WRAPPING IT UP

WRAPPING IT UP: It was going swimmingly last December. As we said at the time, Kaua`i was having it's first non-white Christmas in decades after our single-use plastic grocery bag ban had miraculously cleansed the roadsides, trees and oceans of the ugly tinsel that the use of the bags had ubiquitously wrought.

Not only had Maui similarly banned them, but the Big Island was poised to okay a bill (since passed) which, while delaying a complete ban for a couple of years, will make it three out of four counties that have cleaned up their acts.

So it was a pleasant surprise at the time when Honolulu Council Chair Ernie Martin said he would introduce a bill to add O`ahu to the list, making for an effective "county-by-county" state-wide ban.

But when the state legislature opened in January, things fell apart. As we wrote at the time, a bill was introduced at the legislature- loudly backed by the Sierra Club (SC) and their Executive Director/lobbyist, Robert Harris- to institute a fee for all grocery bags, plastic and paper.

The bill would have allowed the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i to stand, but the subtleties of the repercussions of the bill in reopening the issue were apparently lost on Harris and the SC.

As we wrote in February, the state "fee" bill was actually opposed by those on Maui and Kaua`i who had worked hard to pass their bans and feared that the supermarket and plastic bag lobbyists- who had battled hard against the three neighbor island bans- would use the bill to drive a wedge between those whose efforts stood to come to fruition in effectively banning plastic bags statewide and the SC's Harris, along with a couple of other environmental lobbyists on O`ahu. They included the Honolulu chapter of the Surfrider Foundation which supported the SC and Harris despite opposition from the Kaua`i Surfrider group that had worked for the ban here as we reported in February.

Right now the state bill teeters on the brink of death. But because of the discussions over the state bill, the Honolulu City Council's Martin altered his bill from an outright ban to a sort of hybrid requiring a fee at first, then leading up to a total ban (although when--and if--the latter would happen is anybody’s guess at this point).

Because of the legislative confusion and indecision, the lobbyists for the grocery stores are back using one of their arguments against plastic bag bags--that using paper bags is more costly and in the long run worse for the environment than plastic.

In yesterday's Civil Beat Sophie Cocke reported that:

On Kauai and Maui, retailers are paying about $30,000 more every year to cover the costs of increases in paper bag use, according to Melissa Pavlicek, a spokeswoman for Safeway and Times Supermarket stores.

The contention is that this is because people are actually shunning the use of reusable cloth bags and are demanding paper bags since plastic ones are unavailable.

But anyone who shops on Kaua`i and has tried to walk out of a supermarket- especially Safeway- knows this is total bullsh*t.

When we do our shopping our habit is to bring a cooler for chilled goods and, rather than try to remember to bring some cloth bags into the store, we simply put our purchases back in the cart and bring them to the car where we either put them directly in the cloth bags or on the seat to bag if necessary when we get home to carry in the groceries.

But trying to get past the checkout without our purchases winding up in paper bags--even if it's one or two small items that can be carried in our arms--is like trying get the dreaded bottle of water on an airplane: it simply cannot be done.

Never, we repeat never, has anyone shopping at Safeway been asked "Do you need a bag today?" That alone would remind people that they don't really need one, especially on Kaua`i where nobody is walking but rather driving away with their goodies.

We did a little "research" and found out that not only are check-out personnel not told to ask but they are forbidden from asking if people need a bag.

The evolution of our typical visits has gone like this since the ban on plastic bags.

At first as the check-out process began we'd say "no bags please." Then while we were busy swiping our card or fishing out the money they'd invariably place the items in a bag anyway, forcing us to remove the items.

So we decided to say it twice- once when they started the process and another time halfway through. Still all the stuff was in a bag when we looked up.

This went on and on and, no matter our level of vigilance, it was "all in the bag" as it were.

We finally took our "club card" and put a piece of masking tape on the front of it saying "NO BAGS PLEASE" with a red laundry marker. Still the stuff wound up in a paper bag even if it was simply a quart of milk.

