WATCHING THE RIVER FLOW... OR NOT: The outrage over Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op’s (KIUC) anachronistic, 20th century plans for hydro-electric dams- despite the fact that all over the country people are actually trying to tear them down and use flow of the river generation- continues with word that Wailua isn’t the only river on their destructive target list.
According to an article in yesterday’s Honolulu Advertiser:
The Hanalei River, Makaweli River and Wailua River proposals involve constructing dams and weirs that would result in reservoirs of various sizes. The largest would be a reservoir with a surface area of 35 acres that would be created by a 503-foot-long, 23-foot-high earthen dam on the Wailua River. The Kokee Ditch project would tap two existing reservoirs that would be upgraded, (KIUC senior energy solutions engineer Steve) Rymsha said.
But the article goes on to point out that:
residents who submitted written comments on the Wailua plan suggested developers opt for a "run-of-the-river" approach, where the natural flow of the river could be tapped to generate electricity without building a dam. The majority of existing hydro projects in Hawaii are run of the river ( emphasis added).
Why is it that every decision made on Kaua`i seems to fly in the face of the latest “best practices” around the world? Do they issue some sort of “worst practices” manual whenever someone moves into a decision making position? Are we that far from the mainland that information takes decades to reach here? Do they lose the ability to do research when elected or appointed?
One of the more rabid opponents of this latest insanity is architect Juan Wilson who has been a voice for perma culture and sustainability on the island.
In a scathing yet well reasoned indictment of KIUC and its latest debacle Wilson writes at his Island Breath web site:
KIUC's... plan is to continue an affordable American Dream of suburban consumption. The scale and activity of their hydroelectric dreams are unaffordable and will have only damaging affect on the ecosystem of their locale...
I wrote FERC the following;
Do not permit Free Flow Power a preliminary permit application for the Wailua Power Project for Kauai Island Utility Co-op (KIUC). We do not need another hydro-power plant on Kauai.
He then gives a blunt, factual history of the financial foibles at KIUC and how they’ve managed to raise our bills since their inception, rather than lowering them as promised.
As it came into being (2002) KIUC agreed to pay Citizens Communication Co. $215 million for the assets of Kauai Electric. That was the first mistake. A ridiculous price that burdened the "Co-Op” from day one with a debt that will never be paid off.
They have locked us into a debt obligation that assumed and relied on continued economic growth for decades into the future. The bursting housing bubble, peak oil and peak food ended that dream. Now KIUC thrashes to find a gimmick to keep up with that old General Electric motto "Progress is our most important product." Nonsense!
We need our power utility co-op to help finance residential (and small business) solar PV projects.
KIUC has squandered members money and avoided facing the reality of the future. Their perception of progress is to continue on a "business as usual" consumption model that will inevitably lead to greater damage to the Kauai's ecosystem and continue to fail to serve its members.
KIUC have had several bad business ideas. One was to grow sugarcane as fuel. KIUC is oblivious to the reality that we need to grow our own food more than we need to grow biofuel for electric power generation.
KIUC is an abysmal failure as a cooperative power utility with no insight or planning that will alleviate the pain we on Kauai will experience in the next year or two as oil prices again reach the levels of the summer 2008.
But the untenable financing and idiotic business model our so called co-op has locked us into doesn’t have to be the way the future of energy looks on Kaua`i. Wilson suggests that:
The real solutions here are rather simple.
1) Promote demand destruction (50% reduction for starters).
2) Enable widespread distributed generation (using solar PV and some wind)
3) Accept system resilience over reliability.
4) Implement a 5 year plan to get off diesel fuel for electricity.
The idea of damming the Wailua River to fulfill the imagined needs of pre-collapse suburban America would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Talk about bad ideas.
This island is way too fragile to consider using geo-engineering projects like major dams to satisfy air-conditioning loads and our Chevy Volt recharging expectations. Any investment in these pipe-dreams by the idiots running KIUC is a waste of our precious treasure that could be focused on those things within our grasp.
And people wonder why our electricity is the most expensive in the country. The best thing that could happen to KIUC is that they go bankrupt and the county takes over their operation as a public utility. Then we could get down to the business of planning for the downsizing our the current grid and the affordable alternatives that are achievable in the real future we face.
For some reason it doesn’t seem to matter who we elect to KIUC’s board of directors. So far three directors who seemed to “get it” before their election- Carol Bain, Ben Sullivan and recently Jan TenBruggencate- have remained silent and apparently gone along with the majority, supposedly, we hear, because they don’t have the majority they need to overturn some “stifle rule” that forbids them from speaking on their own.
Assuming their thoughts on this and other KIUC actions are in dissent of the majority it’s time for them to rise to the to challenge by speaking out publicly, at least as individual co-op members- and letting the chips fall where they may.
Showing posts with label Juan Wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Juan Wilson. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Thursday, November 12, 2009
HANGIN’ LOOSE
HANGIN’ LOOSE: We have the utmost respect for the journalistic skills of our friend Joan Conrow but today we’ve gotta take exception and question the source of her attack on another friend, Juan Wilson’s and his recent article on Larsen’s beach.
Quoting Wilson, Conrow wrote
I also chuckled just a little bit when I read the closing paragraph in Juan Wilson’s screed about the Larsen’s Beach access issue on his website, Island Breath:
“These attitudes and strategies are typical of property owners that see the land as a commodity with which to make money, and not the very source of our lives. It's time to take that attitude about "private property" behind the barn and put it down."
Funny, I distinctly remember interviewing Juan in the house he owns — and uses for his business — in Hanapepe. So how come Waioli Corp.’s private property is “the very source of our lives,” but his isn’t?
It’s really amazing how out of context the quote and comment are taken. Juan’s article specifically details the practices of Moloa`a area big landowners Bruce Laymon, Tom McCloskey and Peter Gruber who have sought to clear the area of those pesky citizens and deny them beach access, much of it with a thinly veiled hatred for perceived “hippies” and moreover naked people who frequent the isolated beaches in the area.
The beginning of Wilson’s sentence- his concluding though on the details of how the three and other large landowners abuse the power of that ownership- specially calls out “(t)hese attitudes and strategies” he detailed. Any reader cannot come away with the notion that Joan is condemning private property ownership in general- something that, as a matter of fact, we’ve been able to read into some of Joan’s postings on pre-western-contact Hawaiian culture without having to fill in too many blanks.
Could it be that there’s something behind Joan’s misdirectional quote? Well Conrow’s previous day’s post is certainly indicative (no pun intended) of something.
She wrote
Yesterday it was Larsen’s Beach, where I went to take some photographs and refresh my mind on the trails before writing another story about the access issue today.
The presence of nude sunbathers is a recurring complaint about that beach, and while I don’t mind if people swim or sun in the buff, there seems to be a fine line between naturism and exhibitionism. I’m thinking in particular of one old tourist, his face smeared with zinc oxide, who was dressed in an unbuttoned short-sleeved shirt, socks and shoes, but no pants.
Come on, buddy. Who are you trying to kid?
I guess what it comes down to is I don’t care if guys want to lie around with their dicks out, but it’s a different story when they seem intent on showing their members to me, which so often seems to be the case at clothing optional beaches.
Now we weren’t there but we can certainly remember times camping at Kalalau or Kaupea (aka Secret) Beach when it was a bit chilly or the sun was too much for our shoulders when we wore a shirt and no pants. And we can remember prudish individuals calling us out for it trying to intimidate us into kow-towing to their beliefs- religious or otherwise- despite our cultural penchant for going to a secluded place and not having to bend to the restrictive, straitlaced social norms of society.
Even more telling is Joan’s swallowing whole of the myth of the Na Pali pot growers- of which there are few or none these days- after talking to long time anti-camper, anti-nudity crusader, another friend, Sabra Kauka.
In the section just before her criticism of Wilson, Conrow wrote
It seems growers living in Kalalau and elsewhere along Na Pali Coast are responsible for a lot of the opala that piles up there, and according to some of the folks who malama that region, they also damage ancient rock walls when creating their plots and steal irrigation intended to nurture native plant seedlings.
When I interviewed Sabra Kauka of Na Pali Coast `Ohana the other day, she said the group had given up on Kalalau because the problems there were so overwhelming, and each time they returned, all their work had been undone. So now they focus on Nualolo Kai, which has a chance to recover because it can only be accessed by boat.
I find it ironic that so many of those who choose to live outside “the system” and are dismissive of its private property rights think nothing of exploiting and mistreating public lands for their own economic purposes.
The fact is that Kauka and her friends have had a fifteen-year history through the DLNR created and controlled Na Pali Ohana (as PNN detailed in a Parxist Conspiracy TV newsmagazine in the mid-90’s) of overstating the presence of any problem with the “outlaws” in Kalalau who, if anything, actually benefit the valley and cultural vestiges by trying to encourage tourists and newcomers to respect the valley, using the characterization of “opala that piles up there” to describe the DOCARE’s destruction of the camp sites of the outlaws.
While the perennial campers in Kalalau are certainly there “illegally”- not by law but by DLNR rule- the actions of the state and the Na Pali Ohana are an over the top reaction to those who live simply and in fact do respect the valley, trying to make sure others do the same- especially after many of them tried to join the “`Ohana” during it nescient days and obtain permission to join in the stewardship programs but were rejected, many still claim, due to their “different” culture... and some say skin color.
