TERMINAL INBREEDING: That once profound truism about the Chinese character that stands for both crisis and opportunity has become so ubiquitous in the last few decades that it’s now taught in kindergarten.
But it’s become quite obvious it’s about as meaningless to supposedly reborn Obamerica as any five-year-old’s nursery rhyme when you look at the schizophrenic manner with which we are treating this so-called economic crisis.
The last eight years crystallized all that is wrong with Americans- that’s right, not just America but Americans.
Thinking back only a few years ago it was painfully obvious that something was wrong and that our unregulated, free market, fast-food, disposable culture was about to collapse of its own weight and design.
Many saw a silver lining in the insane economic practices in that when it all did collapse the opportunity to institute a new sustainable model would be so robust as to make going back to our old ways impossible.
But when the rubber met the road as it has in the last year or so, when the rotten fruits of our pie-hole stuffing ethos stood naked before the same people who screamed for sustainability, they began begging for one last chance to patch up the bullet riddled corporate corpus and individual greed that is at the root of the debacle.
“Do something- anything” we scream to our DC politicians, “but don’t take away my 30-minute delivered pizza or my 75” flat screen TV”.
“Reign in the Wall Street crooks and jail the bankers and insurance companies who caused this” we scream “but don’t take away any of my six 0% Platinum Visa cards.”
“It’s time to institute ‘Zero Waste’ programs” we beg as we gobble up our GMO-corn-fed fatburger plate lunch and toss the Styrofoam container in an opaque trash can to be transferred to someone else’s backyard where we can’t see or smell it.
“We all need to use public transportation” we yell out the window of our gas guzzling jalopy that’s forever stuck in traffic gridlock.
Within a few days- or even hours- America will be spending another trillion dollars. But in typical “fire, ready, aim” fashion none of the fundamentals of the economic system that got us here will have been reversed, redefined, revised or re-regulated before we do.
Even though we see clearly how the insanity of mindless consumerism bought us all dwellings with funny money to go with our $100,000 in consumer debt, we yet again bow down to the gods of mindless purchasing when told that if we want this crisis to magically end, the banks must start lending and we must start spending money that doesn’t exist... again.
What are we- a bunch of freakin’ idiots?
It’s far worse than doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It’s like we know exactly what we are doing to cause our demise but instead of doing less of it we think our only chance is to buy enough bubble gum, paper clips and duct tape to make Humpty Dumpty, if not whole, at vaguely least egg-shaped..
We look around and see millions of unemployed and look into the precipice of a new great depression but is our response to examine why those jobs selling each other chalupas, texting minutes and Hummers are disappearing?
No our new leader says – we just need to pump cash into the pockets of those who provided those jobs so they can create more of the same stupid, needless and destructive jobs.
No, our new leader says- we will make sure the construction workers who built all those now-empty houses can keep building useless and long-term destructive structures and more highways and more bridges for our personal, dirty sooty-carbon-spewing, oversized driving machines instead of clean green public transport.
No, our new leader says- even though we know exactly who created this fiscal mess and how it happened, instead of first ending the derivative, hedge-fund, shareholder comes first, rich get richer, theft-based approach we’ll just pump another trillion on top of the last trillion into the economically and morally bankrupt practices of the past.
Apparently the same people who were shrieking “sustainability” last year are now looking for all the old unsustainable economic models and practices to make them whole again so that then and only then can they work on sustainable solutions.
Today, on the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, the witching hour is upon us. It’s time to ask if we are just plain too dumb to survive.
If our response to today’s opportunity is to panic at the prospect of tomorrow’s crisis perhaps our last best chance to sustain- in fact survive- as a species has come and gone.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
WORST IN SHOW
WORST IN SHOW: There are Kaua`i developers and then there are Kaua`i developers.
Though they generally run the gamut from scum-sucking bottom-feeders to land-raping robber-barons occasionally they do their dirty deeds in such a dastardly, deceitfull, teeth-gnashing manner as to leave an irremovable toxic slug trail in their aftermath.
And that’s if the project goes forward- sometimes, even as we wish “good riddance to bad rubbish”, a failed con job can cause even more havoc than having to deal with paying for the needed infrastructure these grifters have managed to avoid paying for up front.
And so it was that the developers who tried to pull a fast one at Coco Palms managed to steal the nose off the faces of some equally greedy locally-based douche-bags who thought they were gonna get rich and instead got screwed.
Yesterday one of the Coco Palms developers actually dared to show his face at the planning commission meeting and ask for an extension to develop the mess they left us with even though, through their scam, we were left still holding the same bag containing the rat infested eyesore we began with.
The true story of their misdeeds has gotten little play and when we tried to sum it up last July we sort of buried it in the middle of three short pieces that day.
At the time we were spurred to report on some of the research we had done, after an article appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser about how a new developer might be seeking to take over the project.
