ENHANCE THIS: Words matter. And when words change so can facts related to them.
It’s all part of the way the “big lie” works.
Just this morning, as if designed to give us a lead-in to how the coastal “bike path” became a “shared use” or “multi use path”, Ian Lind quoted a Mike Middlesworth article at Truthout.org, explaining how the media plays its part:
The oligarchy that owns and runs our government and controls our mass media has learned Goebbels’s lesson well: A lie unanswered is a lie believed – more so if the lie is repeated, over and over again.
Accordingly, a successful propaganda campaign must accomplish two essential and coordinated tasks: (a) tell the lies, and (b) see to it that they are not effectively refuted. The six media conglomerates that now control most of the US media accomplished both tasks supremely well.
So it’s no surprise that the somewhat clueless Leo Azambuja led his latest article on the bill that will no doubt be passed this Wednesday- after what he called “a long day of contrasting testimony from both sides of the dog-path issue” (emphasis added) last week- by saying:
The question of whether the county should allow dogs on the shared-use path has carried on for several months...
But why not? He has bought into the same big lie that any number of genuinely confused constituents have swallowed after being bombarded with propaganda by any number of “don’t confuse me with the facts”, misinformed misanthropes who insist that it’s not a bike path but one for any and all uses... even uses that make bicycling so dangerous to all as to make it all but impossible.
The fact is that the path originated through $40 million dollars of federal monies distributed by the state called Transpiration Enhancement (TE) funds.
The funds are specifically to be used for one of 12 activates acceding to 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(35), the most common being bike paths that provide for, well, transportation enhancement.
TE funds require a 20% match from the recipients. In our case that 20% came from donated lands the biggest portion of which, until recently, came from the Kealia Kai “gift” of coastal lands between Kealia and Kuna Bay (aka Donkey Beach).
The matter almost came to litigation when Attorney Bill Sweeney, representing several condos in Wailua that were slated to have the path run between their complexes and the ocean, threatened suit causing the county to move the path behind the condos.
Here’s the pertinent part of what he wrote at the time in convincing the county to change the route of the path lest they be sued for misusing the TE funds, according to administration testimony before the county council:
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Must Relate to Surface Transportation.
It is questionable whether the shoreline path relates to surface transportation and not recreation as required by applicable law. Each transportation enhancement (TE) project must relate to surface transportation and meet one of the 12 eligible activities [23 U.S.C. 101(a)(35)]. Applicable federal regulation clearly indicates that TE funds cannot be used to fund bike & pedestrian facilities that are solely for recreational use.
According to the language under 23 USC 217(1), "No bicycle project may be carried out under this section unless the Secretary has determined that such bicycle project will be principally for transportation, rather than recreation purposes".
Public support for modifying the pristine beach along the shoreline path with a concrete path or boardwalk is likely based on their misconception that the path will provide recreational opportunities. For example, in several articles in the The Garden Island Lester Chang reported as follows:
December 22, 2003: "The entire project would greatly enhance recreational needs in the Kawaihau District, the largest population area on the island, county officials have said."
March 6, 2004:
"The entire project is intended to enhance recreational opportunities in the Kawaihau District, which boasts the largest population of the island." (Emphasis added) The State of Hawai`i and Kauai Count must justify the shoreline on the basis of primarily benefiting transportation and not for recreational purposes.
The Inland Roadways route (Alternative 2) and the Canal Path route (Alternative 3) more clearly satisfy the objective of enhancing transportation in that they have a closer relationship to Kuhio Highway and are more likely to serve a transportation purpose. As discussed, the Inland Roadways route (Alternative 2) and the Canal Path route (Alternative 3) also avoid potential significant environmental, archeological and ecological concerns.
The number of examples and quotes have increased exponentially over the years, now numbering in the dozens from the newspaper and no doubt hundreds in minutes from county meetings.
And now, with the evolution of bike path to shared use path to dog path, the proof is in the pudding... or piddling as it were.
No one, despite dozens of requests- including a formal letter from then Councilperson Shaylene Iseri Carvalho to the state DOT just before she left office- has ever produced a determination from the federal secretary of transportation.
Some have gone as far as to claim that there never were any TE funds. But a simple visit to the county public works department will turn up the paperwork, as Building Division Chief Doug Hague will provide and attest to.
This weekend after reading in the announcement of the reelection bid of “shared use path” proponent Tim Bynum that he “wrote the initial funding proposal that started the shared-use coastal path project and continues to support its expansion” we asked him to explain and he confirmed that the $2.5 million in his proposal for the Lydgate Kamalani "Bridge", a maintenance shed and part of the path- as well as the other $40 million- came from TE funds.
So what? Well the addition of dogs to the strollers, kids roller-skating, people in wheelchairs and any number of future cat and even turtle walkers on the path (as has been discussed in council sessions) it has been said that it is now simply unsafe to have bicycles there- especially those using the path for 30 mph “transportation”- and perhaps we should move to ban bikes.
Banning bikes from a transportation-use bike path would seem pretty absurd. But when you call it a shared or muli-use path, well, anything goes doesn’t it?
We’re sure some troll will comment that we’re wrong. But then again that’s how the big lie works.
Showing posts with label bike path-dog path. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bike path-dog path. Show all posts
Monday, May 10, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
TAKE A LOAD FOR FREE
TAKE A LOAD FOR FREE: The rabid dog ladies- a term we’ve taken to use in describing the string of middle-aged haole women who have been streaming through the testimony table at recent county council meetings- will no doubt be back in force this Wednesday when the bill to allow dog-walking on the whole “dog path” comes up for a final committee session.
Their stridency is something to behold as is their mantra that “everyone” supports their “right” to walk their dogs on the path.
Today Joan Conrow reports on “an email sent around by Mr. Path, Thomas Noyes” saying”
Based on park users' overwhelming endorsement for allowing responsible dog walking on all of Kauai's existing and future multi-use path systems, as documented in the survey conducted under the direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Kauai Path board of directors supports responsible dog walking on all of Ke Ala Hele Makalae and future path systems.
This “survey” was conducted by 11 of the most hydrophobic of the supporters of allowing dogs on what is of course a “transportation, not recreation” bike path according to the federal law under which the original $40 million was obtained- although Noyes has succeeded in getting everyone to buy into calling it the “shared use path”.
So it’s no surprise then that in answer to the question “Did you experience any problems with dogs on the shred use path” way over 92.9% percent said no. Funny how when “staff”- i.e. county employees- were asked over 20% of those who answered said yes- a statistic that had to be gleaned since it and many other stats weren’t calculated by those that “compiled” the survey.
Of course the selection of participants by the dog ladies and the fact that “no” was the answer the surveyors wanted and expected- in addition to the local custom of telling people what they want to hear- had nothing to do with the answers.
But, as we pause to remove our tongue from our cheek, the one question that stands out when one peruses the entire “presentation” is the question “Is dog feces on the shared use path currently a significant problem?
The result reported was that 90.1% said no. But a look at the results of the staff survey showed that, again, of those who answered yes or no, 24.1% said yes and only 20% said no.
In answer to the question “Do you feel safe with leashed dogs on the shared use path?” again while 97% of the public said yes, a whopping 51.7% of staff (or about 3/4th of those who answered) said no while only 13.4% said yes.
Something’s fishy and it sounds like it just could be the “push poll” nature of the 11 dog zealots who took the public survey.
So what is the real situation with both leash violations and dog poop? Well, as we reported last week the union has filed a grievance because picking up dog crap is not currently in their job description.
A look at the actual “comments” of those volunteers themselves may show why there’s such a discrepancy.
Although the survey conveniently leaves off this info, council questioning revealed that during the period the survey was conducted the volunteers spent little time on the path, most under a half an hour a session on intermittent days- actually most of the surveys were completed by one person.
As a matter of fact total volunteer hours were 30 in December (2008) 24 in January (2009) and only 19.5 in February and a measly 8 in March.
That makes the report of 65 “notations of dog feces along the path” an unfathomable amount of crap if extrapolated for 12 hours a day. And that was only in a two and a half month period.
Buried on page 46 of the report is the meat- the violations reported not by staff but by the volunteers themselves.
