes doesn’t it?
We’re sure some troll will comment that we’re wrong. But then again that’s how the big lie works.
Monday, May 3, 2010
TAKE A LOAD FOR FREE
TAKE A LOAD FOR FREE: The rabid dog ladies- a term we’ve taken to use in describing the string of middle-aged haole women who have been streaming through the testimony table at recent county council meetings- will no doubt be back in force this Wednesday when the bill to allow dog-walking on the whole “dog path” comes up for a final committee session.
Their stridency is something to behold as is their mantra that “everyone” supports their “right” to walk their dogs on the path.
Today Joan Conrow reports on “an email sent around by Mr. Path, Thomas Noyes” saying”
Based on park users' overwhelming endorsement for allowing responsible dog walking on all of Kauai's existing and future multi-use path systems, as documented in the survey conducted under the direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Kauai Path board of directors supports responsible dog walking on all of Ke Ala Hele Makalae and future path systems.
This “survey” was conducted by 11 of the most hydrophobic of the supporters of allowing dogs on what is of course a “transportation, not recreation” bike path according to the federal law under which the original $40 million was obtained- although Noyes has succeeded in getting everyone to buy into calling it the “shared use path”.
So it’s no surprise then that in answer to the question “Did you experience any problems with dogs on the shred use path” way over 92.9% percent said no. Funny how when “staff”- i.e. county employees- were asked over 20% of those who answered said yes- a statistic that had to be gleaned since it and many other stats weren’t calculated by those that “compiled” the survey.
Of course the selection of participants by the dog ladies and the fact that “no” was the answer the surveyors wanted and expected- in addition to the local custom of telling people what they want to hear- had nothing to do with the answers.
But, as we pause to remove our tongue from our cheek, the one question that stands out when one peruses the entire “presentation” is the question “Is dog feces on the shared use path currently a significant problem?
The result reported was that 90.1% said no. But a look at the results of the staff survey showed that, again, of those who answered yes or no, 24.1% said yes and only 20% said no.
In answer to the question “Do you feel safe with leashed dogs on the shared use path?” again while 97% of the public said yes, a whopping 51.7% of staff (or about 3/4th of those who answered) said no while only 13.4% said yes.
Something’s fishy and it sounds like it just could be the “push poll” nature of the 11 dog zealots who took the public survey.
So what is the real situation with both leash violations and dog poop? Well, as we reported last week the union has filed a grievance because picking up dog crap is not currently in their job description.
A look at the actual “comments” of those volunteers themselves may show why there’s such a discrepancy.
Although the survey conveniently leaves off this info, council questioning revealed that during the period the survey was conducted the volunteers spent little time on the path, most under a half an hour a session on intermittent days- actually most of the surveys were completed by one person.
As a matter of fact total volunteer hours were 30 in December (2008) 24 in January (2009) and only 19.5 in February and a measly 8 in March.
That makes the report of 65 “notations of dog feces along the path” an unfathomable amount of crap if extrapolated for 12 hours a day. And that was only in a two and a half month period.
Buried on page 46 of the report is the meat- the violations reported not by staff but by the volunteers themselves.
We’re going to post the whole list here so you can get the “flavor”. Remember that as time has gone by volunteer monitoring has gone from meager to virtually non-existent despite promises that if the council passes the proposed dogs-on-the-whole-path ordinance they would “pick it up”- the monitoring that is.
Monitoring Log Comments (all sic)
p46
12/2/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/2/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (at rest pavilion) Cat feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/3/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/3/2008 Dog feces (2 piles) removed by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)
12/8/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/8/2008 Man with dog off leash at Lihi, reported by volunteer, no indication if warning was done by volunteer
12/11/2008 Stray dog found on path and picked up by Humane Society (noted by volunteer who brought dog to Ranger)
12/19/2008 Dog running loose near Kapaa Beach Park Pavilion, maybe from house where guy carves tikis
12/22/2008 Dog feces (3 piles removed at pavilion Kapaa N/C); (1 pile removed at the large dispenser at Kapaa N/C)
12/31/2008 Dispensers need to be refilled (Kealia & Kapaa N/C)
1/1/2009 Dog feces (2 piles) in the area of Pavilion #3(?) reported by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)(no notation if removed)
1/5/2009 Stray med sized white dog, at Lihi restroom, no license (no notation if Humane Society called for stray)
1/11/2009 Bicyclists w/dog not on leash - volunteer counseled riders & they complied
1/12/2009 Lady walker w/retracable leash (no indicate if spoke to walker)(AM)
1/12/2009 No bags at Lihi dispenser (empty several days), dispenser at Kapaa N/C stinks, not emptied in a couple of days (AM)
1/12/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces (1 on path other within 5' of path)(PM)
1/13/2009 Walkers w/two dogs, no visible poop bags (no indication if spoke to walkers) 1 pile of dog feces picked up within 5' of path
1/18/1900 Dog pot at Kealia overflowing & really stinks, also almost out of bags. "come on guys can't someone empty these"
1/20/2009 Graffitti path adjacent to Otsukas 6'x4' - red paint
1/21/2009 1 walker w/dog with a retractable leash (no notation if walker spoken to)
1/22/2009 Enforcement officer (Tony) picked up brown lab near Kapaa Pool. KHS picked up dog
1/26/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces near Kapaa Beach Park
1/26/2009 Lihi dispenser bottom missing & needs replacement parts ordered
1/26&27/09 Only poop on the path is chicken poop - Yahoo!
1/27/2009 Many chicken manure piles & dead & live slugs & snails
1/29/2009 2 walkers with dogs, no license, were informed
2/8/2009 No litter bags @ bathroom, rest site #1, Dogi pot #2 both sides full, Dogi pot #3 (pool) left side empty, Right full
2/8/2009 Dogi pot #4 upper empty, lower 1/4 full (lookout), Dogi pot #5 both full, Kealia Bridge, stray dog Kealia (no indication if Humane Society called)
2/8/2009 Walker didn't have dog on leash, conunseled her-she put dog on leash, 1 pile feces removed near Kapaa Neighborhood Center
2/12/2009 Launch bathroom doggie bags empty
2/13/2009 No dogs today
2/13/2009 Boat launch bathrooms/doggie bags empty, Kealia Lookout/dogi bag empty, 1 pile dog feces Kealia pavilion (no indication if removed)
2/17/2009 Dogi bag dispenser empty boat ramp bathrooms, Dogi bag dispenser police station bathroom empty, 2 piles feces within 5' of path (no location)
2/18/2009 2 walkers with dogs off leash, put them all on leash, 1 speeding ultra-fast bicyclist - no bike bell, 1 pile feces removed by neighborhood center
2/18/2009 No more poop bags at doggie pot dispenser scenic parking lot
If anyone wants to go through the whole presentation we have the “power point” file (you need PP software to download it) and we’ll forward to you upon request.
We should note that we don’t hate dogs. But what we do hate is allowing a small group to dictate policy through intimidation and falsified and manipulated information.
We do support the right of people who are genuinely afraid of dogs- especially little kids who are at eye-to-eye level with some of them- to be able to use the path, along with those on bicycles (whose use should be a priority) to not have to veer off the path when a dog, as they are prone to do, lunges at them, leashes notwithstanding.
Their stridency is something to behold as is their mantra that “everyone” supports their “right” to walk their dogs on the path.
Today Joan Conrow reports on “an email sent around by Mr. Path, Thomas Noyes” saying”
Based on park users' overwhelming endorsement for allowing responsible dog walking on all of Kauai's existing and future multi-use path systems, as documented in the survey conducted under the direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Kauai Path board of directors supports responsible dog walking on all of Ke Ala Hele Makalae and future path systems.
This “survey” was conducted by 11 of the most hydrophobic of the supporters of allowing dogs on what is of course a “transportation, not recreation” bike path according to the federal law under which the original $40 million was obtained- although Noyes has succeeded in getting everyone to buy into calling it the “shared use path”.
So it’s no surprise then that in answer to the question “Did you experience any problems with dogs on the shred use path” way over 92.9% percent said no. Funny how when “staff”- i.e. county employees- were asked over 20% of those who answered said yes- a statistic that had to be gleaned since it and many other stats weren’t calculated by those that “compiled” the survey.
Of course the selection of participants by the dog ladies and the fact that “no” was the answer the surveyors wanted and expected- in addition to the local custom of telling people what they want to hear- had nothing to do with the answers.
But, as we pause to remove our tongue from our cheek, the one question that stands out when one peruses the entire “presentation” is the question “Is dog feces on the shared use path currently a significant problem?
The result reported was that 90.1% said no. But a look at the results of the staff survey showed that, again, of those who answered yes or no, 24.1% said yes and only 20% said no.
In answer to the question “Do you feel safe with leashed dogs on the shared use path?” again while 97% of the public said yes, a whopping 51.7% of staff (or about 3/4th of those who answered) said no while only 13.4% said yes.
Something’s fishy and it sounds like it just could be the “push poll” nature of the 11 dog zealots who took the public survey.
So what is the real situation with both leash violations and dog poop? Well, as we reported last week the union has filed a grievance because picking up dog crap is not currently in their job description.
A look at the actual “comments” of those volunteers themselves may show why there’s such a discrepancy.
Although the survey conveniently leaves off this info, council questioning revealed that during the period the survey was conducted the volunteers spent little time on the path, most under a half an hour a session on intermittent days- actually most of the surveys were completed by one person.