While we respect the true host culture we’ve got to ask if in this instance whether the sans-attire culture is truly an insult to the Hawaiian culture- something we might project is at least partially behind Joan’s apparent attitude? Or is it more likely offensive to those who have either internalized- or actually become part of- the well-known 200% christian culture in the islands due to early post-contact missionary influences?
We figured out early on in life that clothes are simply something that, barring inclement weather, you wear so the cops don’t arrest you when you go outside
Nude is not lewd unless others have been somehow indoctrinated to overreact to it.
Quoting Wilson, Conrow wrote
I also chuckled just a little bit when I read the closing paragraph in Juan Wilson’s screed about the Larsen’s Beach access issue on his website, Island Breath:
“These attitudes and strategies are typical of property owners that see the land as a commodity with which to make money, and not the very source of our lives. It's time to take that attitude about "private property" behind the barn and put it down."
Funny, I distinctly remember interviewing Juan in the house he owns — and uses for his business — in Hanapepe. So how come Waioli Corp.’s private property is “the very source of our lives,” but his isn’t?
It’s really amazing how out of context the quote and comment are taken. Juan’s article specifically details the practices of Moloa`a area big landowners Bruce Laymon, Tom McCloskey and Peter Gruber who have sought to clear the area of those pesky citizens and deny them beach access, much of it with a thinly veiled hatred for perceived “hippies” and moreover naked people who frequent the isolated beaches in the area.
The beginning of Wilson’s sentence- his concluding though on the details of how the three and other large landowners abuse the power of that ownership- specially calls out “(t)hese attitudes and strategies” he detailed. Any reader cannot come away with the notion that Joan is condemning private property ownership in general- something that, as a matter of fact, we’ve been able to read into some of Joan’s postings on pre-western-contact Hawaiian culture without having to fill in too many blanks.
Could it be that there’s something behind Joan’s misdirectional quote? Well Conrow’s previous day’s post is certainly indicative (no pun intended) of something.
She wrote
Yesterday it was Larsen’s Beach, where I went to take some photographs and refresh my mind on the trails before writing another story about the access issue today.
The presence of nude sunbathers is a recurring complaint about that beach, and while I don’t mind if people swim or sun in the buff, there seems to be a fine line between naturism and exhibitionism. I’m thinking in particular of one old tourist, his face smeared with zinc oxide, who was dressed in an unbuttoned short-sleeved shirt, socks and shoes, but no pants.
Come on, buddy. Who are you trying to kid?
I guess what it comes down to is I don’t care if guys want to lie around with their dicks out, but it’s a different story when they seem intent on showing their members to me, which so often seems to be the case at clothing optional beaches.
Now we weren’t there but we can certainly remember times camping at Kalalau or Kaupea (aka Secret) Beach when it was a bit chilly or the sun was too much for our shoulders when we wore a shirt and no pants. And we can remember prudish individuals calling us out for it trying to intimidate us into kow-towing to their beliefs- religious or otherwise- despite our cultural penchant for going to a secluded place and not having to bend to the restrictive, straitlaced social norms of society.
Even more telling is Joan’s swallowing whole of the myth of the Na Pali pot growers- of which there are few or none these days- after talking to long time anti-camper, anti-nudity crusader, another friend, Sabra Kauka.
In the section just before her criticism of Wilson, Conrow wrote
It seems growers living in Kalalau and elsewhere along Na Pali Coast are responsible for a lot of the opala that piles up there, and according to some of the folks who malama that region, they also damage ancient rock walls when creating their plots and steal irrigation intended to nurture native plant seedlings.
When I interviewed Sabra Kauka of Na Pali Coast `Ohana the other day, she said the group had given up on Kalalau because the problems there were so overwhelming, and each time they returned, all their work had been undone. So now they focus on Nualolo Kai, which has a chance to recover because it can only be accessed by boat.
I find it ironic that so many of those who choose to live outside “the system” and are dismissive of its private property rights think nothing of exploiting and mistreating public lands for their own economic purposes.
The fact is that Kauka and her friends have had a fifteen-year history through the DLNR created and controlled Na Pali Ohana (as PNN detailed in a Parxist Conspiracy TV newsmagazine in the mid-90’s) of overstating the presence of any problem with the “outlaws” in Kalalau who, if anything, actually benefit the valley and cultural vestiges by trying to encourage tourists and newcomers to respect the valley, using the characterization of “opala that piles up there” to describe the DOCARE’s destruction of the camp sites of the outlaws.
While the perennial campers in Kalalau are certainly there “illegally”- not by law but by DLNR rule- the actions of the state and the Na Pali Ohana are an over the top reaction to those who live simply and in fact do respect the valley, trying to make sure others do the same- especially after many of them tried to join the “`Ohana” during it nescient days and obtain permission to join in the stewardship programs but were rejected, many still claim, due to their “different” culture... and some say skin color.
While we respect the true host culture we’ve got to ask if in this instance whether the sans-attire culture is truly an insult to the Hawaiian culture- something we might project is at least partially behind Joan’s apparent attitude? Or is it more likely offensive to those who have either internalized- or actually become part of- the well-known 200% christian culture in the islands due to early post-contact missionary influences?
We figured out early on in life that clothes are simply something that, barring inclement weather, you wear so the cops don’t arrest you when you go outside
Nude is not lewd unless others have been somehow indoctrinated to overreact to it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
DOESN’T PASS THE SNIFF TEST
DOESN’T PASS THE SNIFF TEST: Though it took some prodding from PNN to get it posted on-line, an editorial tripping over itself to find a silver lining in KPD Chief Darryl’s Perry’s slap-in-the-face-of-Kaua`i application to become Honolulu’s Police chief was finally posted yesterday.
This Sunday’s editorial in the local newspaper is more striking for what it leaves out than what it says. Although we suspect it was written or at least informed by “somebody please love me” oft-fired, piss-poor reporter Paul Curtis we usually get a response of “it’s a collaborative effort” when we’ve asked in the past about who the editorial scribes are since the paper recently established a once a week editorial voice.
If Curtis’ involvement is not the case then the excuse that the dynamic duo- journalists par excellence Editor Nathan Eagle and Assistant Editor Michael Levine- are newbies and don’t know the history could explain the revisionist history contained, although we’re pretty sure they have read the book “KPD Blue” and many of the reminders of the real history of the department in the last 10 years, as detailed in this space over the past year and a half.
But there really is no excuse for at least three passages that ignore reality and rather provide false premises for sycophantic lapdog hand-licking opinions.
The editorial somehow schizophrenically both criticizes and admonishes Perry for leaving unfinished business after he and his promoters screwed over two chiefs and caused no small amount of pilikila on the force and in the community over the years in revenge for his being passed over for the job twice.
The first paragraph that stands out says:
We are particularly impressed with his community outreach efforts and ability to connect with the people here. From writing a column for us answering your questions to reading at local elementary schools and generally making himself available at any time, Perry has gone above and beyond the call of duty.
The problem is that this “community outreach” has been a top-down, tin-ear attempt to take the community out of the equation in tossing aside the “community policing” programs instituted under Chief George Freitas- whose community policing successes in Richmond CA are noted nationwide- and continued under the short reign of Chief KC Lum.
Instead Perry promoted an “us vs. them” attitude on the force as he sought to bring a big-city style arms buildup to the tiny Kaua`i. He then refused to directly respond community criticism over that and noted incidents of police abuse of power and even brutality- which he pooh-poohed, indeed attacking those who would question his new techniques even twisting arms at the newspaper which fired regular columnist Juan Wilson over such criticisms.
The next paragraph is particularly galling to many on the force and their families and friends.
We continually hear from officers and people on the street how much better the department, historically known for its unstable footing, has been running since his arrival.
We’ll bet you have- since they are the only ones who will dare speak up on the subject. The fact is that many officers we’ve spoken to- especially who were caught on “the other side” in the 10 year battle to secure the job for Perry- tell us they found out early that any criticism or even suggestions would be met with retaliation.
Dissent has largely moved underground and certainly no one is going to tell the newspaper.
Even the “bottom up departmental review”- a review that would allow officers to freely and openly give input on structure, operations and policing methods - that was discussed for years by the police commission has been killed, giving officers who remain unsatisfied with the direction of the department marching orders to shut up and stew in their own juices.
The next two paragraphs are chock-full-o’ contradictions and misinformation
The tumultuous process of selecting a new chief is something we'd be OK not having to endure again for another couple decades if possible.
Then why the pass on leaving us in the lurch only a couple of years after battling for the job, a process we detailed in our editorial on the subject a couple of weeks ago.
Remember how messy things got last time around? Our county is still fighting the Office of Information Practices in the Hawai`i Supreme Court on a matter relating to the dismissal of former Police Chief K.C. Lum.
What a load. Although it came out of a request for minutes of a council meeting regarding a council investigation of the department, the case is really about the county’s ability to tell the OIP to shove it when OIP ruled the minutes of an executive session should be made public.
Calling it “a matter relating to the dismissal of former Police Chief K.C. Lum” and. among other things disregarding the race discrimination suit by Lum in the “Hop Sing” fiasco- which is still alive in federal court- is to shift the blame for the debacle from a politically motivated purge by the good old boys to some sort of internal dispute caused by Lum.
The next sentence it the topper:
It's not about breaking commitments to serve Kaua`i. How could he have foreseen that this opportunity would open up? And why should he be asked to turn a blind eye?