We’re going to post the whole list here so you can get the “flavor”. Remember that as time has gone by volunteer monitoring has gone from meager to virtually non-existent despite promises that if the council passes the proposed dogs-on-the-whole-path ordinance they would “pick it up”- the monitoring that is.
Monitoring Log Comments (all sic)
p46
12/2/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/2/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (at rest pavilion) Cat feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/3/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/3/2008 Dog feces (2 piles) removed by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)
12/8/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/8/2008 Man with dog off leash at Lihi, reported by volunteer, no indication if warning was done by volunteer
12/11/2008 Stray dog found on path and picked up by Humane Society (noted by volunteer who brought dog to Ranger)
12/19/2008 Dog running loose near Kapaa Beach Park Pavilion, maybe from house where guy carves tikis
12/22/2008 Dog feces (3 piles removed at pavilion Kapaa N/C); (1 pile removed at the large dispenser at Kapaa N/C)
12/31/2008 Dispensers need to be refilled (Kealia & Kapaa N/C)
1/1/2009 Dog feces (2 piles) in the area of Pavilion #3(?) reported by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)(no notation if removed)
1/5/2009 Stray med sized white dog, at Lihi restroom, no license (no notation if Humane Society called for stray)
1/11/2009 Bicyclists w/dog not on leash - volunteer counseled riders & they complied
1/12/2009 Lady walker w/retracable leash (no indicate if spoke to walker)(AM)
1/12/2009 No bags at Lihi dispenser (empty several days), dispenser at Kapaa N/C stinks, not emptied in a couple of days (AM)
1/12/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces (1 on path other within 5' of path)(PM)
1/13/2009 Walkers w/two dogs, no visible poop bags (no indication if spoke to walkers) 1 pile of dog feces picked up within 5' of path
1/18/1900 Dog pot at Kealia overflowing & really stinks, also almost out of bags. "come on guys can't someone empty these"
1/20/2009 Graffitti path adjacent to Otsukas 6'x4' - red paint
1/21/2009 1 walker w/dog with a retractable leash (no notation if walker spoken to)
1/22/2009 Enforcement officer (Tony) picked up brown lab near Kapaa Pool. KHS picked up dog
1/26/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces near Kapaa Beach Park
1/26/2009 Lihi dispenser bottom missing & needs replacement parts ordered
1/26&27/09 Only poop on the path is chicken poop - Yahoo!
1/27/2009 Many chicken manure piles & dead & live slugs & snails
1/29/2009 2 walkers with dogs, no license, were informed
2/8/2009 No litter bags @ bathroom, rest site #1, Dogi pot #2 both sides full, Dogi pot #3 (pool) left side empty, Right full
2/8/2009 Dogi pot #4 upper empty, lower 1/4 full (lookout), Dogi pot #5 both full, Kealia Bridge, stray dog Kealia (no indication if Humane Society called)
2/8/2009 Walker didn't have dog on leash, conunseled her-she put dog on leash, 1 pile feces removed near Kapaa Neighborhood Center
2/12/2009 Launch bathroom doggie bags empty
2/13/2009 No dogs today
2/13/2009 Boat launch bathrooms/doggie bags empty, Kealia Lookout/dogi bag empty, 1 pile dog feces Kealia pavilion (no indication if removed)
2/17/2009 Dogi bag dispenser empty boat ramp bathrooms, Dogi bag dispenser police station bathroom empty, 2 piles feces within 5' of path (no location)
2/18/2009 2 walkers with dogs off leash, put them all on leash, 1 speeding ultra-fast bicyclist - no bike bell, 1 pile feces removed by neighborhood center
2/18/2009 No more poop bags at doggie pot dispenser scenic parking lot
If anyone wants to go through the whole presentation we have the “power point” file (you need PP software to download it) and we’ll forward to you upon request.
We should note that we don’t hate dogs. But what we do hate is allowing a small group to dictate policy through intimidation and falsified and manipulated information.
We do support the right of people who are genuinely afraid of dogs- especially little kids who are at eye-to-eye level with some of them- to be able to use the path, along with those on bicycles (whose use should be a priority) to not have to veer off the path when a dog, as they are prone to do, lunges at them, leashes notwithstanding.
Their stridency is something to behold as is their mantra that “everyone” supports their “right” to walk their dogs on the path.
Today Joan Conrow reports on “an email sent around by Mr. Path, Thomas Noyes” saying”
Based on park users' overwhelming endorsement for allowing responsible dog walking on all of Kauai's existing and future multi-use path systems, as documented in the survey conducted under the direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Kauai Path board of directors supports responsible dog walking on all of Ke Ala Hele Makalae and future path systems.
This “survey” was conducted by 11 of the most hydrophobic of the supporters of allowing dogs on what is of course a “transportation, not recreation” bike path according to the federal law under which the original $40 million was obtained- although Noyes has succeeded in getting everyone to buy into calling it the “shared use path”.
So it’s no surprise then that in answer to the question “Did you experience any problems with dogs on the shred use path” way over 92.9% percent said no. Funny how when “staff”- i.e. county employees- were asked over 20% of those who answered said yes- a statistic that had to be gleaned since it and many other stats weren’t calculated by those that “compiled” the survey.
Of course the selection of participants by the dog ladies and the fact that “no” was the answer the surveyors wanted and expected- in addition to the local custom of telling people what they want to hear- had nothing to do with the answers.
But, as we pause to remove our tongue from our cheek, the one question that stands out when one peruses the entire “presentation” is the question “Is dog feces on the shared use path currently a significant problem?
The result reported was that 90.1% said no. But a look at the results of the staff survey showed that, again, of those who answered yes or no, 24.1% said yes and only 20% said no.
In answer to the question “Do you feel safe with leashed dogs on the shared use path?” again while 97% of the public said yes, a whopping 51.7% of staff (or about 3/4th of those who answered) said no while only 13.4% said yes.
Something’s fishy and it sounds like it just could be the “push poll” nature of the 11 dog zealots who took the public survey.
So what is the real situation with both leash violations and dog poop? Well, as we reported last week the union has filed a grievance because picking up dog crap is not currently in their job description.
A look at the actual “comments” of those volunteers themselves may show why there’s such a discrepancy.
Although the survey conveniently leaves off this info, council questioning revealed that during the period the survey was conducted the volunteers spent little time on the path, most under a half an hour a session on intermittent days- actually most of the surveys were completed by one person.
As a matter of fact total volunteer hours were 30 in December (2008) 24 in January (2009) and only 19.5 in February and a measly 8 in March.
That makes the report of 65 “notations of dog feces along the path” an unfathomable amount of crap if extrapolated for 12 hours a day. And that was only in a two and a half month period.
Buried on page 46 of the report is the meat- the violations reported not by staff but by the volunteers themselves.
We’re going to post the whole list here so you can get the “flavor”. Remember that as time has gone by volunteer monitoring has gone from meager to virtually non-existent despite promises that if the council passes the proposed dogs-on-the-whole-path ordinance they would “pick it up”- the monitoring that is.
Monitoring Log Comments (all sic)
p46
12/2/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/2/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (at rest pavilion) Cat feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/3/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/3/2008 Dog feces (2 piles) removed by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)
12/8/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/8/2008 Man with dog off leash at Lihi, reported by volunteer, no indication if warning was done by volunteer
12/11/2008 Stray dog found on path and picked up by Humane Society (noted by volunteer who brought dog to Ranger)
12/19/2008 Dog running loose near Kapaa Beach Park Pavilion, maybe from house where guy carves tikis
12/22/2008 Dog feces (3 piles removed at pavilion Kapaa N/C); (1 pile removed at the large dispenser at Kapaa N/C)
12/31/2008 Dispensers need to be refilled (Kealia & Kapaa N/C)
1/1/2009 Dog feces (2 piles) in the area of Pavilion #3(?) reported by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)(no notation if removed)
1/5/2009 Stray med sized white dog, at Lihi restroom, no license (no notation if Humane Society called for stray)
1/11/2009 Bicyclists w/dog not on leash - volunteer counseled riders & they complied
1/12/2009 Lady walker w/retracable leash (no indicate if spoke to walker)(AM)
1/12/2009 No bags at Lihi dispenser (empty several days), dispenser at Kapaa N/C stinks, not emptied in a couple of days (AM)
1/12/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces (1 on path other within 5' of path)(PM)
1/13/2009 Walkers w/two dogs, no visible poop bags (no indication if spoke to walkers) 1 pile of dog feces picked up within 5' of path
1/18/1900 Dog pot at Kealia overflowing & really stinks, also almost out of bags. "come on guys can't someone empty these"
1/20/2009 Graffitti path adjacent to Otsukas 6'x4' - red paint
1/21/2009 1 walker w/dog with a retractable leash (no notation if walker spoken to)
1/22/2009 Enforcement officer (Tony) picked up brown lab near Kapaa Pool. KHS picked up dog
1/26/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces near Kapaa Beach Park
1/26/2009 Lihi dispenser bottom missing & needs replacement parts ordered
1/26&27/09 Only poop on the path is chicken poop - Yahoo!
