HOOSER MULLS CONGRESSIONAL RUN
(PNN) -- Aug 12 -- Former Kaua`i Senator Gary Hooser is considering a run for the US congressional 2nd district seat being vacated by Maize Hirono.
According to an email sent Friday to core friends and supporter Hooser said "I know in my heart that at some point, serving in public office is where I need to be. While the timing may be uncertain, my commitment is not. The 2nd Congressional District in the United States Congress is a path many have encouraged me to explore and one which I am seriously considering. I live in the District, have established networks on all islands and understand the unique challenges faced by rural communities."
Hooser is currently serving in the Abercrombie administration as Director of the Office of Environmental Quality Control.
He is expected to post his announcement on Facebook today and to the general public on Sunday.
Hooser, who started his political career as a councilmember on Kaua`i, rose to Senate Majority Leader before giving up his seat to unsuccessfully enter the lieutenant governor's race last year.
As to the reasons he has decided to test the waters and re-enter elective politics, Hooser wrote:
I can no longer merely watch from the sidelines as the “politics as usual” in Washington threatens the very fabric of our lives and the security of our democracy slips further and further every day.
As the financial debacle unfolds now in Washington and through-out the world, it is clear that Social Security, Medicare, education and the environment will soon be thrown beneath the bus under the guise of “fiscal responsibility”.Yes, we need to get our nation’s fiscal house in order, but that effort must be a balanced approach and include an end to the Bush tax cuts for the top 5%, a dramatic reduction in corporate entitlements, and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hooser's decision may rest on the support, especially financial, he receives. In the email he said:
I am committed to re-entering the political process and helping to lead our community forward. But to do so, I must have your help and your financial support. Whether it’s $25, $50, $100 or more – To begin anew down the path toward elective office, I must have your help today. Our campaign must raise $12,500 this month for existing obligations and an additional $25,000 to fund other expenses necessary to maintain an ongoing strong and credible campaign presence. Contributions can be sent to Friends of Gary Hooser, P.O. Box 4094, Honolulu HI 96812.
My final decision and future path depends in large part on your response to this letter. If you want me to run for public office and serve you again in that capacity, I need to know.
The field for the congressional seat thus far is thin with the only two announced candidates for the Democratic nomination being Honolulu City Councilwoman Tulsi Gabbard and Esther Kiaaina, former aide to ex-Congressman Ed Case and Senator Dan Akaka, although former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann's name has been mentioned as has former Lieutenant Governor Duke Aiona on the Republican side.
Hirono has announced she will run for the senate seat being vacated by the retiring Akaka
That would make Hooser the only progressive in the race so far for what is characterized by some as the most progressive district in the country. Hawai`i was recently named the most Democratic state in the country in a Gallup poll.
Hooser ran for the 2nd congressional district seat- which includes rural O`ahu and the neighbor islands- once before, losing to Hirono in a special election to replace Ed Case who resigned his seat to run against Akaka in 2006.
Hooser can be reached at 808-652-4279 or by emailing GaryLHooser@hotmail.com .
Showing posts with label Senator Gary Hooser. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator Gary Hooser. Show all posts
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
FEED YOUR HEAD
FEED YOUR HEAD: It never fails to amaze how may ways the Hawai`i state legislative system stinks.
It's bad enough when a great bill gets to a conference committee and collapses because no one can agree on a version. But it happens. And it's worse when the rules allow one graft-addled schmuck to kill it.
But of course the ultimate stomach-churner is the poison pill that comes out of nowhere to take a fine piece of legislation that has waited years for its day in the sun and turns it into a revolting piece of crap.
This years toxin-toting villainous vexation comes courteshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gify of Senator "Dr." Josh Green who has stolen the pilot program to establish medical marijuana distribution centers and is using it to kill virtually the whole medical marijuana program.
According to yesterday's Honolulu Star-Advertiser when Green got done with the bill:
(u)nder the pilot program proposed in Senate Bill 1458, medical marijuana prescriptions would be limited to patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, cancer, HIV, AIDS and/or glaucoma. It would establish a “compassion center” for distribution on an island where the Department of Health determines there is the greatest need, based on the number of prescriptions.
This bonehead Green thinks because he is an emergency room physician he can say who does and who doesn't need the medicine provided through marijuana despite the fact that he doesn't see chronic patients and has no idea what the medical value of marijuana is.
Admittedly there are only volumes of anecdotal evidence that marijuana treats pain better than opiates- which recently have been called out as the most abused drug in the country- and have allowed many to actually throw away their pills.
That's because research has been squelched by anachronistic, reefer-madness, anti-drug zealots who are way too afraid of allowing marijuana's medical value to be proven.
Green has taken it upon himself to alter the bill at this stage of the game after actually passing it out of his own committee without any restrictions on conditions for which a patient can receive a doctor's recommendation.
It would make Hawai`i the first state to restrict doctors from using their own medical judgment in cases of recommendations for medical marijuana.
We'd gotten spoiled the last few years with former Kaua`i Senator Gary Hooser serving as the Senate Majority Leader where he could make sure these types of bills got a fair shot. Same with former Kaua`i North Shore and Kapa`a Rep. Mina Morita in the house where energy and environmental bills were her kuleana.
If indeed the bill does get to the floor in its current form, the only thing left for proponents is to ask senators and representatives to kill the bill or attempt a rare almost unheard of amendment removing Green's amendment from the bill.
You can write all senators at sens@capitol.hawaii.gov and reps at reps@capitol.hawaii.gov and ask them to maintain the pilot program without stripping the medical marijuana program and restricting physicians' ability to make medical decisions for their patients.
It's bad enough when a great bill gets to a conference committee and collapses because no one can agree on a version. But it happens. And it's worse when the rules allow one graft-addled schmuck to kill it.
But of course the ultimate stomach-churner is the poison pill that comes out of nowhere to take a fine piece of legislation that has waited years for its day in the sun and turns it into a revolting piece of crap.
This years toxin-toting villainous vexation comes courteshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gify of Senator "Dr." Josh Green who has stolen the pilot program to establish medical marijuana distribution centers and is using it to kill virtually the whole medical marijuana program.
According to yesterday's Honolulu Star-Advertiser when Green got done with the bill:
(u)nder the pilot program proposed in Senate Bill 1458, medical marijuana prescriptions would be limited to patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, cancer, HIV, AIDS and/or glaucoma. It would establish a “compassion center” for distribution on an island where the Department of Health determines there is the greatest need, based on the number of prescriptions.
This bonehead Green thinks because he is an emergency room physician he can say who does and who doesn't need the medicine provided through marijuana despite the fact that he doesn't see chronic patients and has no idea what the medical value of marijuana is.
Admittedly there are only volumes of anecdotal evidence that marijuana treats pain better than opiates- which recently have been called out as the most abused drug in the country- and have allowed many to actually throw away their pills.
That's because research has been squelched by anachronistic, reefer-madness, anti-drug zealots who are way too afraid of allowing marijuana's medical value to be proven.
Green has taken it upon himself to alter the bill at this stage of the game after actually passing it out of his own committee without any restrictions on conditions for which a patient can receive a doctor's recommendation.
It would make Hawai`i the first state to restrict doctors from using their own medical judgment in cases of recommendations for medical marijuana.
We'd gotten spoiled the last few years with former Kaua`i Senator Gary Hooser serving as the Senate Majority Leader where he could make sure these types of bills got a fair shot. Same with former Kaua`i North Shore and Kapa`a Rep. Mina Morita in the house where energy and environmental bills were her kuleana.
If indeed the bill does get to the floor in its current form, the only thing left for proponents is to ask senators and representatives to kill the bill or attempt a rare almost unheard of amendment removing Green's amendment from the bill.