As a matter of fact total volunteer hours were 30 in December (2008) 24 in January (2009) and only 19.5 in February and a measly 8 in March.
That makes the report of 65 “notations of dog feces along the path” an unfathomable amount of crap if extrapolated for 12 hours a day. And that was only in a two and a half month period.
Buried on page 46 of the report is the meat- the violations reported not by staff but by the volunteers themselves.
We’re going to post the whole list here so you can get the “flavor”. Remember that as time has gone by volunteer monitoring has gone from meager to virtually non-existent despite promises that if the council passes the proposed dogs-on-the-whole-path ordinance they would “pick it up”- the monitoring that is.
Monitoring Log Comments (all sic)
p46
12/2/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/2/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (at rest pavilion) Cat feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/3/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/3/2008 Dog feces (2 piles) removed by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)
12/8/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/8/2008 Man with dog off leash at Lihi, reported by volunteer, no indication if warning was done by volunteer
12/11/2008 Stray dog found on path and picked up by Humane Society (noted by volunteer who brought dog to Ranger)
12/19/2008 Dog running loose near Kapaa Beach Park Pavilion, maybe from house where guy carves tikis
12/22/2008 Dog feces (3 piles removed at pavilion Kapaa N/C); (1 pile removed at the large dispenser at Kapaa N/C)
12/31/2008 Dispensers need to be refilled (Kealia & Kapaa N/C)
1/1/2009 Dog feces (2 piles) in the area of Pavilion #3(?) reported by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)(no notation if removed)
1/5/2009 Stray med sized white dog, at Lihi restroom, no license (no notation if Humane Society called for stray)
1/11/2009 Bicyclists w/dog not on leash - volunteer counseled riders & they complied
1/12/2009 Lady walker w/retracable leash (no indicate if spoke to walker)(AM)
1/12/2009 No bags at Lihi dispenser (empty several days), dispenser at Kapaa N/C stinks, not emptied in a couple of days (AM)
1/12/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces (1 on path other within 5' of path)(PM)
1/13/2009 Walkers w/two dogs, no visible poop bags (no indication if spoke to walkers) 1 pile of dog feces picked up within 5' of path
1/18/1900 Dog pot at Kealia overflowing & really stinks, also almost out of bags. "come on guys can't someone empty these"
1/20/2009 Graffitti path adjacent to Otsukas 6'x4' - red paint
1/21/2009 1 walker w/dog with a retractable leash (no notation if walker spoken to)
1/22/2009 Enforcement officer (Tony) picked up brown lab near Kapaa Pool. KHS picked up dog
1/26/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces near Kapaa Beach Park
1/26/2009 Lihi dispenser bottom missing & needs replacement parts ordered
1/26&27/09 Only poop on the path is chicken poop - Yahoo!
1/27/2009 Many chicken manure piles & dead & live slugs & snails
1/29/2009 2 walkers with dogs, no license, were informed
2/8/2009 No litter bags @ bathroom, rest site #1, Dogi pot #2 both sides full, Dogi pot #3 (pool) left side empty, Right full
2/8/2009 Dogi pot #4 upper empty, lower 1/4 full (lookout), Dogi pot #5 both full, Kealia Bridge, stray dog Kealia (no indication if Humane Society called)
2/8/2009 Walker didn't have dog on leash, conunseled her-she put dog on leash, 1 pile feces removed near Kapaa Neighborhood Center
2/12/2009 Launch bathroom doggie bags empty
2/13/2009 No dogs today
2/13/2009 Boat launch bathrooms/doggie bags empty, Kealia Lookout/dogi bag empty, 1 pile dog feces Kealia pavilion (no indication if removed)
2/17/2009 Dogi bag dispenser empty boat ramp bathrooms, Dogi bag dispenser police station bathroom empty, 2 piles feces within 5' of path (no location)
2/18/2009 2 walkers with dogs off leash, put them all on leash, 1 speeding ultra-fast bicyclist - no bike bell, 1 pile feces removed by neighborhood center
2/18/2009 No more poop bags at doggie pot dispenser scenic parking lot
If anyone wants to go through the whole presentation we have the “power point” file (you need PP software to download it) and we’ll forward to you upon request.
We should note that we don’t hate dogs. But what we do hate is allowing a small group to dictate policy through intimidation and falsified and manipulated information.
We do support the right of people who are genuinely afraid of dogs- especially little kids who are at eye-to-eye level with some of them- to be able to use the path, along with those on bicycles (whose use should be a priority) to not have to veer off the path when a dog, as they are prone to do, lunges at them, leashes notwithstanding.
Friday, March 5, 2010
GLAD WE DIDN’T STEP IN IT
GLAD WE DIDN’T STEP IN IT: Abso-freakin’-lutely bizarre.
What else can you possibly say about the county’s decision that, after all these years of putting everyone through convoluted conniptions so they could run the “coastal” bike path across the busiest highway intersection on the island and through the Safeway and Foodland parking lots, they’ve decided to start from scratch and do what they said was impossible- run the path along a makai route where it belonged in the first place.
Or, maybe not so bizarre.
The brief announcement from the county was pretty vague- and buried to boot. After a comparatively long and final “screw you” to those who want the path entirely off Wailua Beach, way at the end it says:
The mayor also noted that due to the cost and safety reasons, phase three of the multi-use path, from Lydgate to Lihi Park, will be aligned makai to avoid crossing Kūhi`ō Hwy. and the mauka leg will be postponed until a later date.
This change will require several additional steps including: land acquisition; a supplemental Environmental Assessment, a special management permit; and design work.
Even reporter Mike Levine of the local newspaper- who presumably hasn’t been around long enough to know a tenth of the background of the various scams that caused the mauka route to be chosen- wasn’t buying county’s obfuscation and wrote his own lede stressing the “new alignment”.
After apparently obtaining a county map he writes:
The new leg would head makai from Papaloa Road where it meets Coconut Marketplace, between the Kaua`i Sands Hotel and the Aston Islander on the Beach, before turning north and staying behind the Kaua`i Coast Resort at the Beachboy and the Aston Kaua`i Beach at Makaiwa, a county map shows.
Those who have followed the long and winding corridor’s saga will remember that it became obvious through testimony before the county council by Department of Public Works Building Division Chief Doug Haigh- going back to the Maryanne Kusaka administration and continuing through Bryan Baptiste’s reign- that the mauka alignment was chosen after a convoluted deal was struck with Safeway and Foodland to give the county land for the path in exchange for concessions from the county over the infamous “Safeway Bridge”.
For those that don’t remember, in 1979 when the Foodland and Safeway shopping centers were granted their commercial zoning one of the requirements in the ordinance was that they build a pedestrian bridge connecting the two stores so as to divert at least some traffic from the highway.
Citizens demanded a vehicular bridge but those were the days when corruption was even more rampant than today and public input meant diddly-squat when countered by developer’s demands.
But even the “compromise” condition was never satisfied and in the late 90’s the two owners tried to get the council to throw out the conditions because it was holding up a lot consolidation the Safeway owners needed to sell the shopping center.
It was supposed to be a done deal until a member of the public, Tracy Murakami, came forward at the public hearing on the bill and objected saying she wanted the bridge so she didn’t have to drive every time she wanted to shop at both stores.
That started a groundswell of support for the bridge especially from council regulars and set off the Battle of the Safeway Bridge.
People were outraged that the condition was ignored for 20 years and both sides started coming before the council over a period of months, the public with evidence of cover-ups and lies by the two corporate owners and the owners, with the backing of the state DOT, trying first to say the narrow, four-foot walkway on the highway bridge- with no guard rail and traffic whizzing by inches away- was good enough (even for a stroller with her newborn baby in it when Murakami brought it up), then saying there was nowhere to put the bridge- which Murakami and others pictorially showed just wasn’t true.
But after Kaipo Asing- then still a champion of the people- went out, tape measure in hand, and did his own investigative work and one of his famous “Kaipo Explains It All” presentations, the council refused to remove the requirement and even passed an ordinance saying “build it now... or else”.
But the “or else” wasn’t really specified. So cut to almost a decade later when Councilpersons Mel Rapozo and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho got wind of the lack of enforcement.
The council then went through the whole thing again- and again said build it “or else... and we mean it this time”.
Then cometh the bike path and Haigh, the county’s chief cook and bottlewasher on the project, came up with a plan that would both fund his bike path and settle the bridge controversy.
The main appropriation for the bike path- the original $40 million in “transportation, not recreation” federal funds needed matching funds from the county. The Kusaka administration had worked a deal to use the “gift” of the Kealia Kai mauka region land to offset a good chunk of it.
But they still needed more.
The deal was that in exchange for rights to a strip of land for the bike path to run through their valuable commercially-zoned land, Safeway and Foodland would only have to pay a nominal amount for the actual bridge itself and the county would maintain it as part of the “coastal” bike path which would now cross the highway and wend its way through the busy parking lots.
Haigh told the council that it would be impossible to get all the land for the path to go through the Coconut Marketplace and all the hotels in the makai area and detailed other physical barriers. There was no choice but to go west.
But as everyone knew the county couldn’t just decide not to build that portion because “the path must go on” to make sure that it would be “continuous” from Kealia to Lihu`e- a requirement since a “transportation” path couldn’t very well have breaks in it.
So why the change? Or more to the point why the change now after buckets of money and time have been invested in the mauka alignment and other plans are already in place along the canal- having been piggy-backed onto the bike path- for things like the Pouli Road connectors to ease vehicular traffic?