1/27/2009 Many chicken manure piles & dead & live slugs & snails
1/29/2009 2 walkers with dogs, no license, were informed
2/8/2009 No litter bags @ bathroom, rest site #1, Dogi pot #2 both sides full, Dogi pot #3 (pool) left side empty, Right full
2/8/2009 Dogi pot #4 upper empty, lower 1/4 full (lookout), Dogi pot #5 both full, Kealia Bridge, stray dog Kealia (no indication if Humane Society called)
2/8/2009 Walker didn't have dog on leash, conunseled her-she put dog on leash, 1 pile feces removed near Kapaa Neighborhood Center
2/12/2009 Launch bathroom doggie bags empty
2/13/2009 No dogs today
2/13/2009 Boat launch bathrooms/doggie bags empty, Kealia Lookout/dogi bag empty, 1 pile dog feces Kealia pavilion (no indication if removed)
2/17/2009 Dogi bag dispenser empty boat ramp bathrooms, Dogi bag dispenser police station bathroom empty, 2 piles feces within 5' of path (no location)
2/18/2009 2 walkers with dogs off leash, put them all on leash, 1 speeding ultra-fast bicyclist - no bike bell, 1 pile feces removed by neighborhood center
2/18/2009 No more poop bags at doggie pot dispenser scenic parking lot
If anyone wants to go through the whole presentation we have the “power point” file (you need PP software to download it) and we’ll forward to you upon request.
We should note that we don’t hate dogs. But what we do hate is allowing a small group to dictate policy through intimidation and falsified and manipulated information.
We do support the right of people who are genuinely afraid of dogs- especially little kids who are at eye-to-eye level with some of them- to be able to use the path, along with those on bicycles (whose use should be a priority) to not have to veer off the path when a dog, as they are prone to do, lunges at them, leashes notwithstanding.
Monday, March 8, 2010
MORE POOP ON THE PATH
MORE POOP ON THE PATH: It’s been a week and a half now since the jaw dropping news from Joan Conrow that none other than Kaua`i Humane Society (KHS) chief Becky Rhoades
was indeed cited on Jan. 29 for having a dog on a section of the Path where dogs are not allowed. Hers was one of five citations issued since the ordinance took effect on Dec. 1, 2008.
And indeed in an email, county spokesperson Mary Daubert confirned to Joan that:
Dr. Becky Rhoades was cited on Jan. 29 for having a dog in a section ofthe multi-use path where dogs are not allowed.
Since the ordinance took effect on Dec. 1, 2008, 5 citations have beenissued to people who had dogs on sections of the multi-use path wheredogs are not allowed.
But nary a word out of the local newspaper whose editors, we’re quite sure read Joan’s Kaua`iEclectic reports where, despite the “blog” disguise, many major local stories are broken on a regular basis.
Now you would think this is man bites dog stuff. A leash law violation in and of itself is not front page news. One by the head of KHS might be although it might actually be more of an embarrassment.
But, as Joan wrote:
Yes, this is the very same Dr. Becky Rhoades who is continually preaching responsibility among dog owners, who launched a citizen’s patrol to ensure people were picking up their dog’s doodoo on the Path and who told the County Council:
“I honestly believe we will have better dog stewardship if we pass these ordinances,” she said.
Can you say ironic?
Joan is such a nice lady that the word she chose was ironic. We’d prefer to drop the “i” and add “mo”.
The fact that the one person who led the fight to allow dogs on one certain portion of the dog, er, bike path and was even put in charge of education as to where to and more importantly where not to walk your dog would care about the potential negative publicity of getting a ticket.
She obviously is concerned enough about negative publicity that, in the same article Joan cited she also said:
“This is a really important time for Kaua‘i,” Kaua‘i Humane Society Director Becky Rhoades said. “To be known as a dog-hating visitor attraction is not what we want to be known for.”
But maybe she has no need to be concerned. Especially if we remember who would be the one to report on the police and courts.
That would, at the risk of stealing Keith Obermann’s shtick, the “worst reporter in the world”, Paul Curtis- the same one who splashes headlines above articles about poor misguided, usually drug addicted kids who go astray, assuring that integration into the community after either rehab or jail time will be twice as hard, increasing chances for recidivism.
As Joan pointed out earlier back in June of 2009, this is nothing new from Curtis when it comes to Rhodes and KHS, writing
I’m so glad I’m one of those people who naturally wakes up early and so am able to enjoy the dawn of each day. It fortifies me with a good feeling that persists even through exposure to the news — not that you could call The Garden Island’s article on a Poipu animal cruelty case that. Reporter Paul Curtis completely threw objectivity out the window in his coverage and allowed himself to become a propaganda machine for the Kauai Humane Society.
I’ve noticed this every single time the paper covers stories that obviously come from the Humane Society. The reporters let director Becky Rhoades say any kind, with nary a glimmer of any other point of view. She did the same thing last month in a piece on roosters confiscated from a chicken fight.
Now no one wants to learn of dogs starving and rotting in their kennels, but there’s also the issue of trying —heck, slandering — a person in the newspaper, especially when he’s awaiting trial. And I couldn’t help but wonder if the KHS offensive was an attempt to CYA. I mean, they reportedly found a dead dog in this guy’s kennels in March, and after seeing everything was hunky dory in April, the enforcement officer stopped following up.
Come on. People don’t go from having a dead dog in a kennel to being model pet owners in a month. Surely a tad more oversight was warranted.
Today’s article notes:
The case is a bit puzzling to Rhoades, she said, because KHS offers free food, owner educational assistance, spay and neuter services, and other services, no questions asked.
What Dr. Becky in her self-righteousness doesn’t seem to understand is that many people do not view the Humane Society as a helpful resource where they’re likely to get assistance “no questions asked” – especially if they’re hunters.
A good reporter has that “nose for news” and when they are being bullsh-tted and sold a bill of good they use that nose to sniff around and find out what’s really going on and why they feel like something doesn’t add up
They don’t just act as regurgitating scribes who allow themselves to join a “Confederacy of Dunces” and spread the self-serving propaganda of some PR hack or mealy-mouth CEO.
We’ve been very lucky lately that the local paper has put the dynamic duo of Mike Levine and Nathan Eagle in charge of daily operations.
Their one mistake until now has been in bringing back Curtis who, as weekend editor during the Adam Harju reign was fired for interfering with a series of stories by Business Editor Andy Gross investigating KIUC. Gross quit in protest over what was essentially a published apology to KIUC for Gross’ series of articles, written by Curtis.
Come one guys- how much longer does this have to go on? There’s no shortage of good reporters without job these days- why do we have to put up with someone who has to put a smiley face on any story about the comfortable and afflict only the already afflicted?
was indeed cited on Jan. 29 for having a dog on a section of the Path where dogs are not allowed. Hers was one of five citations issued since the ordinance took effect on Dec. 1, 2008.
And indeed in an email, county spokesperson Mary Daubert confirned to Joan that:
Dr. Becky Rhoades was cited on Jan. 29 for having a dog in a section ofthe multi-use path where dogs are not allowed.