It became like some kind misdirection magic trick. No matter how much we tried to pay attention, the had was quicker than the eye and poof- a paper bag invariably appeared surrounding our purchases.

The last time we attempted to pay full attention- almost Clockwork Orange style- we had gotten the attention of the check-out person and repeated "no bags please" three times, kept our eye on the whole process only to look to our right and find that another checkout clerk had sneaked around to the front of the checkout stand and placed all our stuff in paper bags.

Our next step is to bring in a boom box, place the volume at "eleven" and play a loop of 100 people loudly chanting "No Bags Please.... No Bags Please... No Bags Please."

Are these the actions of a store that is concerned about the use of paper bags?

Perhaps making reusable bags for 50 cents a piece like WalMart does would help but then how could Safeway lobby to make plastic available due to the "cost" of paper?

The Sierra Club does lots of good, especially through the lobbying efforts of people like Harris and the executive directors who came before him. But the fact is that sometimes they become so enamored of their own power and blinded by what sounded like a "good idea" at one time that they can’t see the forest for the trees. They become so insular and invested in their own ideas and pet projects--many of them Honolulu-centric--they can't tell they are doing more harm than good.

And because they have the power to speak for the entire environmental community, others wind up with little or no ability to lobby against a position taken by Harris and the SC when they remain blind to the repercussions of their actions.

One apparent reason that Harris has been supporting the state "fee" bill is that some of the money would have gone to a watershed protection fund. But just because it's a "neat scheme" and Harris can more easily wield his power in the legislature than the rest of the environmental community--especially when it comes to opposition from neighbor islanders--that doesn't automatically make his and SC's position a good idea.

On the contrar, it is Harris and the SC that have effectively facilitated the Honolulu Council's altering of their bill to now include a fee that will supposedly lead to a total ban sometime in the indeterminate future. But that will take another revisiting of the issue and leave the door open to more intense lobbying from the supermarket and plastic bag industries.

In this case it was easy to foresee that the industry lobbyists would take advantage of this "fee" business to throw the whole issue back up for discussion. We said it back in January.

Rather than supporting the county-by-county statewide ban, which Harris says is his and SC's eventual goal, they have stuck like glue to this convoluted "fee" system.

Fortunately, the legislative bill seems to be dying the death it deserves despite last ditch efforts from Harris. We know we speak for many when we say that all Harris is doing at this point is threatening to undo all the work we did to pass the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i by opening the door to further corporate lobbying.

If this keeps up it may well get to some of those neighbor island council members who opposed the bans now in place--as well as those that were fence sitting but did vote to ban plastic bag--to revisit the bans in place over here.

Please Bob--you made a mistake, just let it go. Otherwise we may have to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy just to keep the gains we have made. We have our hands full already dealing with Safeway's paper bag policies--we know they'd just love to start wrapping their "gifts" in plastic once again.

GIVE THAT MAN AN EXPLODING CIGAR

GIVE THAT MAN AN EXPLODING CIGAR: Sometime you've gotta wonder what happens when people start breathing the air around the state capitol when the legislature is in session.

While it seems to imbue many reps and sens with a tone-deafness that often yields bills like this year's slew of anti-ethics measures, such as the one that would have literally legalized bribery, we're talking about the tendency of public interest lobbying groups- the ones supporting things like good governance and environmental protection- to look at a difficult route for good legislation and decide to take the path of least resistance.

So it was bad enough when, as we wrote late last month:

we heard that rather than ban those one-time-use, white, plastic grocery bags like Kaua`i and Maui have done, the bill streaking through the legislature aims to simply put a 10 cent fee on them- to go to 25 cents if it doesn't decrease the use significantly.

At that time we were kvetching about how

the corporate media is framing any controversy over the bill as whether in fact to institute a fee and if so how much it should be, is that our own people have sold us down the river once again.