For one possible explanation you might look at the agenda for the February 17 council meeting under “Legal Documents”. There you’ll find this:
C 2010-46 Communication (01/15/2010) from the Director of Parks & Recreation, requesting Council approval to secure a shared-use path easement at the Kaua`i Shopping Village (TMK 4-4-3-08:14) in exchange for a parking and pedestrian access easement at Waipouli Drainage Canal.
This is apparently the land deal that finalizes all the previous contortions and now that all is in place the county has it’s “value” to be able to reap more of the matching funds required for the federal grant.
Of course the actual time and money the county has put into this now apparently defunct portion of the bike path is probably quite staggering although the real accounting is still in limbo.
The actual figure for cost to date was one of those “29 questions” that the council asked and which the administration has yet to answer regarding the bike path. The questions were left unanswered when Rapozo and Iseri left the council and no one else - especially original bike path zealot Tim Bynum who now chairs the Parks/Public Works Committee and has no interest in the questions, having said they were “all answered” as far as he was concerned- seems concerned about where the money went and where it’s going in the future.
Of course the county says the mauka portion is being “postponed” but when in the heck do we need an unconnected-to-anything bike path through a parking lot for now. In Kaua`i government parlance postponed usually means when hell freezes over. And of course they have to say that or it would make all efforts to secure the mauka route the farce it really was... apparently all along.
If that isn’t the answer what exactly changed so dramatically in the couple of weeks since the council approved the land deal? Either way they go some ‘splainin’ to do although no one is holding their breath.
Egad- we feel like Paul Harvey.
Correction: Tim Bynum is the Chair of Public Works and Elderly Affairs Committee, not Public Works and Parks. Lani Kawahara is the Chair of Parks and Transportation.
What else can you possibly say about the county’s decision that, after all these years of putting everyone through convoluted conniptions so they could run the “coastal” bike path across the busiest highway intersection on the island and through the Safeway and Foodland parking lots, they’ve decided to start from scratch and do what they said was impossible- run the path along a makai route where it belonged in the first place.
Or, maybe not so bizarre.
The brief announcement from the county was pretty vague- and buried to boot. After a comparatively long and final “screw you” to those who want the path entirely off Wailua Beach, way at the end it says:
The mayor also noted that due to the cost and safety reasons, phase three of the multi-use path, from Lydgate to Lihi Park, will be aligned makai to avoid crossing Kūhi`ō Hwy. and the mauka leg will be postponed until a later date.
This change will require several additional steps including: land acquisition; a supplemental Environmental Assessment, a special management permit; and design work.
Even reporter Mike Levine of the local newspaper- who presumably hasn’t been around long enough to know a tenth of the background of the various scams that caused the mauka route to be chosen- wasn’t buying county’s obfuscation and wrote his own lede stressing the “new alignment”.
After apparently obtaining a county map he writes:
The new leg would head makai from Papaloa Road where it meets Coconut Marketplace, between the Kaua`i Sands Hotel and the Aston Islander on the Beach, before turning north and staying behind the Kaua`i Coast Resort at the Beachboy and the Aston Kaua`i Beach at Makaiwa, a county map shows.
Those who have followed the long and winding corridor’s saga will remember that it became obvious through testimony before the county council by Department of Public Works Building Division Chief Doug Haigh- going back to the Maryanne Kusaka administration and continuing through Bryan Baptiste’s reign- that the mauka alignment was chosen after a convoluted deal was struck with Safeway and Foodland to give the county land for the path in exchange for concessions from the county over the infamous “Safeway Bridge”.
For those that don’t remember, in 1979 when the Foodland and Safeway shopping centers were granted their commercial zoning one of the requirements in the ordinance was that they build a pedestrian bridge connecting the two stores so as to divert at least some traffic from the highway.
Citizens demanded a vehicular bridge but those were the days when corruption was even more rampant than today and public input meant diddly-squat when countered by developer’s demands.
But even the “compromise” condition was never satisfied and in the late 90’s the two owners tried to get the council to throw out the conditions because it was holding up a lot consolidation the Safeway owners needed to sell the shopping center.
It was supposed to be a done deal until a member of the public, Tracy Murakami, came forward at the public hearing on the bill and objected saying she wanted the bridge so she didn’t have to drive every time she wanted to shop at both stores.
That started a groundswell of support for the bridge especially from council regulars and set off the Battle of the Safeway Bridge.
People were outraged that the condition was ignored for 20 years and both sides started coming before the council over a period of months, the public with evidence of cover-ups and lies by the two corporate owners and the owners, with the backing of the state DOT, trying first to say the narrow, four-foot walkway on the highway bridge- with no guard rail and traffic whizzing by inches away- was good enough (even for a stroller with her newborn baby in it when Murakami brought it up), then saying there was nowhere to put the bridge- which Murakami and others pictorially showed just wasn’t true.
But after Kaipo Asing- then still a champion of the people- went out, tape measure in hand, and did his own investigative work and one of his famous “Kaipo Explains It All” presentations, the council refused to remove the requirement and even passed an ordinance saying “build it now... or else”.
But the “or else” wasn’t really specified. So cut to almost a decade later when Councilpersons Mel Rapozo and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho got wind of the lack of enforcement.
The council then went through the whole thing again- and again said build it “or else... and we mean it this time”.
Then cometh the bike path and Haigh, the county’s chief cook and bottlewasher on the project, came up with a plan that would both fund his bike path and settle the bridge controversy.
The main appropriation for the bike path- the original $40 million in “transportation, not recreation” federal funds needed matching funds from the county. The Kusaka administration had worked a deal to use the “gift” of the Kealia Kai mauka region land to offset a good chunk of it.
But they still needed more.
The deal was that in exchange for rights to a strip of land for the bike path to run through their valuable commercially-zoned land, Safeway and Foodland would only have to pay a nominal amount for the actual bridge itself and the county would maintain it as part of the “coastal” bike path which would now cross the highway and wend its way through the busy parking lots.
Haigh told the council that it would be impossible to get all the land for the path to go through the Coconut Marketplace and all the hotels in the makai area and detailed other physical barriers. There was no choice but to go west.
But as everyone knew the county couldn’t just decide not to build that portion because “the path must go on” to make sure that it would be “continuous” from Kealia to Lihu`e- a requirement since a “transportation” path couldn’t very well have breaks in it.
So why the change? Or more to the point why the change now after buckets of money and time have been invested in the mauka alignment and other plans are already in place along the canal- having been piggy-backed onto the bike path- for things like the Pouli Road connectors to ease vehicular traffic?
For one possible explanation you might look at the agenda for the February 17 council meeting under “Legal Documents”. There you’ll find this:
C 2010-46 Communication (01/15/2010) from the Director of Parks & Recreation, requesting Council approval to secure a shared-use path easement at the Kaua`i Shopping Village (TMK 4-4-3-08:14) in exchange for a parking and pedestrian access easement at Waipouli Drainage Canal.
This is apparently the land deal that finalizes all the previous contortions and now that all is in place the county has it’s “value” to be able to reap more of the matching funds required for the federal grant.
Of course the actual time and money the county has put into this now apparently defunct portion of the bike path is probably quite staggering although the real accounting is still in limbo.
The actual figure for cost to date was one of those “29 questions” that the council asked and which the administration has yet to answer regarding the bike path. The questions were left unanswered when Rapozo and Iseri left the council and no one else - especially original bike path zealot Tim Bynum who now chairs the Parks/Public Works Committee and has no interest in the questions, having said they were “all answered” as far as he was concerned- seems concerned about where the money went and where it’s going in the future.
Of course the county says the mauka portion is being “postponed” but when in the heck do we need an unconnected-to-anything bike path through a parking lot for now. In Kaua`i government parlance postponed usually means when hell freezes over. And of course they have to say that or it would make all efforts to secure the mauka route the farce it really was... apparently all along.
If that isn’t the answer what exactly changed so dramatically in the couple of weeks since the council approved the land deal? Either way they go some ‘splainin’ to do although no one is holding their breath.
Egad- we feel like Paul Harvey.
Correction: Tim Bynum is the Chair of Public Works and Elderly Affairs Committee, not Public Works and Parks. Lani Kawahara is the Chair of Parks and Transportation.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
CHOKIN’ ON THOSE BONES:
CHOKIN’ ON THOSE BONES: Today’s follow-up on a for-the-most-part erroneous January 15 article in the local newspaper that has left the community- with the exception of our and Joan Conrow’s readers- thinking that Mayor Bernard Carvalho had acquiesced and removed the bike path from Wailua Beach does one thing.
It answers affirmatively the question of whether Carvalho and his administration has heard the old joke about ascertaining that their lips are moving in order to tell if they are lying.
They seemingly live by the motto “if you don’t speak no one can accuse you of deceit”.
Though the matter has gone from clear as mud to clear as muddy water it’s not as though it wasn’t a valiant effort on the part of ace reporter Mike Levine who seemingly couldn’t get anyone to give him a straight answer and couldn’t even get the protesters to admit they were duped by hizzonah.
Once again the headline is somewhat unclear in saying New path route to straddle shoulder, sand because, as we wrote the Monday following the original article, the definition of the “shoulder” is in question- it the shoulder the paved part or is there a shoulder” that’s on the sand? And what does straddle mean in that context? And what exactly does “straddle” mean in this context?
The lead seems to make it clear at least that:
A concrete multi-use path will still sit on the sand dunes in Wailua even after last month’s compromise moved the proposed route from the county park to the state highway right-of-way, officials recently confirmed.