Since the ordinance took effect on Dec. 1, 2008, 5 citations have beenissued to people who had dogs on sections of the multi-use path wheredogs are not allowed.
But nary a word out of the local newspaper whose editors, we’re quite sure read Joan’s Kaua`iEclectic reports where, despite the “blog” disguise, many major local stories are broken on a regular basis.
Now you would think this is man bites dog stuff. A leash law violation in and of itself is not front page news. One by the head of KHS might be although it might actually be more of an embarrassment.
But, as Joan wrote:
Yes, this is the very same Dr. Becky Rhoades who is continually preaching responsibility among dog owners, who launched a citizen’s patrol to ensure people were picking up their dog’s doodoo on the Path and who told the County Council:
“I honestly believe we will have better dog stewardship if we pass these ordinances,” she said.
Can you say ironic?
Joan is such a nice lady that the word she chose was ironic. We’d prefer to drop the “i” and add “mo”.
The fact that the one person who led the fight to allow dogs on one certain portion of the dog, er, bike path and was even put in charge of education as to where to and more importantly where not to walk your dog would care about the potential negative publicity of getting a ticket.
She obviously is concerned enough about negative publicity that, in the same article Joan cited she also said:
“This is a really important time for Kaua‘i,” Kaua‘i Humane Society Director Becky Rhoades said. “To be known as a dog-hating visitor attraction is not what we want to be known for.”
But maybe she has no need to be concerned. Especially if we remember who would be the one to report on the police and courts.
That would, at the risk of stealing Keith Obermann’s shtick, the “worst reporter in the world”, Paul Curtis- the same one who splashes headlines above articles about poor misguided, usually drug addicted kids who go astray, assuring that integration into the community after either rehab or jail time will be twice as hard, increasing chances for recidivism.
As Joan pointed out earlier back in June of 2009, this is nothing new from Curtis when it comes to Rhodes and KHS, writing
I’m so glad I’m one of those people who naturally wakes up early and so am able to enjoy the dawn of each day. It fortifies me with a good feeling that persists even through exposure to the news — not that you could call The Garden Island’s article on a Poipu animal cruelty case that. Reporter Paul Curtis completely threw objectivity out the window in his coverage and allowed himself to become a propaganda machine for the Kauai Humane Society.
I’ve noticed this every single time the paper covers stories that obviously come from the Humane Society. The reporters let director Becky Rhoades say any kind, with nary a glimmer of any other point of view. She did the same thing last month in a piece on roosters confiscated from a chicken fight.
Now no one wants to learn of dogs starving and rotting in their kennels, but there’s also the issue of trying —heck, slandering — a person in the newspaper, especially when he’s awaiting trial. And I couldn’t help but wonder if the KHS offensive was an attempt to CYA. I mean, they reportedly found a dead dog in this guy’s kennels in March, and after seeing everything was hunky dory in April, the enforcement officer stopped following up.
Come on. People don’t go from having a dead dog in a kennel to being model pet owners in a month. Surely a tad more oversight was warranted.
Today’s article notes:
The case is a bit puzzling to Rhoades, she said, because KHS offers free food, owner educational assistance, spay and neuter services, and other services, no questions asked.
What Dr. Becky in her self-righteousness doesn’t seem to understand is that many people do not view the Humane Society as a helpful resource where they’re likely to get assistance “no questions asked” – especially if they’re hunters.
A good reporter has that “nose for news” and when they are being bullsh-tted and sold a bill of good they use that nose to sniff around and find out what’s really going on and why they feel like something doesn’t add up
They don’t just act as regurgitating scribes who allow themselves to join a “Confederacy of Dunces” and spread the self-serving propaganda of some PR hack or mealy-mouth CEO.
We’ve been very lucky lately that the local paper has put the dynamic duo of Mike Levine and Nathan Eagle in charge of daily operations.
Their one mistake until now has been in bringing back Curtis who, as weekend editor during the Adam Harju reign was fired for interfering with a series of stories by Business Editor Andy Gross investigating KIUC. Gross quit in protest over what was essentially a published apology to KIUC for Gross’ series of articles, written by Curtis.
Come one guys- how much longer does this have to go on? There’s no shortage of good reporters without job these days- why do we have to put up with someone who has to put a smiley face on any story about the comfortable and afflict only the already afflicted?
Friday, November 21, 2008
GOT TO KEEP THE LOONIES ON THE PATH
GOT TO KEEP THE LOONIES ON THE PATH: One steaming pile of legacy that will appear on the new Council table is the coastal bike path- a project that everyone apparently loves but no one really seems to like.
Seems people are waking up to the fact that this ill-conceived, illegally-executed, environmentally-insane, over-regulated and costly boondoggle of a bureaucratic nightmare has, instead of preserving beach access as it was originally “sold” by the late Mayor Bryan Baptiste, actually cut off access to the area north of Kealia Beach.
As PNN reported in 2002 the actual deed to the property contains a clause that requires it remain open 24/7/365.
Yesterday’s local paper’s report on Wednesday’s council meeting detailed yet more county-fabricated problems with the path, spurring statements from prosecutor-elect Councilperson Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho comparing walking there to stealing from a store and threatening to throw the book at anyone daring to go there until it’s declared open- sentiments echoed by Council Chair Jay Furfaro.
This was a bit much for reporter/blogger Joan Conrow, who has been seemingly non-committal on the path except when it comes to dog walking. She laid into various aspects of the path and Iseri’s declaration of war.
She wrote
OK, Shaylene, let’s get a grip. First, walking on a portion of the Path that has not been officially opened is not in any way like stealing a blouse. And second, you’re not trying to protect us from ourselves — whatever that is — you’re just trying to make sure the county doesn’t get sued.
She also expresses her dismay at some general aspect of the path.
And that’s what concerns me about the Path. Mark my words, we’re going to end up losing access when the concrete cracks or a dog bites somebody or coastal erosion encroaches — already a scenario at the portion by Pono Kai — and then the county will close it up, just like they’ve relinquished beach accesses, because they’re worried about liability.
In the meantime, best not be planning any scofflaw behavior, like walking Fido without a doo doo bag in hand and a carefully measured leash, because the county will show no mercy — and presumably, neither will Shaylene.
But like many others who have harsh words for a specific aspects of the “bike path” she still apparently remains neutral on the project as a whole.
Like Mel Rapozo- who with Iseri spent the last few years looking for accountability and uncovering the almost imbecilic derivation, justification and actualization from bike path to dog path- most people can’t find much good to say about the project path yet still “support the bike path”.
Another heretofore silent critic, David Stewart of Wailua, weighed in in today’s letters to the editor in the local paper.
He writes:
What is going on here? This whole area of pathways and canehaul roads had been used for years by me and others for hiking, biking and walking dogs. Suddenly, in January 2006 the entire area was officially posted closed and we were told that the new path would open early in 2007...
It seems that the entire project is totally mis-managed by the county and the contractors. There does not seem to be a will to finish. There does not appear to be a concern, or understanding, that this area was heavily used by residents before path construction started. In addition, there is no transparency on status. Only when county staff have to testify before the County Council do we get any information. Phase II is but a quarter of the entire envisioned path project, and engineering-wise some of the easiest.
Yet at the end he says
I fear that the county has demonstrated its inability to manage such a project and, although I am a supporter of the entire path, I seriously wonder about the county’s ability to lead the entire project to completion.(emphasis added.)
Huh?
Do people like this also support the next phase, one for which we don’t have any money, having long ago spent that “free money” from the feds... or misspent it since it came from a fund for construction of a bike path “for transportation not recreation”?
That new phase- proposed in an illegally-segmented environmental assessment- brings the “coastal path” across the highway and smack through the Safeway and Foodland parking lots.
According to the newspaper article “(t)here will be a meeting next month to discuss the design of the portion that will connect Lydgate Park to Lihi boat ramp.”.although no announcment appears on the county web site.
But of course one man has not minced his oppositional words and has been the harbinger of the corruption and incompetence and downright pigheaded persistence of the path proponents since day one.