You can write all senators at sens@capitol.hawaii.gov and reps at reps@capitol.hawaii.gov and ask them to maintain the pilot program without stripping the medical marijuana program and restricting physicians' ability to make medical decisions for their patients.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
UNDER FURTHER REVIEW
UNDER FURTHER REVIEW: Our, shall we say, less than enthusiastic “endorsement” of now Governor-elect Neil Abercrombie was partially based on years of disappointment in the appointments of appointed appointees.
Though those of the departing Republican Governor Linda “Ding-a” Lingle were particularly egregious we’ve watched equally in horror at most of the democratic governors’ department heads, especially those at the helm of the all powerful position of the head of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).
And though we saw the petition effort to see former Kaua`i State Senator Gary Hooser appointed DLNR director as a nice thought but doomed to failure, we couldn’t believe our ears last night when we heard that Waianae harbormaster and environmental and kanaka activist Bill Aila will be in charge of the many-tentacled department- if he’s confirmed by the state senate.
Laura Thielen, the current DLNR Director- who also sits as Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) where most of the nitty gritty decisions effecting the future of “land and power in Hawai`i” are made- has been an unmitigated disaster. Under her mismanagement developers have received rubber stamps from republican appointees to the Board like developer’s friend Ron Agor, our Kaua`i Rep.
Aila, a former Sierra Club Executive Committee member who ran for governor in 2006 will have a chance to, among other things, fix the broken State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) which has bungled the treatment of `iwi kupuna (burials), kill the planned commercialization of Koke`e and stop the onslaught of state redistricting of agricultural lands that are now required under the Judge Ibarra Hokulia ruling ending de facto resorts on ag lands.
For the uninitiated, Hawai`i has two levels of approval for land classification. While the county “zones” land in classifications like agricultural, rural, open, urban and resort, laid on top of that is a template of state “districting” which classifies land in the four basic categories that dictate county zoning.
While in law zoning is supposed to follow districting the practice has been to have counties approve zoning and the state follow suit with redistricting. But sometimes the applicants have been afraid of rejection by the DLNR-chief-chaired Land Use Commission (LUC) for redistricting so they just don’t apply once they have “bought” county approval, especially in the case of ag lands that have been cut up into high-priced “gentleman farmers' estates”.
But recently, because of the Ibarra ruling which said “no- you can’t do that anymore,” projects have been going before the LUC before the counties get to rubber stamp these projects.
We’re used to being disappointed and will certainly be watching and holding Aila’s feet to the fire- just as we would have done were Gary to have been appointed. But with Aila at the head of the table it might just be possible to do things like stop the theft of access at Lepe`uli or reverse the theft and sale of Koke`e cabin leases to the highest bidder.
We’ve seen the position corrupt people with good intentions before. But then we’ve never started from this kind of “advantage: environment” arrangement before.
We aren’t exactly ready to break out the rose colored glasses but we can’t imagine anyone better in the seat from which springs all clout in the islands.
Though those of the departing Republican Governor Linda “Ding-a” Lingle were particularly egregious we’ve watched equally in horror at most of the democratic governors’ department heads, especially those at the helm of the all powerful position of the head of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).
And though we saw the petition effort to see former Kaua`i State Senator Gary Hooser appointed DLNR director as a nice thought but doomed to failure, we couldn’t believe our ears last night when we heard that Waianae harbormaster and environmental and kanaka activist Bill Aila will be in charge of the many-tentacled department- if he’s confirmed by the state senate.
Laura Thielen, the current DLNR Director- who also sits as Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) where most of the nitty gritty decisions effecting the future of “land and power in Hawai`i” are made- has been an unmitigated disaster. Under her mismanagement developers have received rubber stamps from republican appointees to the Board like developer’s friend Ron Agor, our Kaua`i Rep.
Aila, a former Sierra Club Executive Committee member who ran for governor in 2006 will have a chance to, among other things, fix the broken State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) which has bungled the treatment of `iwi kupuna (burials), kill the planned commercialization of Koke`e and stop the onslaught of state redistricting of agricultural lands that are now required under the Judge Ibarra Hokulia ruling ending de facto resorts on ag lands.
For the uninitiated, Hawai`i has two levels of approval for land classification. While the county “zones” land in classifications like agricultural, rural, open, urban and resort, laid on top of that is a template of state “districting” which classifies land in the four basic categories that dictate county zoning.
While in law zoning is supposed to follow districting the practice has been to have counties approve zoning and the state follow suit with redistricting. But sometimes the applicants have been afraid of rejection by the DLNR-chief-chaired Land Use Commission (LUC) for redistricting so they just don’t apply once they have “bought” county approval, especially in the case of ag lands that have been cut up into high-priced “gentleman farmers' estates”.
But recently, because of the Ibarra ruling which said “no- you can’t do that anymore,” projects have been going before the LUC before the counties get to rubber stamp these projects.
We’re used to being disappointed and will certainly be watching and holding Aila’s feet to the fire- just as we would have done were Gary to have been appointed. But with Aila at the head of the table it might just be possible to do things like stop the theft of access at Lepe`uli or reverse the theft and sale of Koke`e cabin leases to the highest bidder.
We’ve seen the position corrupt people with good intentions before. But then we’ve never started from this kind of “advantage: environment” arrangement before.
We aren’t exactly ready to break out the rose colored glasses but we can’t imagine anyone better in the seat from which springs all clout in the islands.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
DON’T FENCE ME IN
DON’T FENCE ME IN: Things are heating up at Lepeuli (Larsen’s) Beach with a showdown apparently scheduled for Saturday when board members of the Waioli Corporation are planning a site visit coinciding with a Sierra Club “beach cleanup”.
Also, lessee Bruce Laymon has apparently gone off the deep end this week and is engaging in terroristic threatening with hate crime overtones according to a letter from activist Richard Spacer addressed to Senator Gary Hooser and Councilperson Lani Kawahara which we’ve obtained.
Though we haven’t confirmed the truth of matter one way or the other Spacer’s letter includes another letter from someone identified as “Dennis” detailing Laymon’s actions last Saturday.
Spacer writes:
Dear Lani and Senator Hooser:
And this came in to me today too.
This visitor to our island was at Larsen's about 2 hours earlier than me, today, Saturday March 6.
I have concealed his last name and email for privacy, but I encouraged him to go public and to contact you and other organizations and officials about this incident. This is unacceptable and charges need to be filed. Many jurisdictions would consider this a hate crime and terroristic threatening. Bruce Laymon is out of control. How long is this clearing by machine going to be allowed by DLNR? Today is the 4th day that I know about. Accusing a 50 year old visitor of breaking farm/landscaping equipment deep inside a property the guy is unfamiliar with except for the beach and lateral trail?! Writing letters that are lies? How can Laymon accuse him of writing letters if he does not even know the guys name??!! This is sooooo stupid.
Dennis writes:
This morning about 9:30 am and was on the lateral trail where the trail becomes a road.
A man who identified himself as Bruce Laymon got out of a dump truck and confronted me.
He said " you are on private property and you know it, I am going to take your picture and the next time we see you on our property we will have you arrested". He was agitated, threatening and confrontational. He did not take my picture at this time but did yell at some workers to remember me if I came back on their property.
He accused me of being part of the group vandalizing his equipment and taking pictures and stirring up trouble. I had no idea about the damage to the equipment until the afternoon when I got the newspaper and saw todays story.
I did not respond aggresively but did ask him several times if he really was B.L. I had no idea who he was other than his word.
I then got off the lateral trail and went down on the beach and walked to the picnic table on the north end.
A little while later I walked back down south on the beach a hundred yards or so and was talking to 2 guys I see there alot.