But the next paragraph is again somewhat baffling:
“Based upon the preliminary plans for the path, the maximum distance from the edge of the current pavement out to the outer edge of the new path will be between four and five feet,” state Department of Transportation spokeswoman Tammy Mori said via e-mail after consulting with Kaua`i District Engineer Ray McCormick.
It would seem to say that part of the path is going to be where the paved shoulder currently sits and go to up to five feet onto the beach. But what the rest of the article says indicates is that no one but Mori would talk to Levine and she might not be too sure of her facts.
That’s followed by a roundabout quote from Building Division Chief Doug Haigh- one that had to be obtained through an email from the county’s public information officer Mary Daubert rather than through a conversation with Haigh himself.
And no wonder- it’s so confused and uninformative, it begs a few follow-up questions, ones which Haigh was of course unavailable to answer.
First he says:
“Along the middle of Wailua Beach, the path will essentially straddle the location of the existing rock wall (to be removed),”
The “middle” of Wailua Beach? The middle of what? And it does not say whether it will be fully on the beach since the rock wall is on the beach, not the paved shoulder.
Another key of the original deception was the use of the word “shoulder” without referring to the paved part so that when they said it was on the shoulder it was actually on the beach sands. When combined with the term “right of way” it seemed to indicate the paved shoulder.
But Haigh’s next statement confirms our suspicion that the use of the term “right of way” was being used by Carvalho and his mouthpiece Beth Tokioka to confuse people.
“The Kuhio Highway right-of-way is approximately four to five feet makai of the rock wall. Some vegetation may be removed and some earth shoulder may need grading.”
That confirms that the right of way extends onto the beach so that statement itself can’t be right either since the “right of way” includes all of the highway. To say the “right-of-way IS approximately four to five feet makai of the rock wall” can’t be true- only that it “extends” to that point.
We pick this apart to show the obvious attempt by county officials to try to cover for Carvalho’s and Tokioka’s attempted bamboozle by using confusing terms and seemingly contradictory statements.
Also note that Mori made her statement “via email after consulting with Kaua`i District Engineer Ray McCormick”. That means McCormick- who when cornered was quoted by participants at the mayors meeting with dissidents on Thursday Jan. 14 as saying the bike path would start where the pavement ends- also apparently wouldn’t take calls or answer Levine’s questions, pushing the question “upstairs” to Mori
What exactly did he tell Mori? And why was it different than what he told people at the meeting? Did Mori get it right? Did she even ask the question Levine wanted answered?
Who knows- we’ve danced this reporter’s dance before and can recognize it when it gets into print. Obviously Levine was stymied at every turn in attempting to get to the truth, as evidenced by the fact that it took him almost a month to get this much.
The mere fact that neither Haigh or McCormick- nor apparently Carvalho- would speak to him directly tells you that all is not as it appears and someone is fudging something.
And to make the whole thing even more confusing there was another paragraph with more of Mori’s statement.
(T)he state Department of Transportation is still planning to widen the road to four lanes. The widening project will add one 11-foot-wide lane to the Lihu`e-bound side of the road and a turn lane for Kuamo`o Road, and all the widening will take place on the mauka side, Mori said. The maximum distance from the existing edge of the pavement to the furthest point of new pavement will be approximately 15 feet. (emphasis added)
The question is of course does that refer to the “existing edge of the pavement” on the mauka side or makai side? To say “all the widening will take place on the mauka side” obviously isn’t true since she already admitted that it will be widened onto the beach.
Don’t forget- Mori is just a spokesperson, not an engineer and apparently has a very loose grasp on what is actually happening.
Well at least the wider community now knows that the bike path was not removed from the beach. But it’s still unclear how much of the beach it will take. Is it four or five feet?... is it 11 feet?.. is it more?
Don’t expect the truth from Carvalho’s lips. When they move they apparently speak only the words of his spinmeister Tokioka , warbling “Together We Can... Hoodwink Them All”.
--------
We’ll be taking a long weekend- unless something sets our hair on fire we’ll see ya Monday.
It answers affirmatively the question of whether Carvalho and his administration has heard the old joke about ascertaining that their lips are moving in order to tell if they are lying.
They seemingly live by the motto “if you don’t speak no one can accuse you of deceit”.
Though the matter has gone from clear as mud to clear as muddy water it’s not as though it wasn’t a valiant effort on the part of ace reporter Mike Levine who seemingly couldn’t get anyone to give him a straight answer and couldn’t even get the protesters to admit they were duped by hizzonah.
Once again the headline is somewhat unclear in saying New path route to straddle shoulder, sand because, as we wrote the Monday following the original article, the definition of the “shoulder” is in question- it the shoulder the paved part or is there a shoulder” that’s on the sand? And what does straddle mean in that context? And what exactly does “straddle” mean in this context?
The lead seems to make it clear at least that:
A concrete multi-use path will still sit on the sand dunes in Wailua even after last month’s compromise moved the proposed route from the county park to the state highway right-of-way, officials recently confirmed.
But the next paragraph is again somewhat baffling:
“Based upon the preliminary plans for the path, the maximum distance from the edge of the current pavement out to the outer edge of the new path will be between four and five feet,” state Department of Transportation spokeswoman Tammy Mori said via e-mail after consulting with Kaua`i District Engineer Ray McCormick.
It would seem to say that part of the path is going to be where the paved shoulder currently sits and go to up to five feet onto the beach. But what the rest of the article says indicates is that no one but Mori would talk to Levine and she might not be too sure of her facts.
That’s followed by a roundabout quote from Building Division Chief Doug Haigh- one that had to be obtained through an email from the county’s public information officer Mary Daubert rather than through a conversation with Haigh himself.
And no wonder- it’s so confused and uninformative, it begs a few follow-up questions, ones which Haigh was of course unavailable to answer.
First he says:
“Along the middle of Wailua Beach, the path will essentially straddle the location of the existing rock wall (to be removed),”
The “middle” of Wailua Beach? The middle of what? And it does not say whether it will be fully on the beach since the rock wall is on the beach, not the paved shoulder.
Another key of the original deception was the use of the word “shoulder” without referring to the paved part so that when they said it was on the shoulder it was actually on the beach sands. When combined with the term “right of way” it seemed to indicate the paved shoulder.
But Haigh’s next statement confirms our suspicion that the use of the term “right of way” was being used by Carvalho and his mouthpiece Beth Tokioka to confuse people.
“The Kuhio Highway right-of-way is approximately four to five feet makai of the rock wall. Some vegetation may be removed and some earth shoulder may need grading.”
That confirms that the right of way extends onto the beach so that statement itself can’t be right either since the “right of way” includes all of the highway. To say the “right-of-way IS approximately four to five feet makai of the rock wall” can’t be true- only that it “extends” to that point.
We pick this apart to show the obvious attempt by county officials to try to cover for Carvalho’s and Tokioka’s attempted bamboozle by using confusing terms and seemingly contradictory statements.
Also note that Mori made her statement “via email after consulting with Kaua`i District Engineer Ray McCormick”. That means McCormick- who when cornered was quoted by participants at the mayors meeting with dissidents on Thursday Jan. 14 as saying the bike path would start where the pavement ends- also apparently wouldn’t take calls or answer Levine’s questions, pushing the question “upstairs” to Mori
What exactly did he tell Mori? And why was it different than what he told people at the meeting? Did Mori get it right? Did she even ask the question Levine wanted answered?
Who knows- we’ve danced this reporter’s dance before and can recognize it when it gets into print. Obviously Levine was stymied at every turn in attempting to get to the truth, as evidenced by the fact that it took him almost a month to get this much.
The mere fact that neither Haigh or McCormick- nor apparently Carvalho- would speak to him directly tells you that all is not as it appears and someone is fudging something.
And to make the whole thing even more confusing there was another paragraph with more of Mori’s statement.
(T)he state Department of Transportation is still planning to widen the road to four lanes. The widening project will add one 11-foot-wide lane to the Lihu`e-bound side of the road and a turn lane for Kuamo`o Road, and all the widening will take place on the mauka side, Mori said. The maximum distance from the existing edge of the pavement to the furthest point of new pavement will be approximately 15 feet. (emphasis added)
The question is of course does that refer to the “existing edge of the pavement” on the mauka side or makai side? To say “all the widening will take place on the mauka side” obviously isn’t true since she already admitted that it will be widened onto the beach.
Don’t forget- Mori is just a spokesperson, not an engineer and apparently has a very loose grasp on what is actually happening.
Well at least the wider community now knows that the bike path was not removed from the beach. But it’s still unclear how much of the beach it will take. Is it four or five feet?... is it 11 feet?.. is it more?
Don’t expect the truth from Carvalho’s lips. When they move they apparently speak only the words of his spinmeister Tokioka , warbling “Together We Can... Hoodwink Them All”.
--------
We’ll be taking a long weekend- unless something sets our hair on fire we’ll see ya Monday.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
ON MONKEYS AND WEASELS
ON MONKEYS AND WEASELS: The music is playing and to no one’s surprise one of the oldest if not the goodest of boys Ron Kouchi has publicly announced he is circling the state senate seat being vacated by Gary Hooser, who is running for lieutenant governor.
Despite what many might think long time Councilmember and sometimes Chair Kouchi is anything but a shoo-in after his recent identity crisis blew up in his face when he lost his first council election after one term that followed a hiatus when he lost his first race ever to Bryan Baptiste in 2002 when the “developer’s best friend” suddenly attempted a chameleon-like rebirth as a slow growth, environmental champion- in an unsuccessful attempt to end the Republican reign of Maryanne Kusaka.