How could he have foreseen it? Don’t you guys read the papers? Honolulu Chief Boisse Correa’s five year contract is expiring and he has been hobbled with a bad back which caused him to take a long leave of absence.
Correa hasn’t had a shot in hell of continuing beyond his current tenure and that was a forgone conclusion way before Perry ever set foot at the already-falling-apart brand new police station.
But what’s most distressing is that, despite the “new blood” news department the mysterious editorial board- which we have no doubt includes old-boy-come-lately Publisher Mark Lewis- is exercising the right to distort history and ignore reality just because they’re the only ones on the island who still buys ink by the barrel.
The editorial is a blot on the once revered, then reviled, now revived local newspaper. With this revisionist history and the rehiring of the oft-fired Paul Curtis, it does not bode well for the future of islands’ “newspaper of record”.
This Sunday’s editorial in the local newspaper is more striking for what it leaves out than what it says. Although we suspect it was written or at least informed by “somebody please love me” oft-fired, piss-poor reporter Paul Curtis we usually get a response of “it’s a collaborative effort” when we’ve asked in the past about who the editorial scribes are since the paper recently established a once a week editorial voice.
If Curtis’ involvement is not the case then the excuse that the dynamic duo- journalists par excellence Editor Nathan Eagle and Assistant Editor Michael Levine- are newbies and don’t know the history could explain the revisionist history contained, although we’re pretty sure they have read the book “KPD Blue” and many of the reminders of the real history of the department in the last 10 years, as detailed in this space over the past year and a half.
But there really is no excuse for at least three passages that ignore reality and rather provide false premises for sycophantic lapdog hand-licking opinions.
The editorial somehow schizophrenically both criticizes and admonishes Perry for leaving unfinished business after he and his promoters screwed over two chiefs and caused no small amount of pilikila on the force and in the community over the years in revenge for his being passed over for the job twice.
The first paragraph that stands out says:
We are particularly impressed with his community outreach efforts and ability to connect with the people here. From writing a column for us answering your questions to reading at local elementary schools and generally making himself available at any time, Perry has gone above and beyond the call of duty.
The problem is that this “community outreach” has been a top-down, tin-ear attempt to take the community out of the equation in tossing aside the “community policing” programs instituted under Chief George Freitas- whose community policing successes in Richmond CA are noted nationwide- and continued under the short reign of Chief KC Lum.
Instead Perry promoted an “us vs. them” attitude on the force as he sought to bring a big-city style arms buildup to the tiny Kaua`i. He then refused to directly respond community criticism over that and noted incidents of police abuse of power and even brutality- which he pooh-poohed, indeed attacking those who would question his new techniques even twisting arms at the newspaper which fired regular columnist Juan Wilson over such criticisms.
The next paragraph is particularly galling to many on the force and their families and friends.
We continually hear from officers and people on the street how much better the department, historically known for its unstable footing, has been running since his arrival.
We’ll bet you have- since they are the only ones who will dare speak up on the subject. The fact is that many officers we’ve spoken to- especially who were caught on “the other side” in the 10 year battle to secure the job for Perry- tell us they found out early that any criticism or even suggestions would be met with retaliation.
Dissent has largely moved underground and certainly no one is going to tell the newspaper.
Even the “bottom up departmental review”- a review that would allow officers to freely and openly give input on structure, operations and policing methods - that was discussed for years by the police commission has been killed, giving officers who remain unsatisfied with the direction of the department marching orders to shut up and stew in their own juices.
The next two paragraphs are chock-full-o’ contradictions and misinformation
The tumultuous process of selecting a new chief is something we'd be OK not having to endure again for another couple decades if possible.
Then why the pass on leaving us in the lurch only a couple of years after battling for the job, a process we detailed in our editorial on the subject a couple of weeks ago.
Remember how messy things got last time around? Our county is still fighting the Office of Information Practices in the Hawai`i Supreme Court on a matter relating to the dismissal of former Police Chief K.C. Lum.
What a load. Although it came out of a request for minutes of a council meeting regarding a council investigation of the department, the case is really about the county’s ability to tell the OIP to shove it when OIP ruled the minutes of an executive session should be made public.
Calling it “a matter relating to the dismissal of former Police Chief K.C. Lum” and. among other things disregarding the race discrimination suit by Lum in the “Hop Sing” fiasco- which is still alive in federal court- is to shift the blame for the debacle from a politically motivated purge by the good old boys to some sort of internal dispute caused by Lum.
The next sentence it the topper:
It's not about breaking commitments to serve Kaua`i. How could he have foreseen that this opportunity would open up? And why should he be asked to turn a blind eye?
How could he have foreseen it? Don’t you guys read the papers? Honolulu Chief Boisse Correa’s five year contract is expiring and he has been hobbled with a bad back which caused him to take a long leave of absence.
Correa hasn’t had a shot in hell of continuing beyond his current tenure and that was a forgone conclusion way before Perry ever set foot at the already-falling-apart brand new police station.
But what’s most distressing is that, despite the “new blood” news department the mysterious editorial board- which we have no doubt includes old-boy-come-lately Publisher Mark Lewis- is exercising the right to distort history and ignore reality just because they’re the only ones on the island who still buys ink by the barrel.
The editorial is a blot on the once revered, then reviled, now revived local newspaper. With this revisionist history and the rehiring of the oft-fired Paul Curtis, it does not bode well for the future of islands’ “newspaper of record”.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
I’LL SHOW YA HOW TO WALK THE DOG
I’LL SHOW YA HOW TO WALK THE DOG: The construction of the so-called “coastal” bike path has always been a harebrained. through-the-looking-glass experience.
But, to mangle a phrase, it keeps getting circuitous-er and circuitous-er as the path moves from Lydgate to the Kapa`a Boat launch at Lihi according to an informative piece by Juan Wilson at IsalndBreath who has been staying on top of the latest phase of the boondoggle.
He also reports a new wrinkle to explain what the rush is in deciding on one of the untenable options the county is considering- there’s $4 million dollars of federal stimulus money involved and if it isn’t used soon it will grow and spread wings, Big Island bound.
He reports
Some small, yet important adjustments can still be made to improve the overall plan. There is now a very short window of opportunity to having any affect on these plans because $4 million of funding has been obtained through the federal stimulus program and final plans must submitted by early August or those funds will be redistributed to the Big Island. Comments on this projected work must be in by August 7th 2009...
The major projects consist of two state components:
1) The widening to four lanes of the Kuhio Highway north of the Wailua River to the Kapa`a bypass.
2) The rebuilding of the existing cane haul bridge to accommodate two lanes of traffic and the bike pedestrian path.
It also consists of one County component:
3) The bike path from the Wailua river crossing north as far as the Kapa`a bypass.
Of course this won’t be the first county scam of questionable legality to redirect funds from needed transportation projects to supplement the bike path funding which dried up with only as small fraction the entire path constructed.
We blew the original $40 million that was supposed to build the whole shebang long ago and are well into the $10’s of millions in additional county funds, not including the other state and federal money stolen from other much-needed transportation and recreational projects.
Wilson continues:
The routing of the alternative transportation "bike" path between Lihue and Kapa`a has been a tortured history of misplaced priorities, hurried planning and bad decisions. The current state of the plans are as illogical as they will be impractical.
One must remember, regardless of what Thomas Noyes says, the federal funding for alternative transportation that is going to our bike path is not earmarked for a "coastal recreation trail". It is funding for transportation alternatives to automotive traffic.
Since we’ve been getting away with it for so long apparently we’re going to do it again. But we may not even wind up with a coastal path after all this if the best option among a lot of bad alternative routes is selected.
More from Wilson
Ideally, this alternative should be safe and efficient and not have negative impact on the environment or cultural sites. Some, including ourselves, have advocated mauka (inland) routes for the bike path.
One mauka scheme would lead through what were once cane fields from Lihue north of the Kuhio Highway, past Hanama`ulu and follow the base of Kelepa Forest Reserve, and cross the Wailua River just mauka of the existing highway bridge. The route could then follow the public right of way behind the old Coco Palms along the canal and hook up with the canal way that goes behind the Foodland in Waipouli. This route would never have to cross the highway and would avoid problems of other routes on cultural sites and sensitive beach environments.
Where we are today is stuck with a crossing of the Wailua River makai (seaward) of the cane haul bridge structure that will carry two lanes of the Kuhio Highway. This route will be narrow and close to heavy traffic with accompanying noise, dust, and fumes.
The bike path then is planned to run over the dunes and plants covering burial sites along Wailua Beach. It will then follow a twisted route up Papaloa Road, make a left at Lanikai Street, then absurdly backtrack east along the Kuhio Highway to Hale`ilio Street until it can finally line up with a mauka path to Foodland. This is a ridiculous and unacceptable plan.
Yes. it’s already been decided that the “scenic” beach path is going through the Foodland and Safeway parking lots and crossing the highway at the worst intersection on the island. But one of the alternatives on crossing back over is even more absurd.
That was so we could get the property for the path by letting the two mall owners off the hook for 25 year of ignoring and delaying a required bridge to connect the two supermarkets. That was the reason for the path crossing the highway in the first place.
Wilson describes one alternative for what he calls the “canal route” designed to link up with the now urban corridor.