But to our surprise soon thereafter we received a "Capitol Watch" email from the state Sierra Club (SC) asking us to get behind the effort rather than pushing the type of legislative ban many of us worked hard to institute on Kaua`i, Maui and the Big Island and has now been introduced in Honolulu.

What no one has reported is the behind-the-scenes controversy it caused, not just among SC members but among other organization cited as supporting the bill such as the Surfrider Foundation.

Apparently one of those problems of bi and tri-level organizations hit the fan and the press wasn't interested in making it clear that it was Surfrider's Honolulu chapter that was supporting the fee while others, like the Kaua`i chapter, were holding out for a total ban.

They weren't the only ones who felt like the SC was screwing up. Email overflowed the in-boxes of those who worked for a year or more to pass the bans on the neighbor islands. They were worried that, despite the fact that the original bill would have allowed the county bans to stand, their efforts may have been usurped by one of those all-too-common, last-minute, conference committee switcheroos.

But despite all the buzz, apparently the word hadn't reached the SC's desk as they announced that "A Bill’s Death Leaves Citizens Stunned"

The piece said that:

in a surprising and astonishing move, HB 2260 was recommitted, and in a casual vocal floor vote, the single-use bag and watershed initiative fund bill experienced a swift death on the House floor, rendering it impossible for the bill to pass the First Lateral deadline. We’re not sure why this occurred, but the move was completely unexpected and came as a shock to its ample and optimistic supporters.

Astonishing? Surprising? Stunned?

How about Tone-deaf. Out of Touch. Oblivious.

While the death of the "fee" bill has been characterized as "a mistake" by some there is evidence it may have been anything but.

Maybe no one at SC noticed that Honolulu City Council Chair Ernie Martin has introduced and a bill that would ban single use plastic bags which, if it passes, would create a de facto state-wide ban by virtue of having bans in all four counties. If they had surly it would have alerted them that their piddly little fee-instituting bill was hopelessly out-stripped by current events.

But even without the Honolulu measure how far did they think they would get without the support of those who on the three neighbor islands?

These citizens prevailed in the face of big money being poured into the state by the national chemical industry which air-lift in lobbyists to unsuccessfully try to convince three sets of councilmembers that it was an issue of "choice"... that people should be free to "choose" to create visual land blights, turn the ocean into a death trap for aquatic life and further contribute to the ever-growing Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Did they think we were now going to give up and support a half-assed "fee" bill?

The Sierra Club does great work and without their lobbying efforts we probably wouldn't even have a Hawai`i Environmental Protection Act any more- something they are trying to again prevent from happening this year again.

But when they do things like this by deciding to start off supporting a weak bill- not to mention one that many of their members view as wholly inadequate and possibly destructive of activists' previous efforts- it might be wise to examine, not why the "fee" bill was voted down but exactly why they shocked in the first place when it happened.

-----------

As you can probably tell from the above we're still in need of a new editor. If you have some experience- or even if you are just literate and can tell when it's its and when it's it's- and can determine if that phrase is "clear as mud" or "clear like mud"- and can spare a spell to check our spelling and such sometime around noon on weekdays, email us at gotwindmills(at)gmail.com. It would also help if you're familiar with local names, places and political machinations.

We can't offer recompense beyond the satisfaction of dealing with an impossibly demanding crazy person but we're still hopeful that there's someone equally insane out there somewhere.

JUST A MOTION AWAY

JUST A MOTION AWAY: Our high school Economics class had us bored to tears. For a red diaper baby in the midst of the late 60's "revolution" it held little relevance. But we do remember one thing- the way Mr. Voorhies would ask questions of our equally narcoleptic classmates and, when no one raised their hands, he would rub his thumb across his other four fingers, indicating the inevitable answer to every question in economics... money.