Kouchi lost the mayor’s race because, despite the utter disgust with Baptiste among much of the populace his attempt to corral the “JoAnn Yukimura vote”- while she was absent from the political scene following her mayoral loss in 1994- was greeted with more than cynicism and derision when many kept their promises to themselves to never vote for Kouchi, who was the main thorn in the side of Yukimura during her six year administration.
The result is that Kouchi’s mostly local base of support now sees him of something of a traitor and opportunist who abandoned them for the “haole vote” while the controlled-growth crowd had their suspicions of his intent confirmed when he went to work for the developers of whatever-the-heck they’re calling the Westin these days after his mayoral race loss.
There his crowning achievement was bamboozling the council into giving up massive development rights to the area above Nawiliwili in exchange for the donation of a “park” along the coastline, giving up only an area that was a tax liability that could never have been built upon and yielding a county run- and taxpayer maintained- amenity for the patrons of the development.
Kouchi learned this ploy during the Trojan horse “gift” of the Kealia to Kuna Bay (donkey beach) area by Kealia Kai developer Tom McCloskey.
Because areas by the beach are generally in the state conservation district they are a two sided sword for developers these days. Though they are desirable areas for those patronizing an ocean front property they are not only undevelopable without a severe setback- out of the conservation district- but the property taxes on conservation land are the highest of all.
That plus “recent” (over the past 20 years) legislation requiring pubic access – including lateral access- leads to a great expense for a developer- a virtual public park on their private property which they must not only pay to build but pay to maintain.
McCloskey came up with the idea of the gift horse of the ocean front land to the county- along with restrictions that would have turned it into a county owned and run private beach with severely restricted access- and it was only the mouth examination of then councilperson Gary Hooser (over the objections of then councilperson Bryan Baptiste) that put a stop to a quick, first blanch approval making sure access would be maintained.
That was the time when, as public outrage over the restrictions grew so did the idea of “the bike path”. Kusaka- whose support of McCloskey was similar to that of Jimmy Pflueger in terms of the “hands off” directive to Public Works Department personnel- came up with the plan and convinced the none too swift Baptiste to accept the land to serve as “matching funds” for federal transportation bike path money sitting untouched in the state highways division coffers.
Few really understood the true motivation behind McCloskey’s gift at the time but it was not lost on Kouchi who used the same gift ploy to earn his big bucks for the Nawiliwili developer in obtaining massive, previously-denied development rights in a win-win for the developer and a lose-lose for the county which would have had a virtual public park with no development rights if they would have refused the “gift”.
Kouchi’s public announcement comes at a time when his notorious “war chest” is down to $725.01 according to his recent Supplemental (July 1 - December 31, 2009) filing for the 2008-2010 period which shows he somehow spent $3,552.54 since the last election.
His early announcement is quite obviously designed to scare off competition, depending on his reputation as a prodigious cash producer in the past.
And his actions over the past eight years portend well for his continuing to lead the money race for the Senate seat.
Despite what many might think long time Councilmember and sometimes Chair Kouchi is anything but a shoo-in after his recent identity crisis blew up in his face when he lost his first council election after one term that followed a hiatus when he lost his first race ever to Bryan Baptiste in 2002 when the “developer’s best friend” suddenly attempted a chameleon-like rebirth as a slow growth, environmental champion- in an unsuccessful attempt to end the Republican reign of Maryanne Kusaka.
Kouchi lost the mayor’s race because, despite the utter disgust with Baptiste among much of the populace his attempt to corral the “JoAnn Yukimura vote”- while she was absent from the political scene following her mayoral loss in 1994- was greeted with more than cynicism and derision when many kept their promises to themselves to never vote for Kouchi, who was the main thorn in the side of Yukimura during her six year administration.
The result is that Kouchi’s mostly local base of support now sees him of something of a traitor and opportunist who abandoned them for the “haole vote” while the controlled-growth crowd had their suspicions of his intent confirmed when he went to work for the developers of whatever-the-heck they’re calling the Westin these days after his mayoral race loss.
There his crowning achievement was bamboozling the council into giving up massive development rights to the area above Nawiliwili in exchange for the donation of a “park” along the coastline, giving up only an area that was a tax liability that could never have been built upon and yielding a county run- and taxpayer maintained- amenity for the patrons of the development.
Kouchi learned this ploy during the Trojan horse “gift” of the Kealia to Kuna Bay (donkey beach) area by Kealia Kai developer Tom McCloskey.
Because areas by the beach are generally in the state conservation district they are a two sided sword for developers these days. Though they are desirable areas for those patronizing an ocean front property they are not only undevelopable without a severe setback- out of the conservation district- but the property taxes on conservation land are the highest of all.
That plus “recent” (over the past 20 years) legislation requiring pubic access – including lateral access- leads to a great expense for a developer- a virtual public park on their private property which they must not only pay to build but pay to maintain.
McCloskey came up with the idea of the gift horse of the ocean front land to the county- along with restrictions that would have turned it into a county owned and run private beach with severely restricted access- and it was only the mouth examination of then councilperson Gary Hooser (over the objections of then councilperson Bryan Baptiste) that put a stop to a quick, first blanch approval making sure access would be maintained.
That was the time when, as public outrage over the restrictions grew so did the idea of “the bike path”. Kusaka- whose support of McCloskey was similar to that of Jimmy Pflueger in terms of the “hands off” directive to Public Works Department personnel- came up with the plan and convinced the none too swift Baptiste to accept the land to serve as “matching funds” for federal transportation bike path money sitting untouched in the state highways division coffers.
Few really understood the true motivation behind McCloskey’s gift at the time but it was not lost on Kouchi who used the same gift ploy to earn his big bucks for the Nawiliwili developer in obtaining massive, previously-denied development rights in a win-win for the developer and a lose-lose for the county which would have had a virtual public park with no development rights if they would have refused the “gift”.
Kouchi’s public announcement comes at a time when his notorious “war chest” is down to $725.01 according to his recent Supplemental (July 1 - December 31, 2009) filing for the 2008-2010 period which shows he somehow spent $3,552.54 since the last election.
His early announcement is quite obviously designed to scare off competition, depending on his reputation as a prodigious cash producer in the past.
And his actions over the past eight years portend well for his continuing to lead the money race for the Senate seat.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
ASKIN’ FOR IT
ASKIN’ FOR IT: It hasn’t just been a kick we’re on lately- that of examining laughably lame and confusingly contentions, slanted statements from bumbling bureaucrats designed to amply appeal to our guileless gullibility.
But it certainly isn’t just here on little Kaua`i where a post plantation populous is too busy beachcombing and bathing to understand unctuous utterances from corrupt capos and cronies.
Behold the corporate actions in the case of the runaway Toyotas whose corporate overlords have apparently set up their own demise by just replacing the gas pedals.
We’ve spent the past few days asking our more mechanically inclined acquaintances, car mavens and repair people who have been following the story and not one- not a single one- believes that fixing the gas pedal alone will stop these cars from having a mind of their own.
One and all believe it has to be the electronic “brain” that they put in cars these days so that any repair at all starts at $1000 and can only be done at the dealership.
In that sense it was inevitable that those chickens would come home to roost and they would become so complicated that even they can’t figure out what’s wrong with their own Frankencoupés.
If you’ve been following this debacle you’ll know that Toyota has spent months- actually years now- trying to figure out why on occasion their cars accelerate but then won’t stop doing so.
First they said it was the floor mats, then it was something with the gas pedal. Meanwhile most who independently looked at it concluded that it had to be something in the computer electronics that control acceleration.
But when the feds told them to fix it NOW, in a “that’s our story and we’re sticking with it” manner they’ve settled on putting in new gas pedals in millions of cars and denying that it’s anything more in a move seemingly destined to destroy any future for the company when it continues to happen.
The hastily concocted explanation for what’s supposedly wrong with the pedal mechanism doesn’t even make sense. It basically says that due to “wear and tear” the mechanism sticks where two pieces come together, But if something “wears” it wears down not up and its not going to stick, rather it’s going to become looser, according what a couple of engineers told us last night after the “explanation” was given by Toyota.
So why should we care if corporate malfeasance brings down a car company other than the gazillion of manufacturing jobs?
It’s simply the other side of the corporate personhood that’s on many people’s minds after the US Supreme court humanized them for purposes pumping more money into elections.
Because while this personhood extends to elections it doesn’t extend to corporate wrongdoing and responsibility. Don’t forget, it’s people who are making the decision to do this without regard to the fact that it will almost assuredly blow up in their faces in a year or so once the crashes continue and we figure out that the “fix” fixes nothing.
But don’t expect anyone to be punished for that. If anything happens to Toyota it will be because no one will buy one, not because the company is arrested and tried for murder.
But by the time anyone figures it out the same executives that made the decision to do this will no doubt have passed the hot potato to another ambitious young executive, received their golden parachute and gone on to bigger and better corporate criminal capers.
If you live on Kaua`i and own a newish Toyota and are headed down to the dealership for your “fix” and are then planning on driving off as if nothing is wrong you’re probably the same person who believed that the new alignment of the bike path isn’t going to be on Wailua Beach and that the $7.5 million the county paid in the Ka Loko Dam tragedy settlement wasn’t due to culpability.
So we’ve just gotta ask you – what are you, a freakin’ idiot?