We were on the sand not too far from the grass line. The guy who said he was Bruce Laymon came down on to the sand and starting yelling at me again. He took my picture with a disposable camera and asked me for my name. When I smiled for the picture he said, "you better watch out, you think this is funny." He was yelling about how he was going to have 50 hawaiians down here next week and they were going to take the beach back. "You watch and see, we will run you haoli's out of here. That's all you fucking haoli's do is come down here, get naked, and leave all kinds of shit back here in woods." He also yelled about how his entire crew was family and that's why they were doing this work, to reclaim the beach for their family and the hawaiians.
I tried to calm him down and talk to him but he was having none of that. He kept accusing me of stirring up trouble. He also said that I was spreading lies through the newspaper.
Nice aloha spirit,
dennis (all sic)
We’ve are also in possession of a letter from Waioli Corporation’s attorney Don Wilson who is apprehensive about the coinciding Sierra Club activity and the board members’ visit, and implies that no matter what anyone does these days they are trespassing if they try to go to the beach at Lepeuli.
We haven’t confirmed the letter is from Wilson but we have no reason not to trust our source.
Wilson writes, in part:
(T)he Sierra Club has apparently scheduled a beach walk and trash clean-up at Larsen's Beach for this Saturday. I just found out about it this afternoon. As I mentioned in my last letter we have a Waioli Board of Trustees tour also scheduled for Saturday and I don't want there to be any conflict or problem with both events happening simultaneously. I'm told that the Sierra Club hasn't yet set a specific time for its event so I don't know for certain that there will be a scheduling conflict but I want to be cautious and to not inadvertently have an uncomfortable situation set up for anyone. Also, I don't know precisely where the Sierra Club is planning on conducting its beach walk. If they intend on using the lateral trail that is on Waioli's property instead of either the County-owned trail (doubtful) or the other existing trial that is not affected by the proposed fencing project and that is on Waioli property then we would have a concern about that. Given recent events and just as a general rule I don't want this to escalate into something that can be avoided and I certainly welcome the Club's beach walk and trash clean-up if it is limited to public property and is not being used as a way to exercise any control over the private property, is being conducted on the basis of a claimed legal right that is disputed by my client, or simply to prove a point. I don't assume that such is the intent but I just don't know exactly what they are planning.
If it's okay with you and if I find out anything further that indicates there may be an issue with simultaneous events or with what we consider to be trespassing (with the acknowledgment that you may not agree with that conclusion), and based on your comments below, I'll contact Sierra Club directly. I will be polite and respectful in any communication I have, and as I mentioned above I think it is a very good thing that they are doing if it is limited to the publicly-owned beach. I don't plan on any phone or other verbal communications about this and the last thing I want is for a controversy to erupt.
Although it sounds like things have already “erupted”, what with Laymon going on his “naked hippie patrols” after the alleged “vandalism” of his tractor- which some believe was self-inflicted to create sympathy although there is no evidence either way- Saturday’s showdown at the Waioli/Laymon Corral promises to be anything but a walk on the beach.
---------
We’ll be taking a long weekend- see ya Monday.
Also, lessee Bruce Laymon has apparently gone off the deep end this week and is engaging in terroristic threatening with hate crime overtones according to a letter from activist Richard Spacer addressed to Senator Gary Hooser and Councilperson Lani Kawahara which we’ve obtained.
Though we haven’t confirmed the truth of matter one way or the other Spacer’s letter includes another letter from someone identified as “Dennis” detailing Laymon’s actions last Saturday.
Spacer writes:
Dear Lani and Senator Hooser:
And this came in to me today too.
This visitor to our island was at Larsen's about 2 hours earlier than me, today, Saturday March 6.
I have concealed his last name and email for privacy, but I encouraged him to go public and to contact you and other organizations and officials about this incident. This is unacceptable and charges need to be filed. Many jurisdictions would consider this a hate crime and terroristic threatening. Bruce Laymon is out of control. How long is this clearing by machine going to be allowed by DLNR? Today is the 4th day that I know about. Accusing a 50 year old visitor of breaking farm/landscaping equipment deep inside a property the guy is unfamiliar with except for the beach and lateral trail?! Writing letters that are lies? How can Laymon accuse him of writing letters if he does not even know the guys name??!! This is sooooo stupid.
Dennis writes:
This morning about 9:30 am and was on the lateral trail where the trail becomes a road.
A man who identified himself as Bruce Laymon got out of a dump truck and confronted me.
He said " you are on private property and you know it, I am going to take your picture and the next time we see you on our property we will have you arrested". He was agitated, threatening and confrontational. He did not take my picture at this time but did yell at some workers to remember me if I came back on their property.
He accused me of being part of the group vandalizing his equipment and taking pictures and stirring up trouble. I had no idea about the damage to the equipment until the afternoon when I got the newspaper and saw todays story.
I did not respond aggresively but did ask him several times if he really was B.L. I had no idea who he was other than his word.
I then got off the lateral trail and went down on the beach and walked to the picnic table on the north end.
A little while later I walked back down south on the beach a hundred yards or so and was talking to 2 guys I see there alot.
We were on the sand not too far from the grass line. The guy who said he was Bruce Laymon came down on to the sand and starting yelling at me again. He took my picture with a disposable camera and asked me for my name. When I smiled for the picture he said, "you better watch out, you think this is funny." He was yelling about how he was going to have 50 hawaiians down here next week and they were going to take the beach back. "You watch and see, we will run you haoli's out of here. That's all you fucking haoli's do is come down here, get naked, and leave all kinds of shit back here in woods." He also yelled about how his entire crew was family and that's why they were doing this work, to reclaim the beach for their family and the hawaiians.
I tried to calm him down and talk to him but he was having none of that. He kept accusing me of stirring up trouble. He also said that I was spreading lies through the newspaper.
Nice aloha spirit,
dennis (all sic)
We’ve are also in possession of a letter from Waioli Corporation’s attorney Don Wilson who is apprehensive about the coinciding Sierra Club activity and the board members’ visit, and implies that no matter what anyone does these days they are trespassing if they try to go to the beach at Lepeuli.
We haven’t confirmed the letter is from Wilson but we have no reason not to trust our source.
Wilson writes, in part:
(T)he Sierra Club has apparently scheduled a beach walk and trash clean-up at Larsen's Beach for this Saturday. I just found out about it this afternoon. As I mentioned in my last letter we have a Waioli Board of Trustees tour also scheduled for Saturday and I don't want there to be any conflict or problem with both events happening simultaneously. I'm told that the Sierra Club hasn't yet set a specific time for its event so I don't know for certain that there will be a scheduling conflict but I want to be cautious and to not inadvertently have an uncomfortable situation set up for anyone. Also, I don't know precisely where the Sierra Club is planning on conducting its beach walk. If they intend on using the lateral trail that is on Waioli's property instead of either the County-owned trail (doubtful) or the other existing trial that is not affected by the proposed fencing project and that is on Waioli property then we would have a concern about that. Given recent events and just as a general rule I don't want this to escalate into something that can be avoided and I certainly welcome the Club's beach walk and trash clean-up if it is limited to public property and is not being used as a way to exercise any control over the private property, is being conducted on the basis of a claimed legal right that is disputed by my client, or simply to prove a point. I don't assume that such is the intent but I just don't know exactly what they are planning.
If it's okay with you and if I find out anything further that indicates there may be an issue with simultaneous events or with what we consider to be trespassing (with the acknowledgment that you may not agree with that conclusion), and based on your comments below, I'll contact Sierra Club directly. I will be polite and respectful in any communication I have, and as I mentioned above I think it is a very good thing that they are doing if it is limited to the publicly-owned beach. I don't plan on any phone or other verbal communications about this and the last thing I want is for a controversy to erupt.
Although it sounds like things have already “erupted”, what with Laymon going on his “naked hippie patrols” after the alleged “vandalism” of his tractor- which some believe was self-inflicted to create sympathy although there is no evidence either way- Saturday’s showdown at the Waioli/Laymon Corral promises to be anything but a walk on the beach.