Perhaps it has stuck with us because every time we see the Hawai`i State Legislature, or any legislative body in the country for that matter, propose some inane and out-of-touch piece of legislation- many times either in opposition to pervasive public opinion or presenting a version of the ideal that is so watered-down you can actually hear it gurgling as it goes down for the third time- we leap to the conclusion that the answer as to "why" can be summed up with Mr. Voorhies' gesture.

So when we heard that rather than ban those one-time-use, white, plastic grocery bags like Kaua`i and Maui have done, the bill streaking through the legislature aims to simply put a 10 cent fee on them- to go to 25 cents if it doesn't decrease the use significantly.

At first blush we assume it was, as usual, the "money in the system" from both the supermarkets and plastic bag makers that was the proverbial fly in the ointment.

But the reality is that the reason why the corporate media is framing any controversy over the bill as whether in fact to institute a fee and if so how much it should be, is that our own people have sold us down the river once again.

Rather than look at how incredibly beautiful the roadsides, beaches and, everything else looks on Kaua`i and Maui now that everything isn't draped in white plastic and advocate for a total ban statewide, according to Civil Beat:

Sierra Club director Robert Harris told the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection Thursday that a fee — which would be charged to consumers at the checkout counter — has worked to reduce plastic bag use in other areas.

Harris was among those testifying on House Bill 2260. Environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and Surfrider Foundation, as well as government department heads and even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill.

The important part that tells you something is wrong is that last part- it wasn't just the environmental group but "even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill."

Now we get the "strange bedfellows" aspect of politics. Many times we have to question our own sanity when we find ourselves agreeing on some issue with various and sundry fascists, war mongers and general all-around creeps and cretins.

But that isn't the case here.

Way too often, especially in "the Aloha State," those who put themselves out as allies in the fight to stop despoilment in the name of progress in the islands abandon the fight to enact effective legislation in favor of compromising our environment before the fight even begins.

The thought process, as we've been told in similar circumstances in the past, is that the good fight isn't worth fighting this time. We've been admonished by the leadership of the above listed groups that certain battles aren't worth fighting and scoring political points for the organization on "this one" is more important than staking out the "perfect" so that the final "good" will be just a little better when all is said and done.

The way politics is supposed to work is that you stake out your perfect position and either win over the other side or find a happy medium. But lately- whether it's the Hawai`i environmental groups or the national Democratic Party, the position taken going into negotiations is already compromised to the extent that the final measure is inevitably horrific.

It isn't the money itself in many of these situations. Rather it's the acknowledging- and therefore condoning- of the fear from legislators over the use of that money to challenge them at election time that creates the defeatist attitude of progressive organizations these days.

Yes- getting all money out of politics is the ultimate solution to our broken political system. But if we give up before we begin, we're giving that money exponentially more power than it already has.

IT'S OVER WELL BEFORE IT'S OVER

IT'S OVER WELL BEFORE IT'S OVER: For those of us on the neighbor islands, the state legislature- which will mercifully cease to function after tomorrow's "Sine Die"- might as well be on Jupiter.

So it used to be that, for us personally, it was like going to a really long movie and falling asleep during the credits while telling our companion to wake us when it's over and tell us what happened.

After many years of local political wrangling it became apparent about 20 years ago that there are some wacky things that go on at the county level that can be traced right back to the lege and if we wanted to effect any change it would take a change of venue.

Now after two decades of long-distance code-deciphering it's become painfully obvious that we'd be better off- at least as far as our doctor is concerned- going back to a "wake me when it's over and show me the damage" attitude.

Even- or maybe especially- when we had two "allies" in the legislature- Mina Morita in the house and Gray Hooser in the senate- tackling individual bills has been a fool's errand. For the good bills, we had guides in both houses to maneuver them up the hills and out of the valleys.

But for the rest, nothing seems to matter and we only get our hopes up each time a bill moves out of a committee or reaches crossover or clears committee assignments on the other side or makes it to a conference committee.

We know we'll eventually be getting that old queasy feeling that it was all in vain.