But it certainly isn’t just here on little Kaua`i where a post plantation populous is too busy beachcombing and bathing to understand unctuous utterances from corrupt capos and cronies.
Behold the corporate actions in the case of the runaway Toyotas whose corporate overlords have apparently set up their own demise by just replacing the gas pedals.
We’ve spent the past few days asking our more mechanically inclined acquaintances, car mavens and repair people who have been following the story and not one- not a single one- believes that fixing the gas pedal alone will stop these cars from having a mind of their own.
One and all believe it has to be the electronic “brain” that they put in cars these days so that any repair at all starts at $1000 and can only be done at the dealership.
In that sense it was inevitable that those chickens would come home to roost and they would become so complicated that even they can’t figure out what’s wrong with their own Frankencoupés.
If you’ve been following this debacle you’ll know that Toyota has spent months- actually years now- trying to figure out why on occasion their cars accelerate but then won’t stop doing so.
First they said it was the floor mats, then it was something with the gas pedal. Meanwhile most who independently looked at it concluded that it had to be something in the computer electronics that control acceleration.
But when the feds told them to fix it NOW, in a “that’s our story and we’re sticking with it” manner they’ve settled on putting in new gas pedals in millions of cars and denying that it’s anything more in a move seemingly destined to destroy any future for the company when it continues to happen.
The hastily concocted explanation for what’s supposedly wrong with the pedal mechanism doesn’t even make sense. It basically says that due to “wear and tear” the mechanism sticks where two pieces come together, But if something “wears” it wears down not up and its not going to stick, rather it’s going to become looser, according what a couple of engineers told us last night after the “explanation” was given by Toyota.
So why should we care if corporate malfeasance brings down a car company other than the gazillion of manufacturing jobs?
It’s simply the other side of the corporate personhood that’s on many people’s minds after the US Supreme court humanized them for purposes pumping more money into elections.
Because while this personhood extends to elections it doesn’t extend to corporate wrongdoing and responsibility. Don’t forget, it’s people who are making the decision to do this without regard to the fact that it will almost assuredly blow up in their faces in a year or so once the crashes continue and we figure out that the “fix” fixes nothing.
But don’t expect anyone to be punished for that. If anything happens to Toyota it will be because no one will buy one, not because the company is arrested and tried for murder.
But by the time anyone figures it out the same executives that made the decision to do this will no doubt have passed the hot potato to another ambitious young executive, received their golden parachute and gone on to bigger and better corporate criminal capers.
If you live on Kaua`i and own a newish Toyota and are headed down to the dealership for your “fix” and are then planning on driving off as if nothing is wrong you’re probably the same person who believed that the new alignment of the bike path isn’t going to be on Wailua Beach and that the $7.5 million the county paid in the Ka Loko Dam tragedy settlement wasn’t due to culpability.
So we’ve just gotta ask you – what are you, a freakin’ idiot?
Monday, January 18, 2010
ANOTHER STEAMING PILE ON THE BIKE PATH
ANOTHER STEAMING PILE ON THE BIKE PATH: When confronted with government snow-jobs we’ve often asked “what are we- a bunch of freakin’ idiots”.
The answer this weekend is apparently yes because somehow many if not most of the people opposing putting the bike path on a boardwalk on Wailua Beach are apparently convinced that the “new alignment”- craftily announced by Mayor Bernard Carvalho and his “brains”, Beth Tokioka- will no longer be on the beach but on the highway.
Apparently that is a bunch of shibai.
The only thing that has changed is that the path will now be a permanent strip of concrete rather than the “removable boardwalk” that was originally put in place because a permanent sidewalk on the beach would have been considered a “hardening of the shoreline” requiring an almost impossible to obtain Army Corps of Engineers permit.
The first step in the misdirection came in the form of the local newspaper’s Friday article faithfully rehashing the carefully written county release.
The headline falsely stated “Mayor shifting path from beach to highway” and the article doesn’t refute that statement.
A careful examination of the county press release shows that it never actually states that the new “alignment” will not be on the beach. And actually, if you read between the lines, it says it will.
The relevant portions of the release says:
(T)he proposed alignment for the Wailua Beach section will be shifted from the beach to the right-of-way on the makai side of Kūhi‘ō Highway...
(T)he mayor told the groups (he met with Friday), “As a result of all of the input we’ve received, I’ve decided to move forward on a makai alignment, keeping the path within the Kūhiō Highway right-of-way.”...
In the new design, the existing rock wall will be removed and a replacement barrier will be constructed as an integral part of the path.
“We are hopeful that this adjustment addresses many of the concerns raised by the community,” said the mayor...
In aligning the path within the highway right-of-way, the path will be constructed of concrete at a depth of just 18 inches, even shallower than that of the adjacent roadway.
“There will be no additional drilling or ‘augers’ required,” said Building Division Superintendent Doug Haigh.
Notice how it sounds like it is going to be where the highway pavement and wall are currently located. Nowhere does it say it will not be on the beach anymore, only that “there will be no additional drilling or ‘augers’ required”.
The article in the local newspaper is careful not to say what the headline does and does not make clear where exactly it will be but it does contain the first hint that all may not be as it appears.
Way down towards the end Mike Levine- who may or may not have written the headline but was not at the Friday meeting where the Mayor announced the “change”, according to participants- reports:
(I)t’s still on the beach,” Judy Dalton said Friday evening.“As long as it’s still on the beach, we feel that the alternate route described in the environmental assessment as one of the three alternatives ... on the canal behind Coco Palms would be the least impactful, environmentally and culturally,” Dalton said.
According to some who attended the meeting Friday at which Carvalho “met with representatives of several Hawaiian groups” according to the county release, the issue of exactly where the path would be was presented in a manner seemingly designed to make the matter “as clear as mud”.
Some of the confusion centered around the use of the word “shoulder” which many took to mean the paved shoulder off the highway itself but still on the paved portion- a “shoulder” currently used for a “bike lane”.
But upon questioning it became apparent that the shoulder the officials were talking about was the “soft” shoulder adjacent to the paved portion defining the “shoulder” they were talking about as “where the pavement ends”.
Another key in the misdirection is that it may well be that the state’s “right of way” is not limited to the paved highway itself with part of it extending onto the beach. Although the exact location is not addressed in either the article or the press release, the “on the right of way” statement has led many to believe that the “right of way” mentioned as the location of the realignment was on the paved highway itself.
Looking at two maps on the county web site is a joke. Both are crisscrossed with seemingly meaningless, unlabeled lines all over the place with no clearly marked “new alignment” much less the old one.
As if to prove the extent to which the public has been duped, a letter to the editor appeared over the weekend from one of those who has been calling on the mayor to change the alignment to get it off the beach.
What with the headline in the paper and the carefully parsed county release it’s understandable that Jimmy Trujillo wrote:
The mayor’s decision to stay off the sand but stay on the roadside is a compromise that warrants support.
It may be one of the few times in the short time I’ve lived on Kaua`i that a government leader has demonstrated any kind of respect to the kupuna leaders and cultural practitioners of the host culture.
The first irony in all this is that a perfectly good bike path exists right now on the makai side of the highway on the pavement- the spot many are erroneously thinking the “new alignment” would put the path.
The problem is that there’s only so much room to put the new four lane highway and for some reason the county has never pursued acquiring land on the mauka “Coco Palms” side of the highway despite the countless permits and extensions issued to the land owners
The second is that the concept of a “removable” boardwalk came about precisely because a permanent concrete sidewalk on the beach would have been an approval nightmare with not just the Army Corp but various state and county agencies who were sold the idea on the basis of a removable boardwalk, not a permanent concrete ribbon.
The county recently passed a bill exempting itself from our “strictest in the nation” shoreline setback laws under some circumstances. Changes in the path should trigger a new “certified shoreline” especially considering that waves commonly deposit sand on the highway during large storms.
Going back to the original unacceptable concrete-on-the-beach idea reminds us of the joke about the guy who eats at Luigi’s Italian restaurant every day and with his meal he is served two slices of Italian bread.
“Luigi” he asks “What’s with the two slices- how come your so stingy with the beard every day”.
The next day Luigi serves him four slices and the man still isn’t happy and wants more. The next day Luigi gives him six and the man still complains.
Finally the next day Luigi takes the whole Italian loaf and slices it down the center the long way and serves it to his customer.
The man looks at Luigi and says “What, Luigi- you’re back to the two slices. eh?”
Can’t anyone here play this game?
The answer this weekend is apparently yes because somehow many if not most of the people opposing putting the bike path on a boardwalk on Wailua Beach are apparently convinced that the “new alignment”- craftily announced by Mayor Bernard Carvalho and his “brains”, Beth Tokioka- will no longer be on the beach but on the highway.
Apparently that is a bunch of shibai.
The only thing that has changed is that the path will now be a permanent strip of concrete rather than the “removable boardwalk” that was originally put in place because a permanent sidewalk on the beach would have been considered a “hardening of the shoreline” requiring an almost impossible to obtain Army Corps of Engineers permit.
The first step in the misdirection came in the form of the local newspaper’s Friday article faithfully rehashing the carefully written county release.
The headline falsely stated “Mayor shifting path from beach to highway” and the article doesn’t refute that statement.
A careful examination of the county press release shows that it never actually states that the new “alignment” will not be on the beach. And actually, if you read between the lines, it says it will.
The relevant portions of the release says:
(T)he proposed alignment for the Wailua Beach section will be shifted from the beach to the right-of-way on the makai side of Kūhi‘ō Highway...