After exiting the cane haul bridge bike path would follow the mauka side of the rock wall dividing the highway from Wailua Beach until it is north of Kuamo`o Road. It would then ramp down to a pedestrian highway underpass (funded by the Coco Palms developer) and parallel Kuamo`o Road until it reach the canal where it could then follow the public right of way to link eventually with Foodland.
A highway underpass? 100 yards from the ocean about a foot above sea level? And depending on a developer- one who hasn’t done a thing about the rat infested ruins of the hotel and is apparently trying to sell the development rights after getting an extension from a bamboozled planning commission- to do it.
Yeah... that’ll happen.
The county is hell bent on completing this boondoggle no matter how much it costs and no matter how much disruption it causes because if it doesn’t then it will certainly never be able to claim that any transportation is happening, even though the only ones they have ever made that claim to is the DOT.
Wilson also notes the details of the latest illegally segmented environmental assessment up for approval- where a full blown EIS would be required if it wasn’t divided into small sections.
Oh- and despite lies Noyes repeated recently saying the DOT director has signed off on the “primarily transportation. not recreation” requirement for the bike path he still can’t produce the document.
The idea of putting a ribbon of concrete along the ocean to protect it and provide access has always seemed to us to be kind of like the kid who spits on his ice cream to make sure he doesn’t have to share it with his buddies. Yup he’s got your ice cream, disgusting though it may be
Still if we have to throw more money down this rat hole boondoggle, we’ve got to agree with Juan that moving it mauka is the least objectionable of the idiotic alternative.
Can’t anyone here play this game?
But, to mangle a phrase, it keeps getting circuitous-er and circuitous-er as the path moves from Lydgate to the Kapa`a Boat launch at Lihi according to an informative piece by Juan Wilson at IsalndBreath who has been staying on top of the latest phase of the boondoggle.
He also reports a new wrinkle to explain what the rush is in deciding on one of the untenable options the county is considering- there’s $4 million dollars of federal stimulus money involved and if it isn’t used soon it will grow and spread wings, Big Island bound.
He reports
Some small, yet important adjustments can still be made to improve the overall plan. There is now a very short window of opportunity to having any affect on these plans because $4 million of funding has been obtained through the federal stimulus program and final plans must submitted by early August or those funds will be redistributed to the Big Island. Comments on this projected work must be in by August 7th 2009...
The major projects consist of two state components:
1) The widening to four lanes of the Kuhio Highway north of the Wailua River to the Kapa`a bypass.
2) The rebuilding of the existing cane haul bridge to accommodate two lanes of traffic and the bike pedestrian path.
It also consists of one County component:
3) The bike path from the Wailua river crossing north as far as the Kapa`a bypass.
Of course this won’t be the first county scam of questionable legality to redirect funds from needed transportation projects to supplement the bike path funding which dried up with only as small fraction the entire path constructed.
We blew the original $40 million that was supposed to build the whole shebang long ago and are well into the $10’s of millions in additional county funds, not including the other state and federal money stolen from other much-needed transportation and recreational projects.
Wilson continues:
The routing of the alternative transportation "bike" path between Lihue and Kapa`a has been a tortured history of misplaced priorities, hurried planning and bad decisions. The current state of the plans are as illogical as they will be impractical.
One must remember, regardless of what Thomas Noyes says, the federal funding for alternative transportation that is going to our bike path is not earmarked for a "coastal recreation trail". It is funding for transportation alternatives to automotive traffic.
Since we’ve been getting away with it for so long apparently we’re going to do it again. But we may not even wind up with a coastal path after all this if the best option among a lot of bad alternative routes is selected.
More from Wilson
Ideally, this alternative should be safe and efficient and not have negative impact on the environment or cultural sites. Some, including ourselves, have advocated mauka (inland) routes for the bike path.
One mauka scheme would lead through what were once cane fields from Lihue north of the Kuhio Highway, past Hanama`ulu and follow the base of Kelepa Forest Reserve, and cross the Wailua River just mauka of the existing highway bridge. The route could then follow the public right of way behind the old Coco Palms along the canal and hook up with the canal way that goes behind the Foodland in Waipouli. This route would never have to cross the highway and would avoid problems of other routes on cultural sites and sensitive beach environments.
Where we are today is stuck with a crossing of the Wailua River makai (seaward) of the cane haul bridge structure that will carry two lanes of the Kuhio Highway. This route will be narrow and close to heavy traffic with accompanying noise, dust, and fumes.
The bike path then is planned to run over the dunes and plants covering burial sites along Wailua Beach. It will then follow a twisted route up Papaloa Road, make a left at Lanikai Street, then absurdly backtrack east along the Kuhio Highway to Hale`ilio Street until it can finally line up with a mauka path to Foodland. This is a ridiculous and unacceptable plan.
Yes. it’s already been decided that the “scenic” beach path is going through the Foodland and Safeway parking lots and crossing the highway at the worst intersection on the island. But one of the alternatives on crossing back over is even more absurd.
That was so we could get the property for the path by letting the two mall owners off the hook for 25 year of ignoring and delaying a required bridge to connect the two supermarkets. That was the reason for the path crossing the highway in the first place.
Wilson describes one alternative for what he calls the “canal route” designed to link up with the now urban corridor.
After exiting the cane haul bridge bike path would follow the mauka side of the rock wall dividing the highway from Wailua Beach until it is north of Kuamo`o Road. It would then ramp down to a pedestrian highway underpass (funded by the Coco Palms developer) and parallel Kuamo`o Road until it reach the canal where it could then follow the public right of way to link eventually with Foodland.
A highway underpass? 100 yards from the ocean about a foot above sea level? And depending on a developer- one who hasn’t done a thing about the rat infested ruins of the hotel and is apparently trying to sell the development rights after getting an extension from a bamboozled planning commission- to do it.
Yeah... that’ll happen.
The county is hell bent on completing this boondoggle no matter how much it costs and no matter how much disruption it causes because if it doesn’t then it will certainly never be able to claim that any transportation is happening, even though the only ones they have ever made that claim to is the DOT.
Wilson also notes the details of the latest illegally segmented environmental assessment up for approval- where a full blown EIS would be required if it wasn’t divided into small sections.
Oh- and despite lies Noyes repeated recently saying the DOT director has signed off on the “primarily transportation. not recreation” requirement for the bike path he still can’t produce the document.
The idea of putting a ribbon of concrete along the ocean to protect it and provide access has always seemed to us to be kind of like the kid who spits on his ice cream to make sure he doesn’t have to share it with his buddies. Yup he’s got your ice cream, disgusting though it may be
Still if we have to throw more money down this rat hole boondoggle, we’ve got to agree with Juan that moving it mauka is the least objectionable of the idiotic alternative.
Can’t anyone here play this game?
Friday, January 16, 2009
AND HAST THOU SLAIN THE JABBERWOCK?
AND HAST THOU SLAIN THE JABBERWOCK?: When the local paper’s former editor Adam Harju left for Cambodia many in the community clinked Champaign glasses and happily warned him against letting the egress barrier strike him in the posterior upon his way out.
And why not? Like most others he came here “on the circuit”- a loose web of small newspapers around the country where journalists float from job to job for short periods until they wear out their welcome or have a chance to “move up” to either a larger newspaper or an editorial or management position.
Many chortled at Harju’s oft-stated concern for the community and his vow to stick around (as long as the surf was good). It was nothing we hadn’t heard from the others and won’t hear again.
And although Harju was originally gung ho for the idea of regular local columnists he was soon set straight by Publisher Mark Lewis as to what was and wasn’t acceptable to the advertisers and local power elite.
Though many- us included- sought a regular column only two scribes made the grade. The first, Juan Wilson, was soon hastily dispatched when he submitted an article critical of the local constabulary’s militaristic buildup.
And that left one- retired Princeville attorney Walter Lewis whose prose graces the lowest circulation day’s opinion page every other week.
Lewis’ columns are generally repetitive, plodding , bland and, though many have criticized the county council and other boards and commissions for their penchant for secrecy, pretty innocuous.
But although his subject matter has been limited, his factual claims have generally been on target... until now.
The problem with Walter is- as anyone who has tried to work with him on any issue soon finds out- he is never wrong, never makes a mistake and won’t listen to anyone. If any idea isn’t Walter’s it not only goes in one ear and out the other but is dismissed through the kind of smug and disingenuous obtuseness only Walter can muster.
And so it was no surprise this week that, when we found a major error in the main premise of his column on property tax appeals this past Saturday, even when faced with the irrefutable error in fact, his final word on the matter was essentially “that’s my story and I’m sticking with it”.
Lewis’s offending paragraph read as follows:
The property tax law contains a serious flaw affecting whether taxpayers must accept an unjust assessment of their property. Under the tax code a taxpayer may not appeal an assessment made unless the assessment amount is more than 20 percent higher than the prior annual assessment. In our present climate even continuing the 2008 year opening value may be a serious overassessment but a taxpayer would have no right to appeal it. Elementary justice requires that this be changed.
Problem is that this just plain wrong. Nowhere in the law does it even mention anything about “prior annual assessments” or anything like it.
Having followed the public hearing at which both Lewis and North Shore Realtor Mike Dyer testified we though we heard Walter say the same thing in testimony only to be contradicted by Dyer and by what we had understood to be the process for many years.