We couldn't have agreed more when we opened an email from State Sierra Club E.D. Robert D. Harris yesterday and he wrote:

If I had to summarize this session in one word, it would be: disappointing.

Well actually we would have used a choice adjective or two not found in children's dictionaries, but why quibble?

Now young Mr. Harris is fairly new at this, taking over the SC helm a couple of years ago, so he can be excused for this starry-eyed assessment of how it's supposed to work.

Conference committees are supposed to be the stage at which the House and Senate resolve nagging differences between two different drafts of the same bill. While sometimes the differences are too great to resolve, the expectation is that most bills that reach conference committee can and should pass. Considerable work has already been done to get the bills to this point and open minds can usually figure out how to hammer out a final piece of legislation.

But sometime it takes a less jaded observer- and one who actually sat through this year's debacle- to cut through the crap in the newspapers, whose reporters and analysts have apparently failed to see the forest for the trees.

Harris gave this explanation- one that makes sense to us- as to why every god-damned bill we tracked this year either died or was made toothless, saying:

This year was different. House leaders desperately wanted to pass a tax on high-income pensioners. Presumably under the direction of the House leadership, the House Committee on Finance refused to sign off on a number of environmental bills (this might have been true across the board, but I can only speak on behalf of the bills I was tracking). Most observers concluded this was intended to force the Senate to agree to the pension tax.

The Senate refused to go along. And to increase the pressure, the Senate announced all bills needed to be finished before 6:00 pm on Friday, May 6th or the Senate would stop negotiating.

This type of grandstanding has occurred before. When the 6:00 pm deadline passed, most observers assumed that one side or the other, (House or Senate) would blink and a bulk of the bills in conference committee would then be passed.

To the shock of many, when the two budget committees came back at 9:30 pm they had only passed four or five revenue bills (not including the tax on pensions) and promptly declared the session over. Numerous bills that had been held up by the House leadership simply died.

This result was simply stunning. Critical bills died without so much as a whimper. Bills like the one that would have reallocated income from the barrel tax to fund clean energy programs and a bill to charge small fees to fund the Office of Environmental Quality Control, a chronically underfunded and understaffed agency. Bills like the popular proposed fee on paper/plastic bags, which would have provided a big new revenue source as well as create a big environmental benefit. Hordes of lobbyists were seen walking around the capitol in a daze.

But does it really matter HOW it happened this year? Surely they'll come up with another unbelievably corrupt- if not obscure and arcane- way to do it in 2012.

We'll probably forget about all this by the time next January rolls around again and once more ask around for some legislative packages and optimistically pull a few bills for support only to have ulcers and chest pains by the beginning of May; at least this year we probably won't have to sweat out the long list of vetoes and non-releases of authorized funding that marked the Ding-a-Lingle years... which of course includes the really bad bills that creeped though.

And when we do forget, please- hit us in the head with a frying pan and knock us out until it's over.

Pass the Prozac please.

UP ON THE ROOF

UP ON THE ROOF: They say that with age comes wisdom but the real trick may be in getting to be old enough so that others see that what appeared to be a good idea 10 or 15 years ago actually was.

When solar hot water heaters were becoming ubiquitous- back before passage of the Gary Hooser legacy bill requiring new homes to be built with them- we had wondered why utilities shouldn't make it easy to help people finance not just rooftop solar hot water but solar electricity units with zero percent loans that are collected each month to be paid off with the savings the customer was realizing in the billing period.

We assumed that it was opposition from the utilities that was blocking it because, despite lip service to conservation and alternative energy, each was stuck in "we sell electricity to you" paradigm where the more electricity they sold the bigger the profit.

So we went to the State House Energy Committee Chair Mina Morita and asked what it would take would move the legislature off the dime and get them to pass enabling legislation despite the opposition from electric companies.

We assumed that the handful of providers of solar systems would be a good place to start since they could provide the resources to begin the fight.

But shockingly we found out that the main stumbling block was those self-same companies.