While the public slept the advocates have turned the once open and accessible makai areas into a highly-restricted, tightly-regulated “linear park” by illegally (as we’ve detailed many times) plopping down a ribbon of concrete where much if it will be eroded away by the ocean in a matter of a few years if not hours what with tonight’s predicted raging storm.
We’ll leave you with Glen Mickens’ testimony at Wednesday’s council meeting.
I believe it is way past time that this administration give an update on this total path---itemization of the money spent so far for work done; total money obligated for work now being done; prospective money needed to finish the entire 16 to 23 miles of path (length having changed several times since the start) including land acquisition, condemnation and ALL variables; a copy of the original contract with the Federal Government showing what TE funds were asked for, the exact route as outlined to the Feds; a copy of the final EA done on the entire outlined route remembering that the Comprehensive Exemption List for the State of Hawaii DOT states under Exemption Class 1: "Operations, repairs, or maintenance of EXISTING structures, facilities NOT proposed new ones as Doug Haigh once told the council that they were.
On October `18th, 2007 the council by a 4 to 3 vote approved an audit of this path by the State auditor to "examine expenditures, permitting and compliance with grant requirements"---a Garden Island quote. This audit was highly fought by all path proponents including 3 members of this council but, as Kipu Kai Kualii so wisely said, "It's the Administration's mismanagement of this entire project that leads responsible people like Rapozo and Iseri-Carvalho to call for an audit. If we don't have anymore "nonsense" and "incompetence" to hide (&/or correct) then why should we oppose an audit? The citizens of Kauai. if you ask me, deserve an audit as much as we deserve a path."
This path was ill planned from the get go and the chances of it ever being completed are slim to zero, especially in this highly unstable economy. I just returned from Broadbeach, Australia and there are some beautiful walking, jogging paths there. But the roads have huge bike lanes along them (the lanes are as big as for cars) and the true bikers ride fast on them.
Their paths, as so many on the mainland were programmed into the community BEFORE the area was developed---not like the path we are trying to retrofit here on Kauai.Had those who proposed this path tried to put it Mauka instead of Makai it might have had a chance to be built. However, as I have repetitively said, our tax dollars have way too many places of high priority to be used before even thinking about a bike path.
Remember that Doug Haigh once said that no study had ever been done on the usage of this path but the question screams for an answer, WHY? Before you spend millions of dollars on a project you certainly need to know the bang you are getting for your buck.
Seems people are waking up to the fact that this ill-conceived, illegally-executed, environmentally-insane, over-regulated and costly boondoggle of a bureaucratic nightmare has, instead of preserving beach access as it was originally “sold” by the late Mayor Bryan Baptiste, actually cut off access to the area north of Kealia Beach.
As PNN reported in 2002 the actual deed to the property contains a clause that requires it remain open 24/7/365.
Yesterday’s local paper’s report on Wednesday’s council meeting detailed yet more county-fabricated problems with the path, spurring statements from prosecutor-elect Councilperson Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho comparing walking there to stealing from a store and threatening to throw the book at anyone daring to go there until it’s declared open- sentiments echoed by Council Chair Jay Furfaro.
This was a bit much for reporter/blogger Joan Conrow, who has been seemingly non-committal on the path except when it comes to dog walking. She laid into various aspects of the path and Iseri’s declaration of war.
She wrote
OK, Shaylene, let’s get a grip. First, walking on a portion of the Path that has not been officially opened is not in any way like stealing a blouse. And second, you’re not trying to protect us from ourselves — whatever that is — you’re just trying to make sure the county doesn’t get sued.
She also expresses her dismay at some general aspect of the path.
And that’s what concerns me about the Path. Mark my words, we’re going to end up losing access when the concrete cracks or a dog bites somebody or coastal erosion encroaches — already a scenario at the portion by Pono Kai — and then the county will close it up, just like they’ve relinquished beach accesses, because they’re worried about liability.
In the meantime, best not be planning any scofflaw behavior, like walking Fido without a doo doo bag in hand and a carefully measured leash, because the county will show no mercy — and presumably, neither will Shaylene.
But like many others who have harsh words for a specific aspects of the “bike path” she still apparently remains neutral on the project as a whole.
Like Mel Rapozo- who with Iseri spent the last few years looking for accountability and uncovering the almost imbecilic derivation, justification and actualization from bike path to dog path- most people can’t find much good to say about the project path yet still “support the bike path”.
Another heretofore silent critic, David Stewart of Wailua, weighed in in today’s letters to the editor in the local paper.
He writes:
What is going on here? This whole area of pathways and canehaul roads had been used for years by me and others for hiking, biking and walking dogs. Suddenly, in January 2006 the entire area was officially posted closed and we were told that the new path would open early in 2007...
It seems that the entire project is totally mis-managed by the county and the contractors. There does not seem to be a will to finish. There does not appear to be a concern, or understanding, that this area was heavily used by residents before path construction started. In addition, there is no transparency on status. Only when county staff have to testify before the County Council do we get any information. Phase II is but a quarter of the entire envisioned path project, and engineering-wise some of the easiest.
Yet at the end he says
I fear that the county has demonstrated its inability to manage such a project and, although I am a supporter of the entire path, I seriously wonder about the county’s ability to lead the entire project to completion.(emphasis added.)
Huh?
Do people like this also support the next phase, one for which we don’t have any money, having long ago spent that “free money” from the feds... or misspent it since it came from a fund for construction of a bike path “for transportation not recreation”?
That new phase- proposed in an illegally-segmented environmental assessment- brings the “coastal path” across the highway and smack through the Safeway and Foodland parking lots.
According to the newspaper article “(t)here will be a meeting next month to discuss the design of the portion that will connect Lydgate Park to Lihi boat ramp.”.although no announcment appears on the county web site.
But of course one man has not minced his oppositional words and has been the harbinger of the corruption and incompetence and downright pigheaded persistence of the path proponents since day one.
While the public slept the advocates have turned the once open and accessible makai areas into a highly-restricted, tightly-regulated “linear park” by illegally (as we’ve detailed many times) plopping down a ribbon of concrete where much if it will be eroded away by the ocean in a matter of a few years if not hours what with tonight’s predicted raging storm.
We’ll leave you with Glen Mickens’ testimony at Wednesday’s council meeting.
I believe it is way past time that this administration give an update on this total path---itemization of the money spent so far for work done; total money obligated for work now being done; prospective money needed to finish the entire 16 to 23 miles of path (length having changed several times since the start) including land acquisition, condemnation and ALL variables; a copy of the original contract with the Federal Government showing what TE funds were asked for, the exact route as outlined to the Feds; a copy of the final EA done on the entire outlined route remembering that the Comprehensive Exemption List for the State of Hawaii DOT states under Exemption Class 1: "Operations, repairs, or maintenance of EXISTING structures, facilities NOT proposed new ones as Doug Haigh once told the council that they were.
On October `18th, 2007 the council by a 4 to 3 vote approved an audit of this path by the State auditor to "examine expenditures, permitting and compliance with grant requirements"---a Garden Island quote. This audit was highly fought by all path proponents including 3 members of this council but, as Kipu Kai Kualii so wisely said, "It's the Administration's mismanagement of this entire project that leads responsible people like Rapozo and Iseri-Carvalho to call for an audit. If we don't have anymore "nonsense" and "incompetence" to hide (&/or correct) then why should we oppose an audit? The citizens of Kauai. if you ask me, deserve an audit as much as we deserve a path."
This path was ill planned from the get go and the chances of it ever being completed are slim to zero, especially in this highly unstable economy. I just returned from Broadbeach, Australia and there are some beautiful walking, jogging paths there. But the roads have huge bike lanes along them (the lanes are as big as for cars) and the true bikers ride fast on them.
Their paths, as so many on the mainland were programmed into the community BEFORE the area was developed---not like the path we are trying to retrofit here on Kauai.Had those who proposed this path tried to put it Mauka instead of Makai it might have had a chance to be built. However, as I have repetitively said, our tax dollars have way too many places of high priority to be used before even thinking about a bike path.
Remember that Doug Haigh once said that no study had ever been done on the usage of this path but the question screams for an answer, WHY? Before you spend millions of dollars on a project you certainly need to know the bang you are getting for your buck.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
THE NEXT BIG DOGWALK?