(T)he mayor told the groups (he met with Friday), “As a result of all of the input we’ve received, I’ve decided to move forward on a makai alignment, keeping the path within the Kūhiō Highway right-of-way.”...
In the new design, the existing rock wall will be removed and a replacement barrier will be constructed as an integral part of the path.
“We are hopeful that this adjustment addresses many of the concerns raised by the community,” said the mayor...
In aligning the path within the highway right-of-way, the path will be constructed of concrete at a depth of just 18 inches, even shallower than that of the adjacent roadway.
“There will be no additional drilling or ‘augers’ required,” said Building Division Superintendent Doug Haigh.
Notice how it sounds like it is going to be where the highway pavement and wall are currently located. Nowhere does it say it will not be on the beach anymore, only that “there will be no additional drilling or ‘augers’ required”.
The article in the local newspaper is careful not to say what the headline does and does not make clear where exactly it will be but it does contain the first hint that all may not be as it appears.
Way down towards the end Mike Levine- who may or may not have written the headline but was not at the Friday meeting where the Mayor announced the “change”, according to participants- reports:
(I)t’s still on the beach,” Judy Dalton said Friday evening.“As long as it’s still on the beach, we feel that the alternate route described in the environmental assessment as one of the three alternatives ... on the canal behind Coco Palms would be the least impactful, environmentally and culturally,” Dalton said.
According to some who attended the meeting Friday at which Carvalho “met with representatives of several Hawaiian groups” according to the county release, the issue of exactly where the path would be was presented in a manner seemingly designed to make the matter “as clear as mud”.
Some of the confusion centered around the use of the word “shoulder” which many took to mean the paved shoulder off the highway itself but still on the paved portion- a “shoulder” currently used for a “bike lane”.
But upon questioning it became apparent that the shoulder the officials were talking about was the “soft” shoulder adjacent to the paved portion defining the “shoulder” they were talking about as “where the pavement ends”.
Another key in the misdirection is that it may well be that the state’s “right of way” is not limited to the paved highway itself with part of it extending onto the beach. Although the exact location is not addressed in either the article or the press release, the “on the right of way” statement has led many to believe that the “right of way” mentioned as the location of the realignment was on the paved highway itself.
Looking at two maps on the county web site is a joke. Both are crisscrossed with seemingly meaningless, unlabeled lines all over the place with no clearly marked “new alignment” much less the old one.
As if to prove the extent to which the public has been duped, a letter to the editor appeared over the weekend from one of those who has been calling on the mayor to change the alignment to get it off the beach.
What with the headline in the paper and the carefully parsed county release it’s understandable that Jimmy Trujillo wrote:
The mayor’s decision to stay off the sand but stay on the roadside is a compromise that warrants support.
It may be one of the few times in the short time I’ve lived on Kaua`i that a government leader has demonstrated any kind of respect to the kupuna leaders and cultural practitioners of the host culture.
The first irony in all this is that a perfectly good bike path exists right now on the makai side of the highway on the pavement- the spot many are erroneously thinking the “new alignment” would put the path.
The problem is that there’s only so much room to put the new four lane highway and for some reason the county has never pursued acquiring land on the mauka “Coco Palms” side of the highway despite the countless permits and extensions issued to the land owners
The second is that the concept of a “removable” boardwalk came about precisely because a permanent concrete sidewalk on the beach would have been an approval nightmare with not just the Army Corp but various state and county agencies who were sold the idea on the basis of a removable boardwalk, not a permanent concrete ribbon.
The county recently passed a bill exempting itself from our “strictest in the nation” shoreline setback laws under some circumstances. Changes in the path should trigger a new “certified shoreline” especially considering that waves commonly deposit sand on the highway during large storms.
Going back to the original unacceptable concrete-on-the-beach idea reminds us of the joke about the guy who eats at Luigi’s Italian restaurant every day and with his meal he is served two slices of Italian bread.
“Luigi” he asks “What’s with the two slices- how come your so stingy with the beard every day”.
The next day Luigi serves him four slices and the man still isn’t happy and wants more. The next day Luigi gives him six and the man still complains.
Finally the next day Luigi takes the whole Italian loaf and slices it down the center the long way and serves it to his customer.
The man looks at Luigi and says “What, Luigi- you’re back to the two slices. eh?”
Can’t anyone here play this game?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A LEG UP ON THE BONEHEADS
A LEG UP ON THE BONEHEADS: Joan Conrow’s blog has been the go to place for all things bike-path boardwalk-on-Wailua-Beach lately. But one click away from her most recent thoughtful reporting and opinion is a shit-storm of racism, white privilege and outright genocidal blather from a group of trolls we pretty much banished last year.
Joan’s whip and chair approach has tolerated a group of anonymous “I think that” commenters- hilarious in it’s not-so-oxy moronic content- that have gravitated to her site and caused most sane readers who want to stay that way to avoid clicking that comment button lest they boil their own blood.
But not Ann Punohu who has recently started up her Punohu’s Politics, Environment and Culture Blog and made the mistake of visiting Joan’s repository of wretched rhetoric.
Never one to back away from a good fight over cultural slights, Ann has posted a series of responses to some of the worst examples of why the word “haole” is often preceded by a certain adjective and awarded her Racist Residents Of The Year Award for 2009 to a couple of malahini morons.
“Al and Judy” actually said:
We certainly haven't come to Hawaii for the "culture". We hate Hawaiian music, food, cultural (pagan) practices, etc.
We love the ocean, air, tropical environment.
We've come here for years and now own property on a couple of islands. I'll make a bleedin' fortune in the next development boom with one of them.
Wouldn't mind if it looked like Malibu Beach, though.
Ann’s hilarious response was:
OK, It is official. Racists have landed on Kaua`i. And I don't mean the garden variety racist, I mean the full blown I am so proud of myself white supremacist racist
These people own property, and like the path on the beach. And they HATE Hawaiian history, or so they say.
Joan has a slight uku infestation on her blog. A group of "anonymous" posters who just like to yank everyone's chain.
Some of the posts were so ludicrous I really did think they were jokes.
Apparently though, these people are serious. And serious racists. They certainly tried to cook me over an open fire. Didn't work though. I give em right back...
Apparently Romper Room was in session over there, and the kids were throwing spitballs at the teacher, me.
I was just trying to stuff a little knowledge into their apparently racist heads, but they were so full of hot air there was no more room between their ears.
The question that must be asked in light of the divisiveness of the issue is a political one- why on earth would Mayor Bernard Carvalho risk his all-but-given reelection next year with two “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” recent decisions, guaranteed to not just make people think twice before voting for him but to actually lose votes without any apparent political gain.
The decision to put the new landfill on arguably the most profitable in-use ag land on the island was bad enough but at least there it’s a matter of fulfilling a campaign promise and could even be seen by some to be a courageous decision that has been avoided by mayors and councils since Uncle Tony Kunimura’s days.
So why the boardwalk on the beach?
First of all we have to remember a key fact- one that the “multi use path” proponents would like to forget. In order to fulfill the requirements for initial $40 million in federal funds the path has to be primarily “for transportation, not recreation”.
It’s apparent by now that there is only one factor that matters in that determination and it seemingly has nothing to do with what anyone in government says about the path in selling it to the citizenry.
To be for transportation the path has to go from point “A”, just north of Kealia, to point “B” in Nawiliwili in a contiguous manner with no “breaks” .
People say “well why not go mauka as the path already does by going through the Safeway/Foodland parking lot and extend that “canal route” portion all the way past Coco Palms and simply re-cross the highway at the Wailua Homesteads traffic light rather than the Wailua Houselots light”?
Seemingly that wouldn’t be a problem and a decision by Carvalho to do so would be a politically wise one considering this is one of those “I’ll never vote for him again because of this” issues.
So what’s the catch? Well once the ins and outs as the path winds and wends it’s way through Kapa`a are settled there’s the matter of what happens to it at it’s current terminus at the Kamalani Bridge at the end of Lydgate Park when it currently loops back on itself.
Few were apparently paying attention to the future plans when the administration first made it’s proposal for a boardwalk on the beach, not on Wailua Beach but to get past the Wailua Golf Course.
It seemed that the alternatives were all bad ones when the administration went before the council a few years back to present the initial alternatives for the golf course section.
For anyone who hasn’t been down there the golf course goes right up to the beach where the greenery and grass ends and there’s a drop off onto the thin section of beach.
One proposal was to run the path along the edge of the grass. But that would be a lawsuit waiting to happen as soon as an errant golf ball hit one of those on the path. One solution proposed was to put up a 10 foot high fence but of course one of the most attractive things about the course that at one time won national honors is that you can see the ocean as you play and lose your ball in the ocean if you’re not careful.
That’s when the words “boardwalk on the beach” were first mentioned although the idea appeared ludicrous due to the continuous natural erosion of that strip of beach and land and the coming raise in sea levels that threaten coastlines all over the world.
Nonetheless that was when the “temporary” boardwalk, one that can be removed when a storm is threatening or if erosion catches up with the construction became the favored solutions despite concerns raised before the council by experts on coastal erosion about after more permanent sections were already completed, along with predictions of maybe a 10 year span of life before they become inundated.
The “it can be removed” part of the boardwalk concept is actually part of the EA no matter how apparently silly it sounds.