In fact the “20%”- which is a figure subject to a reduction to 10% in a bill on the agenda at next Wednesday’s council Finance Committee meeting- refers to the difference between what the county assessor claims is the value of your house or property and what the Board of Review finds to be the actual “market value”.
The language in Section 5A-12.3(a) is as follows:
"No owner shall be deemed aggrieved by an assessment, nor shall an assessment be lowered ... unless there is shown: (1) Assessment of the property exceeds by more than twenty per cent (20%) the assessment of market value used by the Director as the real property tax base".
So we spent the last week emailing both Lewis and Dyer to straighten it out and give Lewis a chance to simply recognize his error and correct it. We all make mistakes and it’s something one would think any responsible journalist with a regular column in the newspaper would welcome the chance to do.
Ah but not Lewis who stated to the council he had never actually filed an appeal while Dyer, who owns a lot of property on the island, said he usually files one or more almost every year.
In an email to PNN Dyer explained the way it actually works, the same way he did when he testified before the council in favor of not just lowering the difference to 10% but advocating for an arbitrator type system to replace the current method used- a determination by the Board of Review (the only county board that pays its members) using some set of secretive almost magical soothsaying machinations to find out whether the assessor’s valuation is off by more than 20% and what the correct value should be.
In an email Dyer explained:
The "Taxpayer's Notice of Real Property Tax Appeal" form requires that the taxpayer state what his assessed value should be. The value stated must be 20% lower than the assessed value provided to the taxpayer "on or before March 15th preceding the tax year" by the assessor's office. The form only includes one check box option for " ... grounds of objection to the assessment per Section 5A-12.3 ...": " The assessed value of the property exceeds by more than twenty percent (20%) the ratio of assessment to market value." If you submit an appeal claiming a market value that is not at least 20% lower than the assessor's valuation you won't be scheduled for an appeal hearing.
The language in Section 5A-12.3(a) is as follows: "No owner shall be deemed aggrieved by an assessment, nor shall an assessment be lowered ..., unless there is shown: (1) Assessment of the property exceeds by more than twenty per cent (20%) the assessment of market value used by the Director as the real property tax base, ...". I have no idea what the last phrase means. However, my experience has been that you must contend that the assessor is too high by at least 20% or you don't even get to play.
In actual appeals it has been my experience that the Board of Review can be fickle. I have seen them grant adjustments of less than 20% and I have seen them uphold the assessor's valuation because the taxpayer didn't convince them in an amount which quite reached the 20% threshold ... losing even though you win.
Dyer’s email was addressed to Lewis too and we thought that surly with the ordinance being cited- a law that Lewis presumably has seen since he was observed reading from the entire current ordinance as he testified- that Lewis would act to correct himself.
But suddenly Lewis became obtuse and unresponsive until we persisted in finding out whether he wanted to make his own statement rather than having us correct it for him.
If the misstatement was left to stand there’s no telling how many homeowners might be wrongly dissuaded from thinking that could even file an appeal.
That’s when he told us it was only our “opinion” as to what the ordinance said and that he would not be correcting anything.
This is typical Lewis, the father of the infamous “Ohana” Prop.13-type tax measure approved by voters and struck down by the Hawai`i Supreme Court, exemplifying his modus operandi.
At the time, when the idea was in it’s infancy, the notion of capping the annual growth of the actual tax paid by the home-owner/occupant at 2% a year and rolling the “base” back to the time before assessments started to sky-rocket, seemed a decent one to many.
Horror tales abounded especially those whose taxes went from a few hundred to many thousands a year, including retired people on fixed incomes and others whose valuations increased exponentially due to sales of neighboring properties to rich off-island speculators during the housing bubble.
But as in uffish thought they stood, many said “hey wait a minute”. The measure was designed to accommodate those who had no intention of selling their homes and just wanted to live in their now million dollar houses for which they paid maybe $50,000 or less... or even inherited.
So one provision was suggested to Lewis, eventually even by Ohana co-founders Ray Chuan and Glenn Mickens as well as then Council Chair Ron Kouchi.
To get more support for his “charter amendment” and perhaps get the council on board or even put it in an ordinance, they simply asked that when and if the house was sold, the taxes saved over the years should be paid back to the county.
But Walter wouldn’t listen and so when the council sued- and the courts struck it down saying only the council could determine taxes- homeowners were left with no real cap except one that the council passed without the rollback to the pre-bubble prices- after the horse was out of the barn.
And because of that, many lost their homes or are still paying inflated taxes today.
Iconoclastic is often a nice way of saying pig-headed and never did that apply more than in the odd case of this oddly pompous man, Walter Lewis.
And why not? Like most others he came here “on the circuit”- a loose web of small newspapers around the country where journalists float from job to job for short periods until they wear out their welcome or have a chance to “move up” to either a larger newspaper or an editorial or management position.
Many chortled at Harju’s oft-stated concern for the community and his vow to stick around (as long as the surf was good). It was nothing we hadn’t heard from the others and won’t hear again.
And although Harju was originally gung ho for the idea of regular local columnists he was soon set straight by Publisher Mark Lewis as to what was and wasn’t acceptable to the advertisers and local power elite.
Though many- us included- sought a regular column only two scribes made the grade. The first, Juan Wilson, was soon hastily dispatched when he submitted an article critical of the local constabulary’s militaristic buildup.
And that left one- retired Princeville attorney Walter Lewis whose prose graces the lowest circulation day’s opinion page every other week.
Lewis’ columns are generally repetitive, plodding , bland and, though many have criticized the county council and other boards and commissions for their penchant for secrecy, pretty innocuous.
But although his subject matter has been limited, his factual claims have generally been on target... until now.
The problem with Walter is- as anyone who has tried to work with him on any issue soon finds out- he is never wrong, never makes a mistake and won’t listen to anyone. If any idea isn’t Walter’s it not only goes in one ear and out the other but is dismissed through the kind of smug and disingenuous obtuseness only Walter can muster.
And so it was no surprise this week that, when we found a major error in the main premise of his column on property tax appeals this past Saturday, even when faced with the irrefutable error in fact, his final word on the matter was essentially “that’s my story and I’m sticking with it”.
Lewis’s offending paragraph read as follows:
The property tax law contains a serious flaw affecting whether taxpayers must accept an unjust assessment of their property. Under the tax code a taxpayer may not appeal an assessment made unless the assessment amount is more than 20 percent higher than the prior annual assessment. In our present climate even continuing the 2008 year opening value may be a serious overassessment but a taxpayer would have no right to appeal it. Elementary justice requires that this be changed.
Problem is that this just plain wrong. Nowhere in the law does it even mention anything about “prior annual assessments” or anything like it.
Having followed the public hearing at which both Lewis and North Shore Realtor Mike Dyer testified we though we heard Walter say the same thing in testimony only to be contradicted by Dyer and by what we had understood to be the process for many years.
In fact the “20%”- which is a figure subject to a reduction to 10% in a bill on the agenda at next Wednesday’s council Finance Committee meeting- refers to the difference between what the county assessor claims is the value of your house or property and what the Board of Review finds to be the actual “market value”.
The language in Section 5A-12.3(a) is as follows:
"No owner shall be deemed aggrieved by an assessment, nor shall an assessment be lowered ... unless there is shown: (1) Assessment of the property exceeds by more than twenty per cent (20%) the assessment of market value used by the Director as the real property tax base".
So we spent the last week emailing both Lewis and Dyer to straighten it out and give Lewis a chance to simply recognize his error and correct it. We all make mistakes and it’s something one would think any responsible journalist with a regular column in the newspaper would welcome the chance to do.
Ah but not Lewis who stated to the council he had never actually filed an appeal while Dyer, who owns a lot of property on the island, said he usually files one or more almost every year.
In an email to PNN Dyer explained the way it actually works, the same way he did when he testified before the council in favor of not just lowering the difference to 10% but advocating for an arbitrator type system to replace the current method used- a determination by the Board of Review (the only county board that pays its members) using some set of secretive almost magical soothsaying machinations to find out whether the assessor’s valuation is off by more than 20% and what the correct value should be.
In an email Dyer explained:
The "Taxpayer's Notice of Real Property Tax Appeal" form requires that the taxpayer state what his assessed value should be. The value stated must be 20% lower than the assessed value provided to the taxpayer "on or before March 15th preceding the tax year" by the assessor's office. The form only includes one check box option for " ... grounds of objection to the assessment per Section 5A-12.3 ...": " The assessed value of the property exceeds by more than twenty percent (20%) the ratio of assessment to market value." If you submit an appeal claiming a market value that is not at least 20% lower than the assessor's valuation you won't be scheduled for an appeal hearing.
The language in Section 5A-12.3(a) is as follows: "No owner shall be deemed aggrieved by an assessment, nor shall an assessment be lowered ..., unless there is shown: (1) Assessment of the property exceeds by more than twenty per cent (20%) the assessment of market value used by the Director as the real property tax base, ...". I have no idea what the last phrase means. However, my experience has been that you must contend that the assessor is too high by at least 20% or you don't even get to play.
In actual appeals it has been my experience that the Board of Review can be fickle. I have seen them grant adjustments of less than 20% and I have seen them uphold the assessor's valuation because the taxpayer didn't convince them in an amount which quite reached the 20% threshold ... losing even though you win.
Dyer’s email was addressed to Lewis too and we thought that surly with the ordinance being cited- a law that Lewis presumably has seen since he was observed reading from the entire current ordinance as he testified- that Lewis would act to correct himself.