THE NEXT BIG DOGWALK?: Today’s we’re presenting a guest editorial by Glenn Mickens who is not particularly enjoying saying “we told you so” to all the people who are just finding out that the east side coastal area and trail they used to enjoy as an undeveloped area is now a big deal attraction with rules up the wazoo.
No one listened when people shouted from the rooftops to watch out, predicting this would be the end result. And we don’t expect anyone to listen this time to those warning about what’s happening at Hapa Road in Po`ipu which has been designated for “preservation” by being turned into “Hapa Trail” .
Sounds good, eh? Well so did the “bike path” before it turned into the “dog path”, as most councilpersons have inadvertently referred to it. That includes former Chair, now Mayor, Kaipo Asing who a couple of weeks ago used the magic words we’ve been using for a month or so now before he turned red amidst the laughs the gaff generated.
Some are warning now that Hapa Trail is going to turn into another “bike path” fiasco. Just watch last week’s council meeting for some hair-raising concerns from people like Ken Taylor and Elaine Dunbar.
They warn that local residents who use the dirt road now as a place to get away from all the tourists in the area will eventually find themselves in the latest “Disneyland” tourist trap if developers get the “traffic plan” they funded- which includes “sprucing up” Hapa Road and changing it’s name- to be an official county plan... along with some $400,000 of county money to tart up the sprucing.
Juan Wilson has a piece today describing the adjacent development to be called “Villages at Po`ipu”, another piece of work from piece of work Stacy Wong and his Knudsen Trust, the people who brought you the Monkeypod Shopping Center by cutting down all the monkeypods. It worth reading if only to remind us that this is going to be an expensive county boondoggle to turn another local hangout into a tourist amenity.
The county is even thinking of trying to get it declared part of some kind of federal historical something-or-other to get more funding linked to “economic development”.
We’re not really sure what all this is leading to but after watching the council discussion it’s easy to smell something rotten in Po`ipu that stinks worse than just your usual timeshare blight..
Read Glen’s post-mortem of sorts on the bike path and think about what’s going to happen when Hapa Road becomes Hapa Heritage Trail.
----------------
by Glenn Mickens
So, the drum beat for this White Elephant bike path continues; TGI A1 story "No EIS for path from Nawiliwili to Ahukini" with only a possibility of Federal funding drying up hindering its construction. With 80% Federal dollars coming from tax payers one pocket and 20% coming from the other, this money tree is ripe for picking by contractors, designers, planners and whoever else can get their hands on it.
Many months ago Council members Rapozo and Iseri-Carvalho wisely held the administration's feet to the fire by asking them a series of 25 questions or more about this ill planned path---total cost, exact route, maintenance, security, land acquisition etc. Answers were never given and thus the path continues on with our money going down the proverbial black hole.
Always remember that the Federal Guidelines as outlined in their Transportation Enhancement booklet states that this "path" will be for transportation and not for recreational purposes. Yet, our council is now spending hours of their valuable time deciding if the law allowing no animals in parks should be changed to allow dogs on this path----unbelievable!!! In other words we are proposing to violate the Federal law even more by using this path for a "dog walk" and not to use it for transportation to get cars off the roads and alleviate traffic, one of Kauai's worst problems!
The projected cost of this 16 mile path (once estimated by the planners as 23 miles) was $51 million dollars but with a laundry list of problems surfacing regularly, this figure will undoubtedly go far north from that amount. At the best case scenario this path will be nothing but segments along an unknown route.
And even if the 16(?) miles were completed what benefit on any prioritized list will it ever have for the total population of this Island? Use the time, energy and money being devoted to this path to get our cane haul roads open to give all people a chance to move and not sit in traffic.
There are some beautiful bike/equestrian paths in California BUT these paths were programmed into the planning process before the area was developed. We are trying to retrofit a path into places already built up ( trying to go through the Foodland/Safeway shopping center!!) and making a round peg fit into a square hole which will never work.
Obviously the 386 page document which was published by R.M. Towill Corp. said that no EIS was necessary took a lot of time and was costly so only the positives were stated---a real no brainer. But again, why no mention of maintenance and security costs or assaults that can happen on isolated sections of that proposed path?
Citizens of Kauai, just ask yourselves if the bang you will get for the obscene amount of money being spent on this path is worth it to you. If not, then when you vote be sure you elect the people who are looking after EVERYONE and not just a select few.
No one listened when people shouted from the rooftops to watch out, predicting this would be the end result. And we don’t expect anyone to listen this time to those warning about what’s happening at Hapa Road in Po`ipu which has been designated for “preservation” by being turned into “Hapa Trail” .
Sounds good, eh? Well so did the “bike path” before it turned into the “dog path”, as most councilpersons have inadvertently referred to it. That includes former Chair, now Mayor, Kaipo Asing who a couple of weeks ago used the magic words we’ve been using for a month or so now before he turned red amidst the laughs the gaff generated.
Some are warning now that Hapa Trail is going to turn into another “bike path” fiasco. Just watch last week’s council meeting for some hair-raising concerns from people like Ken Taylor and Elaine Dunbar.
They warn that local residents who use the dirt road now as a place to get away from all the tourists in the area will eventually find themselves in the latest “Disneyland” tourist trap if developers get the “traffic plan” they funded- which includes “sprucing up” Hapa Road and changing it’s name- to be an official county plan... along with some $400,000 of county money to tart up the sprucing.
Juan Wilson has a piece today describing the adjacent development to be called “Villages at Po`ipu”, another piece of work from piece of work Stacy Wong and his Knudsen Trust, the people who brought you the Monkeypod Shopping Center by cutting down all the monkeypods. It worth reading if only to remind us that this is going to be an expensive county boondoggle to turn another local hangout into a tourist amenity.
The county is even thinking of trying to get it declared part of some kind of federal historical something-or-other to get more funding linked to “economic development”.
We’re not really sure what all this is leading to but after watching the council discussion it’s easy to smell something rotten in Po`ipu that stinks worse than just your usual timeshare blight..
Read Glen’s post-mortem of sorts on the bike path and think about what’s going to happen when Hapa Road becomes Hapa Heritage Trail.
----------------
by Glenn Mickens
So, the drum beat for this White Elephant bike path continues; TGI A1 story "No EIS for path from Nawiliwili to Ahukini" with only a possibility of Federal funding drying up hindering its construction. With 80% Federal dollars coming from tax payers one pocket and 20% coming from the other, this money tree is ripe for picking by contractors, designers, planners and whoever else can get their hands on it.
Many months ago Council members Rapozo and Iseri-Carvalho wisely held the administration's feet to the fire by asking them a series of 25 questions or more about this ill planned path---total cost, exact route, maintenance, security, land acquisition etc. Answers were never given and thus the path continues on with our money going down the proverbial black hole.
Always remember that the Federal Guidelines as outlined in their Transportation Enhancement booklet states that this "path" will be for transportation and not for recreational purposes. Yet, our council is now spending hours of their valuable time deciding if the law allowing no animals in parks should be changed to allow dogs on this path----unbelievable!!! In other words we are proposing to violate the Federal law even more by using this path for a "dog walk" and not to use it for transportation to get cars off the roads and alleviate traffic, one of Kauai's worst problems!
The projected cost of this 16 mile path (once estimated by the planners as 23 miles) was $51 million dollars but with a laundry list of problems surfacing regularly, this figure will undoubtedly go far north from that amount. At the best case scenario this path will be nothing but segments along an unknown route.
And even if the 16(?) miles were completed what benefit on any prioritized list will it ever have for the total population of this Island? Use the time, energy and money being devoted to this path to get our cane haul roads open to give all people a chance to move and not sit in traffic.
There are some beautiful bike/equestrian paths in California BUT these paths were programmed into the planning process before the area was developed. We are trying to retrofit a path into places already built up ( trying to go through the Foodland/Safeway shopping center!!) and making a round peg fit into a square hole which will never work.
Obviously the 386 page document which was published by R.M. Towill Corp. said that no EIS was necessary took a lot of time and was costly so only the positives were stated---a real no brainer. But again, why no mention of maintenance and security costs or assaults that can happen on isolated sections of that proposed path?