People opposing the boardwalk have missed a valuable argument in the fact that the “stakes” that are dug over the ‘iwi will not just be dug once and left there but could conceivably be taken up and put back on a semi-regular basis, especially if the waves themselves remove them
So the Wailua boardwalk is actually a test- one on a much wider section of beach- that, once it has been approved and laid will serve as a precedent when it comes to getting the path past the golf course.... and on down the coast where the topography is much the same and where the cost and difficulty of obtaining the land won’t be the impediment it appears to be now.
(By the way- does anyone know the status of a Conservation District Use Permit and/or DLNR approval?)
People are so focused on the cultural desecration involved that no one is even questioning the absurd engineering and environmental concept of putting a boardwalk on a beach that’s regularly inundated by the ocean..
Seems Bernard is apparently willing to take his lumps on this so he doesn’t have to answer for not completing the path.
Joan’s whip and chair approach has tolerated a group of anonymous “I think that” commenters- hilarious in it’s not-so-oxy moronic content- that have gravitated to her site and caused most sane readers who want to stay that way to avoid clicking that comment button lest they boil their own blood.
But not Ann Punohu who has recently started up her Punohu’s Politics, Environment and Culture Blog and made the mistake of visiting Joan’s repository of wretched rhetoric.
Never one to back away from a good fight over cultural slights, Ann has posted a series of responses to some of the worst examples of why the word “haole” is often preceded by a certain adjective and awarded her Racist Residents Of The Year Award for 2009 to a couple of malahini morons.
“Al and Judy” actually said:
We certainly haven't come to Hawaii for the "culture". We hate Hawaiian music, food, cultural (pagan) practices, etc.
We love the ocean, air, tropical environment.
We've come here for years and now own property on a couple of islands. I'll make a bleedin' fortune in the next development boom with one of them.
Wouldn't mind if it looked like Malibu Beach, though.
Ann’s hilarious response was:
OK, It is official. Racists have landed on Kaua`i. And I don't mean the garden variety racist, I mean the full blown I am so proud of myself white supremacist racist
These people own property, and like the path on the beach. And they HATE Hawaiian history, or so they say.
Joan has a slight uku infestation on her blog. A group of "anonymous" posters who just like to yank everyone's chain.
Some of the posts were so ludicrous I really did think they were jokes.
Apparently though, these people are serious. And serious racists. They certainly tried to cook me over an open fire. Didn't work though. I give em right back...
Apparently Romper Room was in session over there, and the kids were throwing spitballs at the teacher, me.
I was just trying to stuff a little knowledge into their apparently racist heads, but they were so full of hot air there was no more room between their ears.
The question that must be asked in light of the divisiveness of the issue is a political one- why on earth would Mayor Bernard Carvalho risk his all-but-given reelection next year with two “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” recent decisions, guaranteed to not just make people think twice before voting for him but to actually lose votes without any apparent political gain.
The decision to put the new landfill on arguably the most profitable in-use ag land on the island was bad enough but at least there it’s a matter of fulfilling a campaign promise and could even be seen by some to be a courageous decision that has been avoided by mayors and councils since Uncle Tony Kunimura’s days.
So why the boardwalk on the beach?
First of all we have to remember a key fact- one that the “multi use path” proponents would like to forget. In order to fulfill the requirements for initial $40 million in federal funds the path has to be primarily “for transportation, not recreation”.
It’s apparent by now that there is only one factor that matters in that determination and it seemingly has nothing to do with what anyone in government says about the path in selling it to the citizenry.
To be for transportation the path has to go from point “A”, just north of Kealia, to point “B” in Nawiliwili in a contiguous manner with no “breaks” .
People say “well why not go mauka as the path already does by going through the Safeway/Foodland parking lot and extend that “canal route” portion all the way past Coco Palms and simply re-cross the highway at the Wailua Homesteads traffic light rather than the Wailua Houselots light”?
Seemingly that wouldn’t be a problem and a decision by Carvalho to do so would be a politically wise one considering this is one of those “I’ll never vote for him again because of this” issues.
So what’s the catch? Well once the ins and outs as the path winds and wends it’s way through Kapa`a are settled there’s the matter of what happens to it at it’s current terminus at the Kamalani Bridge at the end of Lydgate Park when it currently loops back on itself.
Few were apparently paying attention to the future plans when the administration first made it’s proposal for a boardwalk on the beach, not on Wailua Beach but to get past the Wailua Golf Course.
It seemed that the alternatives were all bad ones when the administration went before the council a few years back to present the initial alternatives for the golf course section.
For anyone who hasn’t been down there the golf course goes right up to the beach where the greenery and grass ends and there’s a drop off onto the thin section of beach.
One proposal was to run the path along the edge of the grass. But that would be a lawsuit waiting to happen as soon as an errant golf ball hit one of those on the path. One solution proposed was to put up a 10 foot high fence but of course one of the most attractive things about the course that at one time won national honors is that you can see the ocean as you play and lose your ball in the ocean if you’re not careful.
That’s when the words “boardwalk on the beach” were first mentioned although the idea appeared ludicrous due to the continuous natural erosion of that strip of beach and land and the coming raise in sea levels that threaten coastlines all over the world.
Nonetheless that was when the “temporary” boardwalk, one that can be removed when a storm is threatening or if erosion catches up with the construction became the favored solutions despite concerns raised before the council by experts on coastal erosion about after more permanent sections were already completed, along with predictions of maybe a 10 year span of life before they become inundated.
The “it can be removed” part of the boardwalk concept is actually part of the EA no matter how apparently silly it sounds.
People opposing the boardwalk have missed a valuable argument in the fact that the “stakes” that are dug over the ‘iwi will not just be dug once and left there but could conceivably be taken up and put back on a semi-regular basis, especially if the waves themselves remove them
So the Wailua boardwalk is actually a test- one on a much wider section of beach- that, once it has been approved and laid will serve as a precedent when it comes to getting the path past the golf course.... and on down the coast where the topography is much the same and where the cost and difficulty of obtaining the land won’t be the impediment it appears to be now.
(By the way- does anyone know the status of a Conservation District Use Permit and/or DLNR approval?)
People are so focused on the cultural desecration involved that no one is even questioning the absurd engineering and environmental concept of putting a boardwalk on a beach that’s regularly inundated by the ocean..
Seems Bernard is apparently willing to take his lumps on this so he doesn’t have to answer for not completing the path.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
LIFE’S A BEACH... WITHOUT A BIKE PATH
LIFE’S A BEACH... WITHOUT A BIKE PATH: Juan Wilson at Island Breath has posted what appears to the genuine, long-awaited but as yet unreleased OHA testimony opposing plans to put the bike path on Wailua Beach- a potential game changer according to many.
It says in part:
OHA would recommend that any proposed pedestrian or bicycle path stay off of and away from the sacred sands of Wailua, and that any such project occur in a more mauka alignment, towards an existing cane haul road. We are cognizant that subsurface cultural features, including human burial sites, could and do exist all throughout the Wailua area, including a more mauka alignment, but the coastal area is truly a living phenomenon and the accretion, shifting and erosion of the beach at Wailua, along with its sacred designation, truly warrants the preservation of the open space there now unencumbered by man made structures, no matter how seemingly ephemeral.
OHA understands that Federal Stimulus monies may be available for some of the transportation improvements planned for Wailua and that portions of this project as well as other related projects may qualify. It is our hope that our comments and recommendations are seen in the light of making difficult decisions on behalf of a wide and diverse beneficiary base, but always in the spirit of Aloha and aloha aina. Economic Stimulus is truly important in this time of difficulty. We also believe that spiritual stimulus is equally important as well and the wellbeing of a populace can be measured in many different ways.
In Summary, the Wailua area of Kaua`i is a truly unique and sacred traditional Cultural landscape where important parts of precontact Hawaiian history Occurred. It also remains a very special and sacred wahi kupuna which serves to inspire our modem Native Hawaiian community and Cultural practitioners as well as assist in the reconnection of the opio, the youth, with both the aina and with their kupuna kahiko. We ask that the utmost care and sensitivity be afforded this wahi kapu during the planned improvements from planning all the way through implementation.
It says in part:
OHA would recommend that any proposed pedestrian or bicycle path stay off of and away from the sacred sands of Wailua, and that any such project occur in a more mauka alignment, towards an existing cane haul road. We are cognizant that subsurface cultural features, including human burial sites, could and do exist all throughout the Wailua area, including a more mauka alignment, but the coastal area is truly a living phenomenon and the accretion, shifting and erosion of the beach at Wailua, along with its sacred designation, truly warrants the preservation of the open space there now unencumbered by man made structures, no matter how seemingly ephemeral.
OHA understands that Federal Stimulus monies may be available for some of the transportation improvements planned for Wailua and that portions of this project as well as other related projects may qualify. It is our hope that our comments and recommendations are seen in the light of making difficult decisions on behalf of a wide and diverse beneficiary base, but always in the spirit of Aloha and aloha aina. Economic Stimulus is truly important in this time of difficulty. We also believe that spiritual stimulus is equally important as well and the wellbeing of a populace can be measured in many different ways.
In Summary, the Wailua area of Kaua`i is a truly unique and sacred traditional Cultural landscape where important parts of precontact Hawaiian history Occurred. It also remains a very special and sacred wahi kupuna which serves to inspire our modem Native Hawaiian community and Cultural practitioners as well as assist in the reconnection of the opio, the youth, with both the aina and with their kupuna kahiko. We ask that the utmost care and sensitivity be afforded this wahi kapu during the planned improvements from planning all the way through implementation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