---------
We’ll be taking a long weekend- see ya Monday.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
ON MONKEYS AND WEASELS
ON MONKEYS AND WEASELS: The music is playing and to no one’s surprise one of the oldest if not the goodest of boys Ron Kouchi has publicly announced he is circling the state senate seat being vacated by Gary Hooser, who is running for lieutenant governor.
Despite what many might think long time Councilmember and sometimes Chair Kouchi is anything but a shoo-in after his recent identity crisis blew up in his face when he lost his first council election after one term that followed a hiatus when he lost his first race ever to Bryan Baptiste in 2002 when the “developer’s best friend” suddenly attempted a chameleon-like rebirth as a slow growth, environmental champion- in an unsuccessful attempt to end the Republican reign of Maryanne Kusaka.
Kouchi lost the mayor’s race because, despite the utter disgust with Baptiste among much of the populace his attempt to corral the “JoAnn Yukimura vote”- while she was absent from the political scene following her mayoral loss in 1994- was greeted with more than cynicism and derision when many kept their promises to themselves to never vote for Kouchi, who was the main thorn in the side of Yukimura during her six year administration.
The result is that Kouchi’s mostly local base of support now sees him of something of a traitor and opportunist who abandoned them for the “haole vote” while the controlled-growth crowd had their suspicions of his intent confirmed when he went to work for the developers of whatever-the-heck they’re calling the Westin these days after his mayoral race loss.
There his crowning achievement was bamboozling the council into giving up massive development rights to the area above Nawiliwili in exchange for the donation of a “park” along the coastline, giving up only an area that was a tax liability that could never have been built upon and yielding a county run- and taxpayer maintained- amenity for the patrons of the development.
Kouchi learned this ploy during the Trojan horse “gift” of the Kealia to Kuna Bay (donkey beach) area by Kealia Kai developer Tom McCloskey.
Because areas by the beach are generally in the state conservation district they are a two sided sword for developers these days. Though they are desirable areas for those patronizing an ocean front property they are not only undevelopable without a severe setback- out of the conservation district- but the property taxes on conservation land are the highest of all.
That plus “recent” (over the past 20 years) legislation requiring pubic access – including lateral access- leads to a great expense for a developer- a virtual public park on their private property which they must not only pay to build but pay to maintain.
McCloskey came up with the idea of the gift horse of the ocean front land to the county- along with restrictions that would have turned it into a county owned and run private beach with severely restricted access- and it was only the mouth examination of then councilperson Gary Hooser (over the objections of then councilperson Bryan Baptiste) that put a stop to a quick, first blanch approval making sure access would be maintained.
That was the time when, as public outrage over the restrictions grew so did the idea of “the bike path”. Kusaka- whose support of McCloskey was similar to that of Jimmy Pflueger in terms of the “hands off” directive to Public Works Department personnel- came up with the plan and convinced the none too swift Baptiste to accept the land to serve as “matching funds” for federal transportation bike path money sitting untouched in the state highways division coffers.
Few really understood the true motivation behind McCloskey’s gift at the time but it was not lost on Kouchi who used the same gift ploy to earn his big bucks for the Nawiliwili developer in obtaining massive, previously-denied development rights in a win-win for the developer and a lose-lose for the county which would have had a virtual public park with no development rights if they would have refused the “gift”.
Kouchi’s public announcement comes at a time when his notorious “war chest” is down to $725.01 according to his recent Supplemental (July 1 - December 31, 2009) filing for the 2008-2010 period which shows he somehow spent $3,552.54 since the last election.
His early announcement is quite obviously designed to scare off competition, depending on his reputation as a prodigious cash producer in the past.
And his actions over the past eight years portend well for his continuing to lead the money race for the Senate seat.
Despite what many might think long time Councilmember and sometimes Chair Kouchi is anything but a shoo-in after his recent identity crisis blew up in his face when he lost his first council election after one term that followed a hiatus when he lost his first race ever to Bryan Baptiste in 2002 when the “developer’s best friend” suddenly attempted a chameleon-like rebirth as a slow growth, environmental champion- in an unsuccessful attempt to end the Republican reign of Maryanne Kusaka.
Kouchi lost the mayor’s race because, despite the utter disgust with Baptiste among much of the populace his attempt to corral the “JoAnn Yukimura vote”- while she was absent from the political scene following her mayoral loss in 1994- was greeted with more than cynicism and derision when many kept their promises to themselves to never vote for Kouchi, who was the main thorn in the side of Yukimura during her six year administration.
The result is that Kouchi’s mostly local base of support now sees him of something of a traitor and opportunist who abandoned them for the “haole vote” while the controlled-growth crowd had their suspicions of his intent confirmed when he went to work for the developers of whatever-the-heck they’re calling the Westin these days after his mayoral race loss.
There his crowning achievement was bamboozling the council into giving up massive development rights to the area above Nawiliwili in exchange for the donation of a “park” along the coastline, giving up only an area that was a tax liability that could never have been built upon and yielding a county run- and taxpayer maintained- amenity for the patrons of the development.
Kouchi learned this ploy during the Trojan horse “gift” of the Kealia to Kuna Bay (donkey beach) area by Kealia Kai developer Tom McCloskey.
Because areas by the beach are generally in the state conservation district they are a two sided sword for developers these days. Though they are desirable areas for those patronizing an ocean front property they are not only undevelopable without a severe setback- out of the conservation district- but the property taxes on conservation land are the highest of all.
That plus “recent” (over the past 20 years) legislation requiring pubic access – including lateral access- leads to a great expense for a developer- a virtual public park on their private property which they must not only pay to build but pay to maintain.
McCloskey came up with the idea of the gift horse of the ocean front land to the county- along with restrictions that would have turned it into a county owned and run private beach with severely restricted access- and it was only the mouth examination of then councilperson Gary Hooser (over the objections of then councilperson Bryan Baptiste) that put a stop to a quick, first blanch approval making sure access would be maintained.
That was the time when, as public outrage over the restrictions grew so did the idea of “the bike path”. Kusaka- whose support of McCloskey was similar to that of Jimmy Pflueger in terms of the “hands off” directive to Public Works Department personnel- came up with the plan and convinced the none too swift Baptiste to accept the land to serve as “matching funds” for federal transportation bike path money sitting untouched in the state highways division coffers.
Few really understood the true motivation behind McCloskey’s gift at the time but it was not lost on Kouchi who used the same gift ploy to earn his big bucks for the Nawiliwili developer in obtaining massive, previously-denied development rights in a win-win for the developer and a lose-lose for the county which would have had a virtual public park with no development rights if they would have refused the “gift”.
Kouchi’s public announcement comes at a time when his notorious “war chest” is down to $725.01 according to his recent Supplemental (July 1 - December 31, 2009) filing for the 2008-2010 period which shows he somehow spent $3,552.54 since the last election.
His early announcement is quite obviously designed to scare off competition, depending on his reputation as a prodigious cash producer in the past.
And his actions over the past eight years portend well for his continuing to lead the money race for the Senate seat.
Friday, November 20, 2009
POLITICAL WON’T
POLITICAL WON’T: Our post Wednesday on the flakey “opinion” given to the charter commission regarding the county manager issue drew a couple of comments that deserve exposition, on an issue we kind of glossed over because it seemed to be self-apparent to us- but obviously not to everybody.
Doug White, who’s left a huge hole in the blogosphere since June when he last posted to his Poinography blog, asked
...under a manager system, who or what would lead the Executive Branch? If that leader is chosen by the Legislative Branch, then in effect there would be no autonomous Executive Branch, and thus no separation of powers. That's how I interpret the CA opinion.