Citizens of Kauai, just ask yourselves if the bang you will get for the obscene amount of money being spent on this path is worth it to you. If not, then when you vote be sure you elect the people who are looking after EVERYONE and not just a select few.
Friday, June 13, 2008
BECAUSE THEY CAN
BECAUSE THEY CAN: It sounds like the dog-people carried the dog-day at the dog-path meeting Wednesday according to Nathan Eagle’s account in today’s local paper as well as yesterday’s .new blog entry at Councilman Mel Rapozo’s blog.
Mel’s tome drew more commentary doggerel from those who doggedly persist in thinking “dogs are people too” replete with the god-given constitutional right to “go” wherever they want.,
Mel did not however, despite two promises, clear up that pesky detail that makes the farce all the more farcical- whether the bike path actually is a park at this point in time where dogs would be banned by ordinance
But the newspaper story seemingly confirms- through lack of confirmation, as things usually get authenticated in Kaua`i government circles- what we’ve been saying to no avail- that the path has never legally been designated a county park and therefore dog walking is legal now.
We asked Eagle for a clarification a month ago after he wrote that the path was “considered a linear park” without attribution.
Today Eagle reports that, like Rapozo apparently, he still can’t get an answer out of the Parks And Recreation Department head Bernard Carvalho as to when and how the path magically became a county park without going through any process at all, saying:
Under the county Parks and Recreation Department’s management, the path is a linear park and as such falls under a county ordinance banning animals without permits.
Parks and Recreation Director Bernard Carvalho did not return calls seeking a more detailed explanation as to why the path falls under the park classification.
After a verbal warning process ended in March, the Kaua‘i Police Department started issuing citations to owners walking their dogs on the multi-use path.
We haven’t seen the testimony of the 50 some-odd people who testified at the hearing yet but from Rapozo’s Eagle’s and others’ descriptions it was a banding together of a bunch of dog-loving nut-cases who want to their habit of owning their precious little dirt-collectors shoved down our collective throats.
Many even claim they felt threatened after showing up to say “no” to having to deal with the mess and abuse of dog-lovers who are blind to the problems their pets perpetrate - so left without testifying.
It’s bad enough these days seeing these poor beasts chained up in little yards or in cages, yearning to run around more than an hour a day and being fed moist “animal by-products” if they’re lucky and essentially bread and water if they’re not. Even the stuff we say we wouldn’t feed to a dog is better than what most get... and that’s with the “responsible” owners.
But now everyone on Kaua`i must put up with the conditions created by people who, instead of taking their dogs to areas where people don’t congregate which is most likely what their dog would want, have to combine their own recreational activities with those of their pets.
Don’t have the time to do both? Then don’t have a dog. Life is full of choices.
This isn’t a rights issue. One person’s right to swing their fist ends at another’s jaw. If anyone has a right here it’s the right to walk without being molested by your dog.
And leashes don’t help. Are dog walkers on the path going to stay seven feet away from everyone else if they have a six foot leash? No, they’re going to ignore people who might not appreciate their wet muddy dog rubbing up against them.
There are plenty of dog owners who would complain bitterly if someone smoked a cigarette around them but have no compunction about exposing us to their smelly, filthy, disgusting habit of cohabitating with wolves.
The worst is Becky Rhodes the head of the Human Society. Her inane statements like
“This is a really important time for Kaua‘i.(and) (t)o be known as a dog-hating visitor attraction is not what we want to be known for”
are baffling enough if they weren’t a violation of the prohibitions against non-profits- especially those that operate through taxpayer subsidies- from lobbying for legislation.
It’s pretty baffling how that would happen anyway since tourists don’t bring their dogs and if anything would probably appreciate not having to step in anything or be attacked by dogs, whether leashed or not.
It’s one thing to advocate for the safety and good treatment of pets. It’s another to insist that we all be forced to deal with your pet If anything Rhodes should be saying that responsible pet ownership includes the rights of people who don’t like your pet, which is traditionally the position taken by responsible authorities.
The dog path lobby would have us believe that everyone loves dogs, mom and apple pie in that order and that “all local people have dogs” and that it’s only a bunch of malahini mainlanders trying to stop us from “living our island lifestyle” who are opposed to having dogs run roughshod over humans out for a walk in the park.
But the “local tradition” is to take care of your animals so they doesn’t bother everyone else. We saw enough of roving packs terrorizing neighborhoods as happened way too often 30 years ago as populations moved into residential rather than true rural areas.
Having a dog around is not only not a right but it is a privilege. And it’s one that is abused by those who bring their dogs to areas where people congregate.
According to the article “Veterinarians and community members said it would be a ‘huge disservice’ to not give residents ‘the freedoms that everyone else seems to have.’”
The freedom that everyone else has? What is this now a constitutional right to have your beast slobber all over our faces and terrorize our kids, who incidentally do have the rights you wish your dogs had but doesn’t..
If you want to treat your beast like your kid be our guest. There’s plenty of coo-coo people out there and you have a right to be one of them. But just because you like dog spit on your face doesn’t give you any “rights” to have it lick even our hands- hey we eat with those things- while you stand there saying “isn’t that cute- he likes you”.
Dogs have their place. They can be wonderful companions. But they are a huge responsibility. And their “place” isn’t among those that don’t want to be around them.. A six foot leash doesn’t mean people have to stay 12 feet away from you, it means the ones holding the leash have to control their dogs and keep them away from people without their permission.
Mel’s tome drew more commentary doggerel from those who doggedly persist in thinking “dogs are people too” replete with the god-given constitutional right to “go” wherever they want.,
Mel did not however, despite two promises, clear up that pesky detail that makes the farce all the more farcical- whether the bike path actually is a park at this point in time where dogs would be banned by ordinance
But the newspaper story seemingly confirms- through lack of confirmation, as things usually get authenticated in Kaua`i government circles- what we’ve been saying to no avail- that the path has never legally been designated a county park and therefore dog walking is legal now.
We asked Eagle for a clarification a month ago after he wrote that the path was “considered a linear park” without attribution.
Today Eagle reports that, like Rapozo apparently, he still can’t get an answer out of the Parks And Recreation Department head Bernard Carvalho as to when and how the path magically became a county park without going through any process at all, saying:
Under the county Parks and Recreation Department’s management, the path is a linear park and as such falls under a county ordinance banning animals without permits.
Parks and Recreation Director Bernard Carvalho did not return calls seeking a more detailed explanation as to why the path falls under the park classification.
After a verbal warning process ended in March, the Kaua‘i Police Department started issuing citations to owners walking their dogs on the multi-use path.
We haven’t seen the testimony of the 50 some-odd people who testified at the hearing yet but from Rapozo’s Eagle’s and others’ descriptions it was a banding together of a bunch of dog-loving nut-cases who want to their habit of owning their precious little dirt-collectors shoved down our collective throats.
Many even claim they felt threatened after showing up to say “no” to having to deal with the mess and abuse of dog-lovers who are blind to the problems their pets perpetrate - so left without testifying.
It’s bad enough these days seeing these poor beasts chained up in little yards or in cages, yearning to run around more than an hour a day and being fed moist “animal by-products” if they’re lucky and essentially bread and water if they’re not. Even the stuff we say we wouldn’t feed to a dog is better than what most get... and that’s with the “responsible” owners.
But now everyone on Kaua`i must put up with the conditions created by people who, instead of taking their dogs to areas where people don’t congregate which is most likely what their dog would want, have to combine their own recreational activities with those of their pets.
Don’t have the time to do both? Then don’t have a dog. Life is full of choices.
This isn’t a rights issue. One person’s right to swing their fist ends at another’s jaw. If anyone has a right here it’s the right to walk without being molested by your dog.
And leashes don’t help. Are dog walkers on the path going to stay seven feet away from everyone else if they have a six foot leash? No, they’re going to ignore people who might not appreciate their wet muddy dog rubbing up against them.
There are plenty of dog owners who would complain bitterly if someone smoked a cigarette around them but have no compunction about exposing us to their smelly, filthy, disgusting habit of cohabitating with wolves.