But suddenly Lewis became obtuse and unresponsive until we persisted in finding out whether he wanted to make his own statement rather than having us correct it for him.
If the misstatement was left to stand there’s no telling how many homeowners might be wrongly dissuaded from thinking that could even file an appeal.
That’s when he told us it was only our “opinion” as to what the ordinance said and that he would not be correcting anything.
This is typical Lewis, the father of the infamous “Ohana” Prop.13-type tax measure approved by voters and struck down by the Hawai`i Supreme Court, exemplifying his modus operandi.
At the time, when the idea was in it’s infancy, the notion of capping the annual growth of the actual tax paid by the home-owner/occupant at 2% a year and rolling the “base” back to the time before assessments started to sky-rocket, seemed a decent one to many.
Horror tales abounded especially those whose taxes went from a few hundred to many thousands a year, including retired people on fixed incomes and others whose valuations increased exponentially due to sales of neighboring properties to rich off-island speculators during the housing bubble.
But as in uffish thought they stood, many said “hey wait a minute”. The measure was designed to accommodate those who had no intention of selling their homes and just wanted to live in their now million dollar houses for which they paid maybe $50,000 or less... or even inherited.
So one provision was suggested to Lewis, eventually even by Ohana co-founders Ray Chuan and Glenn Mickens as well as then Council Chair Ron Kouchi.
To get more support for his “charter amendment” and perhaps get the council on board or even put it in an ordinance, they simply asked that when and if the house was sold, the taxes saved over the years should be paid back to the county.
But Walter wouldn’t listen and so when the council sued- and the courts struck it down saying only the council could determine taxes- homeowners were left with no real cap except one that the council passed without the rollback to the pre-bubble prices- after the horse was out of the barn.
And because of that, many lost their homes or are still paying inflated taxes today.
Iconoclastic is often a nice way of saying pig-headed and never did that apply more than in the odd case of this oddly pompous man, Walter Lewis.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
MAYBE THE DINGO ATE YOUR BOOK
MAYBE THE DINGO ATE YOUR BOOK: One aspect of yesterday’s discussion of the, if not censorship at least apparent, reticence on the part of Borders book store to carry the book KPD Blue - and their slew of questionable excuses as to why they won’t- drew a phone call within moments of pushing the publish button.
It was librarian/councilmember Lani Kawahara at Kapa`a library calling with the news that, despite Sommer’s contention that “Hawaii public libraries are ignoring the book as well”, she had ordered and received copies for the Kapa`a library- where there is a waiting list of seven people as of yesterday- and facilitated getting copies over to Koloa and other libraries on Kaua`i.
David Thorpe at the Koloa Branch conformed that and told us that
When (Lani) received it she sent it to our Cataloging Section in Honolulu for original cataloging. That process does take a little while, but it is the only way to enable to book to be circulated by the Hawaii State Public Library System. When there seemed to be a growing interest in the book (as evidenced by an GI editorial by Walter Lewis last week), I asked the Friends of Koloa Library to order 2 copies for each branch on Kauai. The order came in today and the books have been sent out to the branches. The books should be available for borrowing soon.
But more importantly we understand there is a new and final reason why Borders will not be carrying KPD Blue- they apparently can’t get a decent wholesale price.
We finally got a call from Borders manager Helaine Perel who told us that despite what the publisher had told author Anthony Sommer book stores cannot apparently get a decent wholesale price from the distributor and would not only have to take the books on a “no-return” basis but would only get a 5% discount off retail and have to pay for shipping.
“In no way did I ever try to keep the book out of the store. It’s completely mercenary- we just couldn’t make any money on it” said Perel.
Sommer said in a phone call today that he can get them at a reasonable wholesale price but it would take 90 days or more because “it’s the holiday season” as the publisher warned him months ago. Even then Borders would have to pay for them up front, which he says Perel told him would take her 90 days clear.
Perel confirmed that and said she could order them from Sommer now with a credit card but Sommer says he’s certainly not set up to do that.
“Print on demand is a bad way to go for writers- there’s just too many problems” for the anyone who also want their book in book stores in addition to on-line orders. Perel added
Interestingly Perel said she spoke to former councilmember and mayoral candidate Mel Rapozo about the book and his role in it and the “lap dancing at the station house” episode the book begins with “
“You probably lost the election because of the book” she told him,
“You’re probably right” he said.
Nothing was mentioned about how his actions had allowed Sommer to detail them in the book in the first place.... seems as usual in politics it’s getting caught that ruins everything.
“I would have loved to sell it- I could have sold a thousand copes but it would have cost more than I would have made on each book” she said.
Sommer said he’s satisfied with Perel’s explanation. Whether Borders will or won’t get them in is anyone’s guess.
---------------
To update and correct our projection last month of how the newly passed citizen’s charter amendment giving “teeth” to the general plan will effect the Planning Department’s processing of tourism accommodation projects, it seems that actually charter amendments don’t take effect until 30 days after they are passed according to the charter, as opposed to “immediately upon passage” as we reported.
And that would make tomorrow’s meeting of the Planning Commission the first where an illegal approval might take place.
According to Juan Wilson piece at his Island Breath web site
Well, those pesky developers continue to plague south Kauai. They have not dried up and blown away in the wind with all that phony money.
In fact they threaten another attack.
Two items come up before the County Planning Commission tomorrow. Both should be turned down. Kauai needs your voice there to help make that happen.
First is final approval for The Knudsen Trust (read Stacey Wong and lawyer Walter Hong) are going for a final approval on plans for Phase One of the Village at Poipu subdivision.
This, as you may know, is planned to stretch from Poipu to Koloa and displace and destroy much of the most significant Hawaiian settlement remaining on Kauai, or anywhere else. Knudsen Trust has not gotten a sign-off on this project from the State on this.
Whether anyone will raise the issue as to the jurisdiction of the planning commission in approving the project is anyone’s guess but what is apparent is that according to the county charter the county council, not the commission, is the only entity that has that power at present.
The meeting is scheduled for 8 a.m. at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A-2B
It was librarian/councilmember Lani Kawahara at Kapa`a library calling with the news that, despite Sommer’s contention that “Hawaii public libraries are ignoring the book as well”, she had ordered and received copies for the Kapa`a library- where there is a waiting list of seven people as of yesterday- and facilitated getting copies over to Koloa and other libraries on Kaua`i.
David Thorpe at the Koloa Branch conformed that and told us that
When (Lani) received it she sent it to our Cataloging Section in Honolulu for original cataloging. That process does take a little while, but it is the only way to enable to book to be circulated by the Hawaii State Public Library System. When there seemed to be a growing interest in the book (as evidenced by an GI editorial by Walter Lewis last week), I asked the Friends of Koloa Library to order 2 copies for each branch on Kauai. The order came in today and the books have been sent out to the branches. The books should be available for borrowing soon.
But more importantly we understand there is a new and final reason why Borders will not be carrying KPD Blue- they apparently can’t get a decent wholesale price.
We finally got a call from Borders manager Helaine Perel who told us that despite what the publisher had told author Anthony Sommer book stores cannot apparently get a decent wholesale price from the distributor and would not only have to take the books on a “no-return” basis but would only get a 5% discount off retail and have to pay for shipping.
“In no way did I ever try to keep the book out of the store. It’s completely mercenary- we just couldn’t make any money on it” said Perel.
Sommer said in a phone call today that he can get them at a reasonable wholesale price but it would take 90 days or more because “it’s the holiday season” as the publisher warned him months ago. Even then Borders would have to pay for them up front, which he says Perel told him would take her 90 days clear.
Perel confirmed that and said she could order them from Sommer now with a credit card but Sommer says he’s certainly not set up to do that.
“Print on demand is a bad way to go for writers- there’s just too many problems” for the anyone who also want their book in book stores in addition to on-line orders. Perel added
Interestingly Perel said she spoke to former councilmember and mayoral candidate Mel Rapozo about the book and his role in it and the “lap dancing at the station house” episode the book begins with “
“You probably lost the election because of the book” she told him,
“You’re probably right” he said.
Nothing was mentioned about how his actions had allowed Sommer to detail them in the book in the first place.... seems as usual in politics it’s getting caught that ruins everything.
“I would have loved to sell it- I could have sold a thousand copes but it would have cost more than I would have made on each book” she said.
Sommer said he’s satisfied with Perel’s explanation. Whether Borders will or won’t get them in is anyone’s guess.
---------------
To update and correct our projection last month of how the newly passed citizen’s charter amendment giving “teeth” to the general plan will effect the Planning Department’s processing of tourism accommodation projects, it seems that actually charter amendments don’t take effect until 30 days after they are passed according to the charter, as opposed to “immediately upon passage” as we reported.
And that would make tomorrow’s meeting of the Planning Commission the first where an illegal approval might take place.
According to Juan Wilson piece at his Island Breath web site
Well, those pesky developers continue to plague south Kauai. They have not dried up and blown away in the wind with all that phony money.
In fact they threaten another attack.
Two items come up before the County Planning Commission tomorrow. Both should be turned down. Kauai needs your voice there to help make that happen.
First is final approval for The Knudsen Trust (read Stacey Wong and lawyer Walter Hong) are going for a final approval on plans for Phase One of the Village at Poipu subdivision.