Attorney blogger Charley Foster was of course more to the legal point saying
I think a better way for the county attorney to have argued it would have been to point out that plain text of HRS §46-1.5(1) requires counties to "establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization," and that the proposed manager system would establish only an "administrative and legislative structure" in violation of the plain language of the statute. As Doug points out, a "mayor" who is chosen by and serves at the pleasure of the council is not really an "executive." It is true that separation of powers is at the heart of the issue and of the three-branches requirement. But it's possible to argue that the plain meaning of the statute requires an independent executive department without having to invoke that other doctrine.
So let’s look at the words in the relevant constitution and statue passages.
In Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Trask opinion he cites the fact that:
Art. VIII, section 2, Hawaii State Constitution states: Each political subdivision shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government within such limits and under such procedures as may be provided by general law. Such procedures, however, shall not require the approval of a charter by a legislative body.
Charter provisions with respect to a political subdivision's executive, legislative and administrative structure and organization shall be superior to statutory provisions, subject to the authority of the legislature to enact general laws allocating and reallocating powers and functions...
HRS section 46-1.5(1) states: Each county shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government, which shall establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization, including but not limited to, the method of appointment or election of officials, their duties, responsibilities, and compensation, and the terms of their office.
Nothing there mentions any “autonomous” executive or an executive “branch”, certainly nothing about “separation of powers.” and as a matter of fact the law allows for the “county... to frame and adopt a charter” and determine “the method of appointment OR election of officials” (emphasis added).
Clearly the county may do whatever it pleases as far as not just the method of selecting or electing it’s executive officer but need not make any of them autonomous or adhere to any separation of powers doctrine. As a matter of fact, currently the executive and the administrative entities are indeed part of the same organizational structure with the mayor appointing and overseeing the department heads without any autonomy or separation of powers.
As matter of fact. unless you use an adjective to describe the word “executive”- one that isn’t in the law- no one can argue a county manager (CM) would not be an executive
All a county manager system would do is switch the executive to legislative oversight and make that position appointed rather than elected.
And, it would seem that by saying “appointment or election” the statue leaves room for a county manager type system. Any argument against an unelected executive is clearly a political rather than a legal one.
It should also be pointed out that currently the charter provides for an administrative assistant (AA) whose duties are very close to what a county manager’s would be. That position- who serves solely at the pleasure of the mayor- is one that has routinely overseen department heads on a day to day basis leaving the mayor free to look at the “big picture”, concentrate on “the vision thing” by delegating the nuts and bolts to the AA.
We also mentioned Wednesday that Trask included a section that makes it clear that no more than what is stated in the constitution and statute should be read into it- despite the fact that after saying that he proceeds to read into it separation of powers, checks and balances, autonomy and the lack of an election of the executive.
Trask writes:
According to the law, "The fundamental principle in construing a constitutional provision is to give effect to the intention of the framers and the people adopting it. This intent is to be found in the instrument itself. When the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the court, in construing it, is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument." State ex rel. Anzai v. City & County of Honolulu, 99 Haw. 508, 519, 57 P.3d 433, 444 (2002).
Moreover, a constitutional provision must be construed in connection with other provisions of the instrument, and also in the light of the circumstances under which it was adopted and the history preceding it." Blair v. Harris, 98 Haw. 179, 45 P.3d 798, 801 (2002).
So let’s look at Trask’s arguments one by one:
The phrase included in both Art. VIII, section 2 and HRS section 46-1.5(1) requiring that each county "shall establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization", is interpreted by the County Attorney's office to require each county within the state to have specific separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, which the proposed council-county manager form would not have.
Given that the words “separation of powers” aren’t in the law and the fact that there is currently no separation of powers between the executive and administrative entitles- note also the lack of the word “branches” in law- this argument is clearly erroneous especially since “intent is to be found in the instrument itself” and that one “is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument”.
Trask continues:
Furthermore, so as to not render either the, "legislative, executive, or administrative structure and organization," of the county superfluous, void or insignificant said branches need to be substantive and not merely formal.
We’re not quite sure what that means and whether it is a differentiation without a difference but assuming it isn’t, well, the current attachment of the administration to the executive belies irrelevance.
He then seeks to establish what may be called a four prong test.
The proposed amendment would be contrary to both the text and the intent of the State Constitution and the general laws of Hawaii, and therefore illegal, for the following reasons:
1. The State Constitution and the general laws on the subject clearly and unambiguously call for the counties to establish a legislative, executive, and administrative structure and organization of government.
True- and clearly that “structure and organization” is up to the county to determine as long as all three exist- which they would as we established under a county manager executive, certainly to the extent that they exist now.
2. Passage of the proposed amendment would deprive the public of their constitutional and statutory right to a democratically elected executive.
It’s hard to say where he found a “constitutional and statutory right to a democratically elected executive” since the words “democratically elected” not only do not appear but the statute specifically allows for an appointed executive.
And as to any national constitutional or statutory prohibition, how many hundreds of county manager systems exist and have presumably passed legal muster around the country?
3. The proposed council-county manager form of government would deprive the public of a democratic governmental structure that employs checks and balances that would ensure that no particular branch would get too powerful and abuse the representative system of democracy. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that the proposed amendment seeks to delete section 4.03 of the charter thus extinguishing the executive veto power.
We’re not quite sure what the relevance of this is but again the words “checks and balances” do not appear anywhere. Clearly this is a political argument and not a legal one.
4. Under the proposed amendment the council chair would be given
the title of "mayor” but would not exercise any executive authority. Such a titular mayor would not satisfy the mandate of either the constitution or the general laws on the subject.
Ceremonial mayors are common under county manager systems, where the executive is the county manager not the mayor if we’re looking for the “substantive” executive. As a matter of fact some mayors are even appointed by the legislative entity, some on a rotating basis from among the legislative members.
Trask implies that only a title of mayor bestows executive status- clearly an erroneous and presumptuous assertion.
The preconceived notions, the use of the straw man of the specific Lewis proposal to condemn all CM systems- illogically generalizing from the specific argument- and the outright interpretation based on additional language not found in law- especially when the law bans that- and causes Trask’s analysis to fall on it’s fallacious face.
-------
Also on Wednesday, we cited the inability of the council to compel administrative testimony without a formal investigation under the current charter as one of the good arguments for a CM system.
Doug also asked
... has the Council ever actually went the official investigation and subpoena route? If not, then they are fools for not at least trying to exhaust their existing powers before seeking a Charter change, aren't they?
That’s somewhat of a complicated question.- one that has roots in the political, statutory and fiscal realms.
Calling for and authorizing an investigation to obtain subpoena power every time an administrative person doesn’t show up when requested is pretty cumbersome and impractical.
For the last 10 years the council has at times sought to launch investigations. The first obstacle was the lack of any set method of doing so. After dickering around for a year or so they finally passed a resolution that defined a process. But then it became a political football as to which department to investigate first.
Originally it was to be the massive Department of Public Works but the word “massive” was the operative obstacle. Which division to investigate became a problem because so many of them were problematic. Finally a half a million dollars was appropriated to investigate one division but no one could decide which one to investigate.
But then a new council took office and with the departure of a majority of members- including the three main proponents, now-State Senator Gary Hooser, now 5th Circuit Judge Randall Valenciano and then-Chair Ron Kouchi, the newbies decided to investigate the police department instead- a subject well covered in KPD Blue.
The next decision was to, instead of spending lots of money to look at a tree amidst the forest, appropriate salaries for a county auditor position and staff to be able to essentially conduct investigations without having to deal with the cost and limitations of each investigation.
But again after procrastinating over the hiring, the County Attorney stepped in and said this would violate the prohibition of council interference with the administration.
Finally last November the voters passed a charter amendment establishing a county auditor under council services that was specifically exempt from the prohibitions on interference. A month or so back one was appointed by the council.
But really this has been an exercise in lack of political will all along with a majority of the council member eyeing the mayor’s job and not wanting to tie his or her own hands once they took office.
Clear as mud?