The worst is Becky Rhodes the head of the Human Society. Her inane statements like
“This is a really important time for Kaua‘i.(and) (t)o be known as a dog-hating visitor attraction is not what we want to be known for”
are baffling enough if they weren’t a violation of the prohibitions against non-profits- especially those that operate through taxpayer subsidies- from lobbying for legislation.
It’s pretty baffling how that would happen anyway since tourists don’t bring their dogs and if anything would probably appreciate not having to step in anything or be attacked by dogs, whether leashed or not.
It’s one thing to advocate for the safety and good treatment of pets. It’s another to insist that we all be forced to deal with your pet If anything Rhodes should be saying that responsible pet ownership includes the rights of people who don’t like your pet, which is traditionally the position taken by responsible authorities.
The dog path lobby would have us believe that everyone loves dogs, mom and apple pie in that order and that “all local people have dogs” and that it’s only a bunch of malahini mainlanders trying to stop us from “living our island lifestyle” who are opposed to having dogs run roughshod over humans out for a walk in the park.
But the “local tradition” is to take care of your animals so they doesn’t bother everyone else. We saw enough of roving packs terrorizing neighborhoods as happened way too often 30 years ago as populations moved into residential rather than true rural areas.
Having a dog around is not only not a right but it is a privilege. And it’s one that is abused by those who bring their dogs to areas where people congregate.
According to the article “Veterinarians and community members said it would be a ‘huge disservice’ to not give residents ‘the freedoms that everyone else seems to have.’”
The freedom that everyone else has? What is this now a constitutional right to have your beast slobber all over our faces and terrorize our kids, who incidentally do have the rights you wish your dogs had but doesn’t..
If you want to treat your beast like your kid be our guest. There’s plenty of coo-coo people out there and you have a right to be one of them. But just because you like dog spit on your face doesn’t give you any “rights” to have it lick even our hands- hey we eat with those things- while you stand there saying “isn’t that cute- he likes you”.
Dogs have their place. They can be wonderful companions. But they are a huge responsibility. And their “place” isn’t among those that don’t want to be around them.. A six foot leash doesn’t mean people have to stay 12 feet away from you, it means the ones holding the leash have to control their dogs and keep them away from people without their permission.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
BUT WHAT IF THE DOG IS RIDING A BICYCLE?
BUT WHAT IF THE DOG IS RIDING A BICYCLE? Sometimes it feels like half the people of Kaua`i have gone insane.
The biggest issue on Kaua`i drawing a hydrophobically hysterical teeth-baring crowd at this week’s Council meeting wasn’t vacation rentals, protecting ag land, the budget or even runaway development and the resultant hour it takes to get through Kapa`a.
No it’s dog lovers vs. dog haters.
At least this time the subject of discussion rather than the discussion itself was dog droppings as the first reading of the various dog path bills drew the gamut of emotional appeals and rational statistical prevarications and pontifications from a slew of people, most of whom have probably never seen the inside of the Council Chambers before.
And in response Councilpersons Mel Rapozo and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho have written their own somewhat schizophrenic defenses of their personal activities in both supporting and opposing the bike path depending on the momentarily functional side of their mouths and faces.
But we must admit that at one of those moments a momentous event has taken place. On his blog today Rapozo becomes the first elected official to mention that the bike path was actually supposed to be- gasp- for bikes to get from point A to point B.
He starts a pertinent paragraph by saying: “the original intent of the path was for traffic enhancement. In fact, the Federal government provided funds for this County to provide an alternate route for transportation, not a recreational path.”
But then he ends it with what you would expect to hear from a politician in an election year.
“Don’t get me wrong. I fully support the bike path and the recreational use that it provides. This was not the original intent and we need to remember that.”
And what do we do with that remembrance? With that and four bucks you can get a gallon of gas.
Shaylene is, as usual, totally off her rocker again giving a slightly different blow-off to the question of whether our sea-side sidewalk is a park and therefore “no dogs allowed” in a letter to the editor.
“The law prohibits dogs in parks, the bike path is located on ‘park property,’ therefore, dogs are prohibited from being on the bike path.” she maintains although what the heck park property- as it seems distinct from “a park”- is we are still in the dark.
But then she goes on to say since it is a law, even though she apparently can’t cite a specific one, she is going to be vigilant in upholding it.
“I’m sure the rest of the community would take offense if I decided unilaterally to pick and choose which laws I wanted to enforce or not.”
And this woman wants to be our prosecutor? I’m sure we all want somebody enforcing laws they made up.
How did we get to the point where the argument against dogs on the BIKE path is not that it would endanger bicycling commuters-that for which we extracted $40 million in federal funds with a guarantee it would be for “transportation, not recreation”- but that the dogs might reach into the baby carriages and devour a keiki.
How did we get to the point where asking “what the heck is anything but a bicycle doing on the bike path in the first place” elicit a response of “why do you hate dogs so much?”
It’s a damn good thing we are the farthest you can get from Washington D.C. because if they got wind of what’s going on with their transportation money they could very well ask for it back.
Will we ever be able to actually ride a bike on the bike path? When is that U.S. General Accounting Office audit/report due anyway?
The real question may be whether your dog and pony path is worth $40 million. Because the dog and pony show is for a Kaua`i audience only and the feds may well say “we are not amused.”
The biggest issue on Kaua`i drawing a hydrophobically hysterical teeth-baring crowd at this week’s Council meeting wasn’t vacation rentals, protecting ag land, the budget or even runaway development and the resultant hour it takes to get through Kapa`a.
No it’s dog lovers vs. dog haters.
At least this time the subject of discussion rather than the discussion itself was dog droppings as the first reading of the various dog path bills drew the gamut of emotional appeals and rational statistical prevarications and pontifications from a slew of people, most of whom have probably never seen the inside of the Council Chambers before.
And in response Councilpersons Mel Rapozo and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho have written their own somewhat schizophrenic defenses of their personal activities in both supporting and opposing the bike path depending on the momentarily functional side of their mouths and faces.
But we must admit that at one of those moments a momentous event has taken place. On his blog today Rapozo becomes the first elected official to mention that the bike path was actually supposed to be- gasp- for bikes to get from point A to point B.
He starts a pertinent paragraph by saying: “the original intent of the path was for traffic enhancement. In fact, the Federal government provided funds for this County to provide an alternate route for transportation, not a recreational path.”
But then he ends it with what you would expect to hear from a politician in an election year.
“Don’t get me wrong. I fully support the bike path and the recreational use that it provides. This was not the original intent and we need to remember that.”
And what do we do with that remembrance? With that and four bucks you can get a gallon of gas.
Shaylene is, as usual, totally off her rocker again giving a slightly different blow-off to the question of whether our sea-side sidewalk is a park and therefore “no dogs allowed” in a letter to the editor.
“The law prohibits dogs in parks, the bike path is located on ‘park property,’ therefore, dogs are prohibited from being on the bike path.” she maintains although what the heck park property- as it seems distinct from “a park”- is we are still in the dark.
But then she goes on to say since it is a law, even though she apparently can’t cite a specific one, she is going to be vigilant in upholding it.
“I’m sure the rest of the community would take offense if I decided unilaterally to pick and choose which laws I wanted to enforce or not.”
And this woman wants to be our prosecutor? I’m sure we all want somebody enforcing laws they made up.
How did we get to the point where the argument against dogs on the BIKE path is not that it would endanger bicycling commuters-that for which we extracted $40 million in federal funds with a guarantee it would be for “transportation, not recreation”- but that the dogs might reach into the baby carriages and devour a keiki.
How did we get to the point where asking “what the heck is anything but a bicycle doing on the bike path in the first place” elicit a response of “why do you hate dogs so much?”
It’s a damn good thing we are the farthest you can get from Washington D.C. because if they got wind of what’s going on with their transportation money they could very well ask for it back.
Will we ever be able to actually ride a bike on the bike path? When is that U.S. General Accounting Office audit/report due anyway?
The real question may be whether your dog and pony path is worth $40 million. Because the dog and pony show is for a Kaua`i audience only and the feds may well say “we are not amused.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