This, as you may know, is planned to stretch from Poipu to Koloa and displace and destroy much of the most significant Hawaiian settlement remaining on Kauai, or anywhere else. Knudsen Trust has not gotten a sign-off on this project from the State on this.
Whether anyone will raise the issue as to the jurisdiction of the planning commission in approving the project is anyone’s guess but what is apparent is that according to the county charter the county council, not the commission, is the only entity that has that power at present.
The meeting is scheduled for 8 a.m. at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A-2B
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
FROM THE DOG’S MOUTH/ AIN’T THAT DOG DEAD YET?
FROM THE DOG’S MOUTH: “Everybody knows me as ‘Mr. Wala`au’”.
That’s what county council candidate Dickie Chang told PNN in an exclusive interview this morning in discussing why his name appears on the November ballot with the “trademarked” name of his business listed as a nickname.
The television host of the Wala`au television program said “it’s just like ‘Kaipo’ Asing“
“He’s Bill ‘Kaipo’ Asing. I’m Dickie ‘Wala`au’ Chang. All the kids call me Wala`au” he said in defending why he included it on the ballot.
Chang said “it wasn’t my idea- I wasn’t the one who said how to put my name on the ballot”, although he declined to say who did.
“I just filled out all the papers they told me to” at the elections office, he said.
Administrative Rules (HAR) §2-52-4 say that:
If a candidate seeks to have a name other than the candidate's legal name, its commonly recognized equivalent, or maiden name, appear on the ballot, the candidate, at the time of filing nomination papers shall also file a notarized affidavit in which the candidate attests to the fact that the name to appear on the ballot is the name by which the candidate is most commonly known throughout the district from which the candidate seeks election.
Slogans shall not be printed on the ballot.
And when told of the rule Chang asserted that is exactly what his listing does- list the nickname by which he is most commonly known on the island.
“I never thought it was wrong” Chang said via telephone saying he “can’t remember” being told of the specifics of the law.
“I signed and notarized whatever they told me to” he said.
As to what exactly he signed and notarized we still, as we reported yesterday, cannot get an answer out of County Clerk Peter Nakamura who again was “not in his office” whenever we called again today.
We did leave a detailed message with Nakamura’s council services staff requesting inspection and/or a copy of any sworn notarized affidavit Chang filed pertaining to the listing of his name on the ballot.
The head of Kaua`i elections, Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion who would normally handle such requests, has referred PNN and others who have inquired to his boss Nakamura.
Chang says wherever he goes people call him “Wala`au” so he never thought twice about it being not just the name of his business but his nickname as well, adding that he commonly refers to himself as “Mr. Wala`au” on his long-running, popular, local television program.
PNN has received inquires from more than a dozen people over the past two months as to the ballot listing, of whom three told us they had made inquires with the county but had been either ignored or rebuffed with unreturned phone calls.
--------------
AIN’T THAT DOG DEAD YET?: And since that horse “no stay make already yet” we were again astonished that after yesterday’s excoriation of Juan Wilson’s “no critical reading necessary” bungling of his endorsement of a charter amendment to ease conflict of interest recusal rules in county government, he has not just refused to read it correctly but found another way to mis-read it.
.
In a posting yesterday at his Island Breath web site he writes
COUNTY PROPOSAL NO. 4
RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
Shall an elected or appointed officer or employee, or member of a board or commission not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them where the member or any member of his immediate family has a personal financial interest?
Island Breath recommendation-- Vote YES
This is a simple conflict of interest issue that has been deceptively worded to require a YES vote to be against conflicts of interest.
As we tried to tell Wilson, the law as it appears now- and as is listed in the “material to be deleted” at the county’s web site– already requires subject individuals to “not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them”
The underlining of “not” was Wilson’s emphasis, not the county’s but apparently indicates that he thinks this is a trick wording, making it some kind of double negative.
But in fact the “trick” is that the description contained in the question is one that perfectly depicts the current law.
As we detailed in a column last Wed.- where you can read both the portions of the charter to be deleted and added as well as our complete analysis- during the 2006 election the charter was changed to require that a conflict of interest would required conflicted individuals to recuse themselves from discussing and voting upon the matter in question.
The current proposal keeps the recusal provisions but seeks to water that down by circumscribing a limited set of what constitutes a conflict- proposing to change the definition that has been in the Charter since it’s inception.
The definitions never bothered councilpersons in the past since all they had to do was “declare” a conflict of interest and then do nothing about it. Not only that but the de facto method of doing that was to simply send a “communication” to the council “informing” them of the conflict..
But those were not “communications for approval” but to “inform” the council. This meant that when the communication regarding the potential conflict came up for discussion at the council meetings the communications were “received for the record” along with a weekly laundry list of “communications for receipt” and rarely if ever read aloud for the TV viewing public.
But once the new law required non-participation, all of a sudden it was “too severe” as councilpersons discussed and agreed upon unanimously this past summer.
Though the new law keeps the recusal provisions it restricts conflicts to those who are certain officers of a company or organization and restricts subject family members to only certain ones and not others.
This means that under current law, for instance, a councilperson’s sister-in-law who works as a manager at Grove Farm would not cause a conflict under the proposed law if Grove Farm were applying for some resort zoning or some other slurp at the county trough. Her positions in both the family and the business would exclude her from causing a potential conflict of interest under the proposed charter amendment.
And for the record although, as we said yesterday, Walter Lewis’ column on this charter amendment said it “seem(s) to offer (a) reasonable reform” he also said “I do not have any firm recommendations as to the proposal... relating to disclosure of interests” which we did not report. We regret any confusion this might have caused.
That’s what county council candidate Dickie Chang told PNN in an exclusive interview this morning in discussing why his name appears on the November ballot with the “trademarked” name of his business listed as a nickname.
The television host of the Wala`au television program said “it’s just like ‘Kaipo’ Asing“
“He’s Bill ‘Kaipo’ Asing. I’m Dickie ‘Wala`au’ Chang. All the kids call me Wala`au” he said in defending why he included it on the ballot.
Chang said “it wasn’t my idea- I wasn’t the one who said how to put my name on the ballot”, although he declined to say who did.
“I just filled out all the papers they told me to” at the elections office, he said.
Administrative Rules (HAR) §2-52-4 say that:
If a candidate seeks to have a name other than the candidate's legal name, its commonly recognized equivalent, or maiden name, appear on the ballot, the candidate, at the time of filing nomination papers shall also file a notarized affidavit in which the candidate attests to the fact that the name to appear on the ballot is the name by which the candidate is most commonly known throughout the district from which the candidate seeks election.
Slogans shall not be printed on the ballot.
And when told of the rule Chang asserted that is exactly what his listing does- list the nickname by which he is most commonly known on the island.
“I never thought it was wrong” Chang said via telephone saying he “can’t remember” being told of the specifics of the law.
“I signed and notarized whatever they told me to” he said.
As to what exactly he signed and notarized we still, as we reported yesterday, cannot get an answer out of County Clerk Peter Nakamura who again was “not in his office” whenever we called again today.
We did leave a detailed message with Nakamura’s council services staff requesting inspection and/or a copy of any sworn notarized affidavit Chang filed pertaining to the listing of his name on the ballot.
The head of Kaua`i elections, Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion who would normally handle such requests, has referred PNN and others who have inquired to his boss Nakamura.
Chang says wherever he goes people call him “Wala`au” so he never thought twice about it being not just the name of his business but his nickname as well, adding that he commonly refers to himself as “Mr. Wala`au” on his long-running, popular, local television program.
PNN has received inquires from more than a dozen people over the past two months as to the ballot listing, of whom three told us they had made inquires with the county but had been either ignored or rebuffed with unreturned phone calls.
--------------
AIN’T THAT DOG DEAD YET?: And since that horse “no stay make already yet” we were again astonished that after yesterday’s excoriation of Juan Wilson’s “no critical reading necessary” bungling of his endorsement of a charter amendment to ease conflict of interest recusal rules in county government, he has not just refused to read it correctly but found another way to mis-read it.
.
In a posting yesterday at his Island Breath web site he writes
COUNTY PROPOSAL NO. 4
RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
Shall an elected or appointed officer or employee, or member of a board or commission not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them where the member or any member of his immediate family has a personal financial interest?
Island Breath recommendation-- Vote YES
This is a simple conflict of interest issue that has been deceptively worded to require a YES vote to be against conflicts of interest.
As we tried to tell Wilson, the law as it appears now- and as is listed in the “material to be deleted” at the county’s web site– already requires subject individuals to “not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them”
The underlining of “not” was Wilson’s emphasis, not the county’s but apparently indicates that he thinks this is a trick wording, making it some kind of double negative.
But in fact the “trick” is that the description contained in the question is one that perfectly depicts the current law.
As we detailed in a column last Wed.- where you can read both the portions of the charter to be deleted and added as well as our complete analysis- during the 2006 election the charter was changed to require that a conflict of interest would required conflicted individuals to recuse themselves from discussing and voting upon the matter in question.
The current proposal keeps the recusal provisions but seeks to water that down by circumscribing a limited set of what constitutes a conflict- proposing to change the definition that has been in the Charter since it’s inception.
The definitions never bothered councilpersons in the past since all they had to do was “declare” a conflict of interest and then do nothing about it. Not only that but the de facto method of doing that was to simply send a “communication” to the council “informing” them of the conflict..