--------
With the holiday and resultant “so much basketball, so little time” next week we’ll be a little lite in posting- here’s a little lite reading regarding the whole Board of Ethics 20.02D business which we’ll try to address during half times and between games.
Doug White, who’s left a huge hole in the blogosphere since June when he last posted to his Poinography blog, asked
...under a manager system, who or what would lead the Executive Branch? If that leader is chosen by the Legislative Branch, then in effect there would be no autonomous Executive Branch, and thus no separation of powers. That's how I interpret the CA opinion.
Attorney blogger Charley Foster was of course more to the legal point saying
I think a better way for the county attorney to have argued it would have been to point out that plain text of HRS §46-1.5(1) requires counties to "establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization," and that the proposed manager system would establish only an "administrative and legislative structure" in violation of the plain language of the statute. As Doug points out, a "mayor" who is chosen by and serves at the pleasure of the council is not really an "executive." It is true that separation of powers is at the heart of the issue and of the three-branches requirement. But it's possible to argue that the plain meaning of the statute requires an independent executive department without having to invoke that other doctrine.
So let’s look at the words in the relevant constitution and statue passages.
In Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Trask opinion he cites the fact that:
Art. VIII, section 2, Hawaii State Constitution states: Each political subdivision shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government within such limits and under such procedures as may be provided by general law. Such procedures, however, shall not require the approval of a charter by a legislative body.
Charter provisions with respect to a political subdivision's executive, legislative and administrative structure and organization shall be superior to statutory provisions, subject to the authority of the legislature to enact general laws allocating and reallocating powers and functions...
HRS section 46-1.5(1) states: Each county shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government, which shall establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization, including but not limited to, the method of appointment or election of officials, their duties, responsibilities, and compensation, and the terms of their office.
Nothing there mentions any “autonomous” executive or an executive “branch”, certainly nothing about “separation of powers.” and as a matter of fact the law allows for the “county... to frame and adopt a charter” and determine “the method of appointment OR election of officials” (emphasis added).
Clearly the county may do whatever it pleases as far as not just the method of selecting or electing it’s executive officer but need not make any of them autonomous or adhere to any separation of powers doctrine. As a matter of fact, currently the executive and the administrative entities are indeed part of the same organizational structure with the mayor appointing and overseeing the department heads without any autonomy or separation of powers.
As matter of fact. unless you use an adjective to describe the word “executive”- one that isn’t in the law- no one can argue a county manager (CM) would not be an executive
All a county manager system would do is switch the executive to legislative oversight and make that position appointed rather than elected.
And, it would seem that by saying “appointment or election” the statue leaves room for a county manager type system. Any argument against an unelected executive is clearly a political rather than a legal one.
It should also be pointed out that currently the charter provides for an administrative assistant (AA) whose duties are very close to what a county manager’s would be. That position- who serves solely at the pleasure of the mayor- is one that has routinely overseen department heads on a day to day basis leaving the mayor free to look at the “big picture”, concentrate on “the vision thing” by delegating the nuts and bolts to the AA.
We also mentioned Wednesday that Trask included a section that makes it clear that no more than what is stated in the constitution and statute should be read into it- despite the fact that after saying that he proceeds to read into it separation of powers, checks and balances, autonomy and the lack of an election of the executive.
Trask writes:
According to the law, "The fundamental principle in construing a constitutional provision is to give effect to the intention of the framers and the people adopting it. This intent is to be found in the instrument itself. When the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the court, in construing it, is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument." State ex rel. Anzai v. City & County of Honolulu, 99 Haw. 508, 519, 57 P.3d 433, 444 (2002).
Moreover, a constitutional provision must be construed in connection with other provisions of the instrument, and also in the light of the circumstances under which it was adopted and the history preceding it." Blair v. Harris, 98 Haw. 179, 45 P.3d 798, 801 (2002).
So let’s look at Trask’s arguments one by one:
The phrase included in both Art. VIII, section 2 and HRS section 46-1.5(1) requiring that each county "shall establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization", is interpreted by the County Attorney's office to require each county within the state to have specific separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, which the proposed council-county manager form would not have.
Given that the words “separation of powers” aren’t in the law and the fact that there is currently no separation of powers between the executive and administrative entitles- note also the lack of the word “branches” in law- this argument is clearly erroneous especially since “intent is to be found in the instrument itself” and that one “is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument”.
Trask continues:
Furthermore, so as to not render either the, "legislative, executive, or administrative structure and organization," of the county superfluous, void or insignificant said branches need to be substantive and not merely formal.
We’re not quite sure what that means and whether it is a differentiation without a difference but assuming it isn’t, well, the current attachment of the administration to the executive belies irrelevance.
He then seeks to establish what may be called a four prong test.
The proposed amendment would be contrary to both the text and the intent of the State Constitution and the general laws of Hawaii, and therefore illegal, for the following reasons:
1. The State Constitution and the general laws on the subject clearly and unambiguously call for the counties to establish a legislative, executive, and administrative structure and organization of government.
True- and clearly that “structure and organization” is up to the county to determine as long as all three exist- which they would as we established under a county manager executive, certainly to the extent that they exist now.
2. Passage of the proposed amendment would deprive the public of their constitutional and statutory right to a democratically elected executive.
It’s hard to say where he found a “constitutional and statutory right to a democratically elected executive” since the words “democratically elected” not only do not appear but the statute specifically allows for an appointed executive.
And as to any national constitutional or statutory prohibition, how many hundreds of county manager systems exist and have presumably passed legal muster around the country?
3. The proposed council-county manager form of government would deprive the public of a democratic governmental structure that employs checks and balances that would ensure that no particular branch would get too powerful and abuse the representative system of democracy. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that the proposed amendment seeks to delete section 4.03 of the charter thus extinguishing the executive veto power.
We’re not quite sure what the relevance of this is but again the words “checks and balances” do not appear anywhere. Clearly this is a political argument and not a legal one.
4. Under the proposed amendment the council chair would be given
the title of "mayor” but would not exercise any executive authority. Such a titular mayor would not satisfy the mandate of either the constitution or the general laws on the subject.
Ceremonial mayors are common under county manager systems, where the executive is the county manager not the mayor if we’re looking for the “substantive” executive. As a matter of fact some mayors are even appointed by the legislative entity, some on a rotating basis from among the legislative members.
Trask implies that only a title of mayor bestows executive status- clearly an erroneous and presumptuous assertion.
The preconceived notions, the use of the straw man of the specific Lewis proposal to condemn all CM systems- illogically generalizing from the specific argument- and the outright interpretation based on additional language not found in law- especially when the law bans that- and causes Trask’s analysis to fall on it’s fallacious face.
-------
Also on Wednesday, we cited the inability of the council to compel administrative testimony without a formal investigation under the current charter as one of the good arguments for a CM system.
Doug also asked
... has the Council ever actually went the official investigation and subpoena route? If not, then they are fools for not at least trying to exhaust their existing powers before seeking a Charter change, aren't they?
That’s somewhat of a complicated question.- one that has roots in the political, statutory and fiscal realms.
Calling for and authorizing an investigation to obtain subpoena power every time an administrative person doesn’t show up when requested is pretty cumbersome and impractical.
For the last 10 years the council has at times sought to launch investigations. The first obstacle was the lack of any set method of doing so. After dickering around for a year or so they finally passed a resolution that defined a process. But then it became a political football as to which department to investigate first.
Originally it was to be the massive Department of Public Works but the word “massive” was the operative obstacle. Which division to investigate became a problem because so many of them were problematic. Finally a half a million dollars was appropriated to investigate one division but no one could decide which one to investigate.
But then a new council took office and with the departure of a majority of members- including the three main proponents, now-State Senator Gary Hooser, now 5th Circuit Judge Randall Valenciano and then-Chair Ron Kouchi, the newbies decided to investigate the police department instead- a subject well covered in KPD Blue.