Seems that there were only a couple of them at the time and they had all the business they could handle, thank you very much, and they worried that if the government provided for a massive program it would bring oodles of competition into the market, cutting their monopoly into a million little pieces.

Cut to today and amazingly enough, there are plenty solar companies and so House Bill 1520 SD2 has reached a conference committee and appears to be poised for passage despite opposition from- you guessed it- the utility companies.

The bill, introduced by Morita before she left to head the Public Utilities Commission,

Directs the public utilities commission to consider implementing an on-bill financing program for residential electric utility customers to finance purchases of energy efficient or renewable energy devices and systems through their regular electric utility bills.

According to a Sierra Club's Capitol Watch email "Blue Planet Foundation is holding a rally to promote House Bill 1520 SD2 today at the capitol from 12:30-1 p.m."

Although testimony is no longer being taken at this point in the legislative session it couldn't hurt to drop an email of support to representatives (reps@capitol.hawaii.gov) and senators sens@capitol.hawaii.gov) urging their support for this long overdue measure that would start the ball rolling to decentralize carbon-free electricity distribution.

...AND THE UGLY

...AND THE UGLY: There’s good news and bad news on the Lepeuli- aka Larsen’s Beach- front.

The good news is that the appeal of the Bruce Laymon’s CDUA permit- filed by Sierra Club- along with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (HLC) and the Surfrider Foundation and supported by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has been granted.

The bad news is that it will be heard in Honolulu on the May 13th meeting of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR).

According to Hope Kallai of Malama Moloa`a (MM) Laymon has clearcut the beach and shredded coral and apparently no agency seems to care. And there’s still no usable access while the various “stakeholder” parties wrangle over whether or not to honor the traditional Alaloa or make believe it never existed with the later seemingly being the one thing they all agree upon.

For those who are uninitiated in the debacle, follow the links above for our past posts.

Apparently the best Kaua`i people who can’t afford airfare can do is to write to various people and agencies.

Here’s a primer in preparing testimony from MM.

----

Lepeuli CDUA appeal will be discussed at the BLNR meeting May 13 in Honolulu

According to (Tiger) Kimberly K. Tiger Mills, Staff Planner for the State of Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources (DLNR) Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL), the appeal of the approval of the Paradise Ranch Conservation District Use Application to convert shorefront coastal scrub into commercial cattle pasture will be considered by the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) on THURSDAY, May 13, 2010. Meetings begin at 9 am at the
Kalanimoku Building1151 Punchbowl St.Honolulu , HI 96813www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/occl
dlnr@hawaii.gov

The agenda is not available yet, but Lepeuli as an agenda item has been confirmed. Book flights now!

The BLNR meeting agenda for May 13th will appear on our website one week prior on May 6th: http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/chair/meeting

· There are many reasons for considering the appeal of this CDUA. There has been seriously inadequate community involvement. Repeated requests from the public as well as 3 requests from Senator Gary Hooser (even offering to fund the DLNR trip to Kauai for the meeting) have been refused.

-There are inadequate agency comments. Three federally listed species will potentially be negatively impacted by this project, yet there is no Habitat Conservation Plan (as required under HRS 195D-21) for these species. Federal funds are being used for pasture conversion of a native habitat with potential impacts to endangered species.

-There must be a current shoreline certification. There has not been a state survey since 1978. Project applicant states “property boundary is makai of shoreline.” He manages the coral cobble and sand with a BrushHog. This is PUBLIC LAND in the Conservation District. Applicant has removed the debris line with machinery.

-Ancient Alaloa has NEVER been closed off. It is a significant trail with important cultural and PASH access needs. It has been in continual use for many hundreds of years. All ancient roads and trails are state land. The cultural comments of segment of the Alaloa (Arch siste 1034) managed by the Na Ala Hele trail system document the importance of this trail system and the antiquity of it. The Lepeuli must be recognized as an Archaeological Site and offered state protection.