But those were not “communications for approval” but to “inform” the council. This meant that when the communication regarding the potential conflict came up for discussion at the council meetings the communications were “received for the record” along with a weekly laundry list of “communications for receipt” and rarely if ever read aloud for the TV viewing public.
But once the new law required non-participation, all of a sudden it was “too severe” as councilpersons discussed and agreed upon unanimously this past summer.
Though the new law keeps the recusal provisions it restricts conflicts to those who are certain officers of a company or organization and restricts subject family members to only certain ones and not others.
This means that under current law, for instance, a councilperson’s sister-in-law who works as a manager at Grove Farm would not cause a conflict under the proposed law if Grove Farm were applying for some resort zoning or some other slurp at the county trough. Her positions in both the family and the business would exclude her from causing a potential conflict of interest under the proposed charter amendment.
And for the record although, as we said yesterday, Walter Lewis’ column on this charter amendment said it “seem(s) to offer (a) reasonable reform” he also said “I do not have any firm recommendations as to the proposal... relating to disclosure of interests” which we did not report. We regret any confusion this might have caused.
Monday, October 20, 2008
CHECK THEIR PERIGEES/DOGGEDLY DETERMINED
CHECK THEIR PERIGEES: Kaua`i has a distinct lack of government watchdogs.
While there are hundreds of- if not a thousand- community activists and advocates the number who follow the minutia of the machinations of our mayor and county council can be counted on our fingers with maybe a toe or two on an occasional basis.
Many rely on us to pull the curtain back and reveal the great and powerful wizard’s smoke and mirrors so when they err it can misinform a community.
But, as erring is human, all it takes is a “my bad” and a correction to send Dorothy back to Kansas safe and sound. No shame... unless the mistake remains uncorrected.
On Wednesday as part of our week long series of articles on this year’s proposed Kaua`i charter amendments, we detailed how a proposal that deceptively claims to institute stronger conflict of interest laws and require recusals- something the charter already does- actually waters them down and severely restricts the circumstances under which they would apply.
But two usually astute scrutinizers of Kaua`i government are apparently determined to remain pre-enlightenment scarecrows and are compounding their lack of critical information processing by refusing to re-read the amendment and let people know of their errors.
This week both Walter Lewis’ in his column this Saturday in the local newspaper and Juan Wilson of Island Breath in his recommendations made Oct. 12 appear to have been duped into endorsing the Charter Amendment that loosens conflicts of interest
The worst, if only for it’s visibility, is Walter Lewis’ “yes” recommendation. Though his analysis of the other four proposed amendments set for a vote on November 4 is spot on it’s obvious he gave this one short shrift
After reviewing the rest, almost as an afterthought Lewis wrote
“The two proposals offered by the County Council to require disclosure of conflicts and to establish an office for an auditor to review county operations, although inadequately described by the ballot questions, seem to offer reasonable reforms.”
Seem to offer “reasonable reforms”? The charter already requires “disclosure of conflicts”.
Lewis’ wording and conclusion make it apparent that he- an astute attorney who has led the fight for property tax caps and to enforce the county’s open meetings provisions in the infamous “3.07(e)”- never read the actual changes being proposed. Rather he took the word of the county clerk, even though, as he noted in his article, the clerk had misled people in the same manner in trying to repeal 3.07(e).
And Wilson too, although less prominently at his informative web site, asked for a “yes” vote after similarly analyzing the other proposals.
Apparently, with the same lack of critical reading of the actual changes in the conflict of interest proposal as Lewis exhibits, his “yes” recommendation indicates a quick insufficient perusal of the matter of, as he calls it, “no financial interests”
He wrote simply
Island Breath recommendation--
Vote YESThis looks like a simple conflict of interest issue.
Looks like? Looks like Wilson’s is exactly the kind of quick reading the council hoped for. We’re sure the lack of analysis is appreciated
This weekend we fully notified both Lewis and, more than once, Wilson and his co-Editor Jonathan Jay as to our reading from last Wed. and both have refused to respond and really read the deceptive way the proposal is presented to the public.
We need more people who keep an eye on the county, not less. But anyone who has watched the county council meetings this summer and fall knew about this “little turd”, as we called it and should have been on the lookout for it.
But even more important, government watchdogs must remain vigilant against the dirty tricks Kaua`i is famous for,. especially this council.
And perhaps most important of all, if you don’t know or didn’t do your homework at least don’t share your lack of acumen with others.
And if you do and you find out you made a mistake, when someone tells you about it correct it before people start voting, not after.
No telling how many saw these two recommendations and will trust the sources enough to vote for them. No telling how many would even see a retraction and correction.
But every day that goes by without rectification is a voting day for absentees. If the council gets away with this, we’ll know who’s in part responsible.
.----------
DOGGEDLY DETERMINED We’ve been on the phone all day trying to get a copy of county council candidate Dickie Chang’s affidavit that was required by law (as we reported Friday) in order to use anything but his legal name on the ballot which lists the name of his business, Wala`au, in parentheses after his name.
But not only have we not gotten a copy, we could not even get verification from elections chief and Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion that indeed an affidavit was filed.
Pasion, who has in the past found affidavits of election filing over the phone for us, refused to deny or confirm the existence of an affidavit.
He referred us to County Clerk Peter Nakamura who, though were told he was “in the building” has not returned multiple persistent phone calls as of press time.
While there are hundreds of- if not a thousand- community activists and advocates the number who follow the minutia of the machinations of our mayor and county council can be counted on our fingers with maybe a toe or two on an occasional basis.
Many rely on us to pull the curtain back and reveal the great and powerful wizard’s smoke and mirrors so when they err it can misinform a community.
But, as erring is human, all it takes is a “my bad” and a correction to send Dorothy back to Kansas safe and sound. No shame... unless the mistake remains uncorrected.
On Wednesday as part of our week long series of articles on this year’s proposed Kaua`i charter amendments, we detailed how a proposal that deceptively claims to institute stronger conflict of interest laws and require recusals- something the charter already does- actually waters them down and severely restricts the circumstances under which they would apply.
But two usually astute scrutinizers of Kaua`i government are apparently determined to remain pre-enlightenment scarecrows and are compounding their lack of critical information processing by refusing to re-read the amendment and let people know of their errors.
This week both Walter Lewis’ in his column this Saturday in the local newspaper and Juan Wilson of Island Breath in his recommendations made Oct. 12 appear to have been duped into endorsing the Charter Amendment that loosens conflicts of interest
The worst, if only for it’s visibility, is Walter Lewis’ “yes” recommendation. Though his analysis of the other four proposed amendments set for a vote on November 4 is spot on it’s obvious he gave this one short shrift
After reviewing the rest, almost as an afterthought Lewis wrote
“The two proposals offered by the County Council to require disclosure of conflicts and to establish an office for an auditor to review county operations, although inadequately described by the ballot questions, seem to offer reasonable reforms.”
Seem to offer “reasonable reforms”? The charter already requires “disclosure of conflicts”.
Lewis’ wording and conclusion make it apparent that he- an astute attorney who has led the fight for property tax caps and to enforce the county’s open meetings provisions in the infamous “3.07(e)”- never read the actual changes being proposed. Rather he took the word of the county clerk, even though, as he noted in his article, the clerk had misled people in the same manner in trying to repeal 3.07(e).
And Wilson too, although less prominently at his informative web site, asked for a “yes” vote after similarly analyzing the other proposals.
Apparently, with the same lack of critical reading of the actual changes in the conflict of interest proposal as Lewis exhibits, his “yes” recommendation indicates a quick insufficient perusal of the matter of, as he calls it, “no financial interests”
He wrote simply
Island Breath recommendation--
Vote YESThis looks like a simple conflict of interest issue.
Looks like? Looks like Wilson’s is exactly the kind of quick reading the council hoped for. We’re sure the lack of analysis is appreciated
This weekend we fully notified both Lewis and, more than once, Wilson and his co-Editor Jonathan Jay as to our reading from last Wed. and both have refused to respond and really read the deceptive way the proposal is presented to the public.
We need more people who keep an eye on the county, not less. But anyone who has watched the county council meetings this summer and fall knew about this “little turd”, as we called it and should have been on the lookout for it.
But even more important, government watchdogs must remain vigilant against the dirty tricks Kaua`i is famous for,. especially this council.
And perhaps most important of all, if you don’t know or didn’t do your homework at least don’t share your lack of acumen with others.
And if you do and you find out you made a mistake, when someone tells you about it correct it before people start voting, not after.
No telling how many saw these two recommendations and will trust the sources enough to vote for them. No telling how many would even see a retraction and correction.
But every day that goes by without rectification is a voting day for absentees. If the council gets away with this, we’ll know who’s in part responsible.
.----------
DOGGEDLY DETERMINED We’ve been on the phone all day trying to get a copy of county council candidate Dickie Chang’s affidavit that was required by law (as we reported Friday) in order to use anything but his legal name on the ballot which lists the name of his business, Wala`au, in parentheses after his name.
But not only have we not gotten a copy, we could not even get verification from elections chief and Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion that indeed an affidavit was filed.
Pasion, who has in the past found affidavits of election filing over the phone for us, refused to deny or confirm the existence of an affidavit.
He referred us to County Clerk Peter Nakamura who, though were told he was “in the building” has not returned multiple persistent phone calls as of press time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