The next decision was to, instead of spending lots of money to look at a tree amidst the forest, appropriate salaries for a county auditor position and staff to be able to essentially conduct investigations without having to deal with the cost and limitations of each investigation.
But again after procrastinating over the hiring, the County Attorney stepped in and said this would violate the prohibition of council interference with the administration.
Finally last November the voters passed a charter amendment establishing a county auditor under council services that was specifically exempt from the prohibitions on interference. A month or so back one was appointed by the council.
But really this has been an exercise in lack of political will all along with a majority of the council member eyeing the mayor’s job and not wanting to tie his or her own hands once they took office.
Clear as mud?
--------
With the holiday and resultant “so much basketball, so little time” next week we’ll be a little lite in posting- here’s a little lite reading regarding the whole Board of Ethics 20.02D business which we’ll try to address during half times and between games.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
MONKEY’S AND WEASELS VS. JOKERS AND THIEVES
MONKEY’S AND WEASELS VS. JOKERS AND THIEVES: It’s anything but lonely under the big top.
The winners’ butts are barely parked after the 2008 game of musical chairs and already the players are throwing elbows for position and the music is playing for the 2010 political sweepstakes.
Only this time there’s going to be way more candidates circling the seats, with not just one but many less chairs to be fought over than suitors to fill them.
Senator Gary Hooser’s announcement that he’ll run for Lt Governor comes with instant opposition like Democratic Party Chair Bryan Schatz and Honolulu Councilmembers Rod Tam and Donovan Dela Cruz.
But with the announcement that he is seeking to play second banana to one of the Abercrombie Hanabusa or Hannemann triumvirate comes an opening for a top political plum for Kaua`i politicians- and one sure to cause all manner of the upwardly mobile to vacate their once coveted incumbencies.
While Honolulu-centric bloggers like Ian Lind and the long fingered Dave Shapiro (whose chair may be in Hilo but whose keyboard is on O`ahu) have quite a bit to say as to who will be flitting around the fifth floor in 2011, here on Kaua`i the speculation has already begun as to who will try to fill Hooser’s shoes.
Today former councilman, former mayoral candidate Mel Rapozo - who for the next two years at least is reduced to nitpicking at council and planning commission meetings and blogging like the rest of us poor schlubs- speculates on the game of marbles to come saying
Who will run for (Hooser’s) seat? It is way to early to tell, but the names that come to mind are JoAnn Yukimura, Ron Kouchi, and James Tokioka. If Tokioka decides to run for the Senate seat, we will have a vacancy in his State House seat as well. The next few months will be very interesting, and maybe even surprising. I have some tough decisions to make as well. I will be considering all of my options.
What Rapozo doesn’t mention in naming only those out of office is how this will effect the ambitious who are already in one seat or another.
And by “the ambitious” we mean every single one of them.
There is also a mayoral election in 2010 along with one for the seven members of the county council and a trio in the legislature. And you can bet all of the sitting have their eyes on greener grass of someone else’s seat.
But we have no doubt that there will be the same belly aching come the July 2010 filing deadline- that “there are no good candidates” once again despite this advance warning that it’s going to be a wide open field.
Every election year it’s the same thing- people who have the fire-in-the-belly if not the name recognition and even a good resume but won’t run or, when summer comes just suddenly discover there is going to be an election in a few months but haven’t done anything for the past two years to prepare for the opportunity.
Even worse will be another group will whine and snivel at their lack of choice and try to promote the joke of a “none of the above” option on the ballot while they refuse to run for office themselves.
But for anyone really serious about public service, today is your lucky day.
We’re here to remind you that with a little hard work over the next two years you too can have everyone in town calling you a hack, a crook and a dunderhead for the two years following your election.
Yes it’s time to get started and all you need is a running car a few good pair of shoes and a few boxes full of something to give away.
It’s time to visit every single one of your neighbors- it’s time to “walk the island”, going door to door talking to each person and letting them know who you are, what you’re running for and why they should vote for you.
Oh and bring ho`okipa. It should be something that they will not just throw away like a pen or key chain or something else with your name on it that you haphazardly ordered a bunch of. It’s got to be something people will either use or see every day that reminds them of you.- preferably something that is unique to you and your campaign.
Now get a map- a good, up to date one.. And then get movin'- there are almost 100 weekends between now and the election- plenty of time to knock on every door.
Now there are a select few people for whom this might not work- this mean-mouthed, higher-taxes and bigger-government advocate comes to mind. But for those of you who will come to us the summer after this one and ask us to support you and haven’t been doing this for two years, don’t wonder why you come in in 22nd place in a 21 candidate council race.
There very well could be almost all “vacant” seats- those without incumbents- on the council and in state house races to go along with state senator slot because, as we know from experience, having competition never stopped a politician from seeking higher office and there will be at least two or three current or former office holders in every race.
This is your year. find a gimmick- er, gift- put some gas in the jalopy and get out there.
Otherwise shut up next year. We’re tired of hearing “oh woe is us we have no good candidates again” every two years or if you do run having to see you stand there at the debates with your thumb up your butt because you don’t know the issues, you don’t know the voters and have no chance because you got a late start but we had to support you because at least you aren’t “them”.
Oh and it wouldn’t hurt to start following the actions of the person in the seat you’re seeking so you just might be able to do something once you get into office. But that’s a thought for another day.
The winners’ butts are barely parked after the 2008 game of musical chairs and already the players are throwing elbows for position and the music is playing for the 2010 political sweepstakes.
Only this time there’s going to be way more candidates circling the seats, with not just one but many less chairs to be fought over than suitors to fill them.
Senator Gary Hooser’s announcement that he’ll run for Lt Governor comes with instant opposition like Democratic Party Chair Bryan Schatz and Honolulu Councilmembers Rod Tam and Donovan Dela Cruz.
But with the announcement that he is seeking to play second banana to one of the Abercrombie Hanabusa or Hannemann triumvirate comes an opening for a top political plum for Kaua`i politicians- and one sure to cause all manner of the upwardly mobile to vacate their once coveted incumbencies.
While Honolulu-centric bloggers like Ian Lind and the long fingered Dave Shapiro (whose chair may be in Hilo but whose keyboard is on O`ahu) have quite a bit to say as to who will be flitting around the fifth floor in 2011, here on Kaua`i the speculation has already begun as to who will try to fill Hooser’s shoes.
Today former councilman, former mayoral candidate Mel Rapozo - who for the next two years at least is reduced to nitpicking at council and planning commission meetings and blogging like the rest of us poor schlubs- speculates on the game of marbles to come saying
Who will run for (Hooser’s) seat? It is way to early to tell, but the names that come to mind are JoAnn Yukimura, Ron Kouchi, and James Tokioka. If Tokioka decides to run for the Senate seat, we will have a vacancy in his State House seat as well. The next few months will be very interesting, and maybe even surprising. I have some tough decisions to make as well. I will be considering all of my options.
What Rapozo doesn’t mention in naming only those out of office is how this will effect the ambitious who are already in one seat or another.
And by “the ambitious” we mean every single one of them.
There is also a mayoral election in 2010 along with one for the seven members of the county council and a trio in the legislature. And you can bet all of the sitting have their eyes on greener grass of someone else’s seat.
But we have no doubt that there will be the same belly aching come the July 2010 filing deadline- that “there are no good candidates” once again despite this advance warning that it’s going to be a wide open field.
Every election year it’s the same thing- people who have the fire-in-the-belly if not the name recognition and even a good resume but won’t run or, when summer comes just suddenly discover there is going to be an election in a few months but haven’t done anything for the past two years to prepare for the opportunity.
Even worse will be another group will whine and snivel at their lack of choice and try to promote the joke of a “none of the above” option on the ballot while they refuse to run for office themselves.