-There must be a Cultural Impact Assessment of the ahupua`a of Lepeuli before any more mechanized manipulation of cultural sites present.

DLNR never contacted any harvesters or user groups of the most important limu kohu resources in Hawaii .

-Agriculture (cattle operations) will not benefit the reef. This statement is ridiculous.

-There has never been an estimate at the usage and visitation of the Alaloa or the County Right-Of-Way. The user groups must be defined and consulted before any new trail is designed. Traditional gathers must be consulted about trail access.

-Any new trail configuration must be designed to PASH and ADA Standards. The Ancient Alaloa falls under Historic Trail standards; the County Right of Way must adhere to ADA Trail standards.

-Impact to protected species of Alaloa closure (and subsequent increase in beach travel) has not been considered.

-Native plant communities and indigenous wildlife are protected under HRS 195.

-Beach access is protected by Hawaii state laws including the right of safe transit along the shorelines. HRS 115-5 offers the public a 6’ transit corridor in areas where there are rocky shorelines or cliffs. Blocking any public access with fences or gates to the shoreline is a misdemeanor and punishable by fines.

Letters can be written to the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) at

Adaline Cummings, SecretaryBoard of Land & Natural Resources1151 Punchbowl Street, Suite 130Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Phone: 808-587-0404Fax: 808-587-0390
adaline.f.cummings@hawaii.gov

Comments should also be sent to Tiger Mills of the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands

Kimberly K. (Tiger) Mills, Staff PlannerState of HawaiiDepartment of Land & Natural ResourcesOffice of Conservation and Coastal LandsP.O. Box 621Honolulu, Hawaii 96809
kimberly.mills@hawaii.gov

Request a current Shoreline Certification from the State Land Survey Division

Reid K. Siarot, State Land Surveyor
Department of Accounting & General Services
Land Survey Division
1151 Punchbowl St., Rm 210
Honolulu Hawaii 96813
(808) 586-0390
(808) 586-0383 fax
reid.k.siarot@hawaii.gov

and

Christopher L. Conger, Shoreline Specialist
University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program
Department of Land and Natural Resources
1151 Punchbowl St., Rm 131
Honolulu Hawaii 96813
(808) 587-0049 work
(808) 520-4892 work cell
(808) 587-0322 fax
Chris.L.Conger@hawaii.gov

Request a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) and Archaeological Inventory/Assessment from

Puaalaokalani Aiu, Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
Kakuhihewa Building,
601 Kamokila Blvd., Suite 555,
Kapolei, Hawai`i , 96707Ph: (808) 692-8015Fax: (808) 692-8020
Pua.Aiu@hawaii.gov
nancy.a.mcmahon@hawaii.gov

And

Clyde Namu`o
OHA
711 Kapi'olani Blvd., Ste. 500
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 594-1835
Fax: (808) 594-1865
clydenamuo@oha.org

OHA Washington, D.C., Bureau50 F St. NW, Ste. 3300Washington, D.C. 20001 Ph: (202) 454-0920 Fax: (202) 789-1758 timjohnson@ohadc.org

OHA Kaua'i & Ni'ihau2970 Kele Street, Ste. 113Lihu'e, HI 96766Phone: (808) 241-3390Fax: (808) 241-3508 kalikos@oha.org
kaim@oha.org


Comments should also be sent to the county at
mayor@kauai.gov;openspace@kauai.gov; councilmembers@kauai.gov; CouncilTestimony@kauai.gov; csimao@kauai.gov;
State emails:
dlnr@hawaii.gov; adaline.f.cummings@hawaii.gov; kimberly.mills@hawaii.gov; reid.k.siarot@hawaii.gov; Chris.L.Conger@hawaii.gov; Pua.Aiu@hawaii.gov;
nancy.a.mcmahon@hawaii.gov; clydenamuo@oha.org; timjohnson@ohadc.org; kalikos@oha.org
kaim@oha.org

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.