But for anyone really serious about public service, today is your lucky day.
We’re here to remind you that with a little hard work over the next two years you too can have everyone in town calling you a hack, a crook and a dunderhead for the two years following your election.
Yes it’s time to get started and all you need is a running car a few good pair of shoes and a few boxes full of something to give away.
It’s time to visit every single one of your neighbors- it’s time to “walk the island”, going door to door talking to each person and letting them know who you are, what you’re running for and why they should vote for you.
Oh and bring ho`okipa. It should be something that they will not just throw away like a pen or key chain or something else with your name on it that you haphazardly ordered a bunch of. It’s got to be something people will either use or see every day that reminds them of you.- preferably something that is unique to you and your campaign.
Now get a map- a good, up to date one.. And then get movin'- there are almost 100 weekends between now and the election- plenty of time to knock on every door.
Now there are a select few people for whom this might not work- this mean-mouthed, higher-taxes and bigger-government advocate comes to mind. But for those of you who will come to us the summer after this one and ask us to support you and haven’t been doing this for two years, don’t wonder why you come in in 22nd place in a 21 candidate council race.
There very well could be almost all “vacant” seats- those without incumbents- on the council and in state house races to go along with state senator slot because, as we know from experience, having competition never stopped a politician from seeking higher office and there will be at least two or three current or former office holders in every race.
This is your year. find a gimmick- er, gift- put some gas in the jalopy and get out there.
Otherwise shut up next year. We’re tired of hearing “oh woe is us we have no good candidates again” every two years or if you do run having to see you stand there at the debates with your thumb up your butt because you don’t know the issues, you don’t know the voters and have no chance because you got a late start but we had to support you because at least you aren’t “them”.
Oh and it wouldn’t hurt to start following the actions of the person in the seat you’re seeking so you just might be able to do something once you get into office. But that’s a thought for another day.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
THIS IS NOT MY BEAUTIFUL DOGHOUSE
THIS IS NOT MY BEAUTIFUL DOGHOUSE: When we first saw Anne Punohu's efforts to stop discrimination against those receiving federal HUD Section 8 housing subsidies we worried that it would just end up being just another valiant attempt by a dedicated community activist destined for oblivion.
But it did spur us to finalize a story we’d essentially been working on for almost 15 years on some of the trials and tribulations for both Section 8 clients and participating landlords
And because of Anne’s efforts and coverage not just here but in local and Honolulu newspapers, not only have we heard from a landlord who changed their mind about the program recipients and is going to seek out a deserving family for their rental, Kaua`i and Ni`ihau state Senator Gary Hooser has introduced a bill to “relating to discrimination” that would “prohibit discrimination based on lawful source of income in real estate transactions, including advertising available rental units.”
“I want to express my deep gratitude to Senator Gary Hooser’s office and staff, and in particular the Senator himself for helping us with this worthy cause”. said Punohu. “We hope that all concerned will send testimony in on this issue, and help to get SB456 passed.
According to Punohu the National Economic and social Rights Initiative will be sending testimony in support of the bill through its Campaign to Restore National Housing Rights
Senate bill 456 has been referred to both the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection and Committee on Judiciary and Government Operations.
The “landlord” we heard from was one who called right after our piece grumbling about “the type of people” who receive the housing subsidies for the elderly, disabled and working poor.
But when she called us again it was to tell us that after talking to others and calling the county housing agency that administers the program, she decided that it just might be a great way to help a deserving family and at the same time insure that the rent is paid on time- even early- every month.
The bill would go about banning discrimination in housing by amending HRS 515-2 to add “source of income” to the existing list of classes of persons protected against discrimination in housing. It currently protects against prejudice due to “gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, marital status, familial status, ancestry, disability, age, or human immunodeficiency virus infection”.
The preamble to the bill says:
The legislature finds that low-income individuals have an extremely difficult time finding affordable rentals in Hawaii. This situation is made more frustrating when housing vacancy advertisements discourage people from applying by advertising "no section 8 accepted". At this time, in the State of Hawaii, the law does not prohibit discrimination based on lawful source of income. However, thirteen other states, including California and Oregon, have prohibited this type of income discrimination. Renters who participate in government assistance programs, such as Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as, section 8, should have an equal opportunity to find housing. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit discrimination based on lawful source of income in real estate transactions, including advertising available rental units.
It also goes on to say that
Nothing in section 515-3 shall be deemed to prohibit a person from determining the ability of a potential buyer or renter to pay a purchase price or rent by:
(1) Verifying, in a commercially reasonable manner, the source and amount of income of the potential buyer or renter; or
(2) Evaluating, in a commercially reasonable manner, the stability, security, and credit worthiness of the potential buyer or renter or any source of income of the potential buyer or renter.
The prohibition against discrimination based on source of income shall not prevent a person from refusing to consider income derived from any criminal activity.
Currently the bill is being heard in the Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee and testimony should be addressed to Chair: Senator Baker, at senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov, and Vice Chair, Senator Ige. at senige@Capitol.hawaii.gov.
But it did spur us to finalize a story we’d essentially been working on for almost 15 years on some of the trials and tribulations for both Section 8 clients and participating landlords
And because of Anne’s efforts and coverage not just here but in local and Honolulu newspapers, not only have we heard from a landlord who changed their mind about the program recipients and is going to seek out a deserving family for their rental, Kaua`i and Ni`ihau state Senator Gary Hooser has introduced a bill to “relating to discrimination” that would “prohibit discrimination based on lawful source of income in real estate transactions, including advertising available rental units.”
“I want to express my deep gratitude to Senator Gary Hooser’s office and staff, and in particular the Senator himself for helping us with this worthy cause”. said Punohu. “We hope that all concerned will send testimony in on this issue, and help to get SB456 passed.
According to Punohu the National Economic and social Rights Initiative will be sending testimony in support of the bill through its Campaign to Restore National Housing Rights
Senate bill 456 has been referred to both the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection and Committee on Judiciary and Government Operations.
The “landlord” we heard from was one who called right after our piece grumbling about “the type of people” who receive the housing subsidies for the elderly, disabled and working poor.
But when she called us again it was to tell us that after talking to others and calling the county housing agency that administers the program, she decided that it just might be a great way to help a deserving family and at the same time insure that the rent is paid on time- even early- every month.
The bill would go about banning discrimination in housing by amending HRS 515-2 to add “source of income” to the existing list of classes of persons protected against discrimination in housing. It currently protects against prejudice due to “gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, marital status, familial status, ancestry, disability, age, or human immunodeficiency virus infection”.
The preamble to the bill says:
The legislature finds that low-income individuals have an extremely difficult time finding affordable rentals in Hawaii. This situation is made more frustrating when housing vacancy advertisements discourage people from applying by advertising "no section 8 accepted". At this time, in the State of Hawaii, the law does not prohibit discrimination based on lawful source of income. However, thirteen other states, including California and Oregon, have prohibited this type of income discrimination. Renters who participate in government assistance programs, such as Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as, section 8, should have an equal opportunity to find housing. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit discrimination based on lawful source of income in real estate transactions, including advertising available rental units.
It also goes on to say that
Nothing in section 515-3 shall be deemed to prohibit a person from determining the ability of a potential buyer or renter to pay a purchase price or rent by:
(1) Verifying, in a commercially reasonable manner, the source and amount of income of the potential buyer or renter; or
(2) Evaluating, in a commercially reasonable manner, the stability, security, and credit worthiness of the potential buyer or renter or any source of income of the potential buyer or renter.
The prohibition against discrimination based on source of income shall not prevent a person from refusing to consider income derived from any criminal activity.
Currently the bill is being heard in the Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee and testimony should be addressed to Chair: Senator Baker, at senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov, and Vice Chair, Senator Ige. at senige@Capitol.hawaii.gov.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