Since then that plan apparently has died a much-desirable death but on July 3 last year we wrote:
Also in the news today is a report of a threat by whale-artist-turned-developer Wyland to buy and re-establish Coco Palms as a hotel despite recent moves to form a partnership and turn the former royal grounds into a Hawaiian cultural park and preserve the location in perpetuity (Honolulu Advertiser: Sunday, January 13, 2008 A Boost for Hawaii land preservation- link no longer available)
Given Wyland’s past reputation for lack of sensitivity to local culture it should be no surprise that he isn’t waiting to see, or more likely isn’t even aware of- the plans which have involved talks with the Office of Hawaiian affairs, legislative leaders on Kaua`i private organizations and Hawaiian cultural practitioners and activists.
But also in the article is this bit of history revision which in this case is more like the reality of the situation that caused the property to be up for sale after a recent failed development venture.
”Coco Palms Ventures, which bought the Wailua resort in 2006 for $12.3 million and put the 18.8-acre property up for sale last September, shelved plans to restore the resort made famous in Elvis Presley's film "Blue Hawaii" in favor of other projects on the East Coast and due to a slowdown in the residential resort market.
”For those who might have forgotten the “two local guys from Princeville” who were developing the property turned out to be huge Maryland based shopping center builders and land speculators Richard Weiser and Walt Petrie of the Weiser Companies, Inc. and Petrie Ventures.
When the bottom fell out of the real estate market a couple of years back their speculative development businesses there went sour and they could no longer afford their little Kaua`i venture. So to get out of it without being sued they insisted on putting in a spa in an area where they were told and knew they couldn’t develop.
Then they apparently falsely claimed that they had to abandon the project, not because they no longer had the money but because the spa was “essential” to the resort and they couldn’t go forward without it.
This put dozens of local real estate agents and others who put time and energy into selling units there not just out of business but unpaid- in many cases for more than a year of work.
Not the least of these was real estate agent and former Mayor Marianne Kusaka who, according to a very reliable source, told the source that she had to return millions of dollars in advance money when the project went belly up.
Kusaka publicly denied she was “out there looking for a commission, or looking to sell condos”. but basically ran the sales office where the sales people worked for her without getting paid after the project “fell through”.
Yet the report of the attempt to extend the expiring permits in today’s local paper says that Petrie and Weiser were nowhere to be found- possibly because their faces would have caused the usually brain-dead and memory-challenged planning commissioners to remember how they had been bamboozled a few years back.
Instead a previously unknown and unmentioned-anywhere “partner” has apparently surfaced.
The report says:
At the county Planning Commission meeting Tuesday at the Mo‘ikeha Building, Phil Ross, one of three owners of the historic property, argued the development should receive not just the two-year extension to its permits requested in a November letter but a three-year allowance due to current and future economic conditions.“Considering the economic times that we’re under today ... the available funds to move projects forward has all but dried up. Loans are not available today,” Ross said. “I believe it’s going to get worse in 2009, so I’m going to ask you for a three-year extension to this SMA.”
There are so many things wrong here it’s hard to know where to begin. We might start with the fact that the state, OHA and private native groups have been waiting patiently for the permits to expire so they can move forward with the long dreamed of Hawaiian cultural park on the former royal estate lands.
Or it could be that in the intervening years the county council and administration have failed to move to declare the dilapidated remains a public nuisance and tear it down and present a bill to the owners.
Even though some still have visions of “renovating” the old structure and “reclaiming it’s past glory” any one who’s ventured into the place recently knows what a pipe dream that is.
But the worst in all of this may be that the planning commission may not just laugh in their faces and refuse to even consider it- something that should have happened at yesterday’s meeting instead of the reported deferral keeping the matter alive for at least another two weeks.
It’s anyone’s guess whether the all-too-ready-to-capitulate commissioners have any idea that an extension here would be to ostensibly set Kaua`i back 20 years to the bad old days when there was no time limit on permits.
For those like the planning commissioners who may be in the dark, back then permits- and more importantly the zonings itself- were given out with no requirement for “substantial construction” to begin by a specific date.
So what happened was that developers would sit on their permits for 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years.
While the we-aim-to-please commission and planning department started to approve any and all manner of new development it combined with the already approved projects that were languishing with no time limit to cause a double-whammy and plethora of post-`Iniki concurrent development.
During the last 10-15 years that’s basically what’s caused Po`ipu to experience a man-made dust and noise storm and turned Kuhio Highway in Kapa`a into a parking lot.
When it’s all done it will have provided even more of the current “way too much” in the way of tourist accommodations with way too little infrastructure- roads, sewers, housing etc.- to support it.
The public started to notice the mess- especially around re-election time- during the late 90’s and early 00’s. But the answer they got from the entrenched councilmembers was that none of this was their faults since past councils and planning commissions had never bothered to put in conditions that would sunset the permit or zoning if “substantial construction” was not begun within five years .
And though it took many years of sometimes acrimonious nudging from the public to actually move on it, the council and department/ commission finally started putting in 5 year limits on most projects’ zoning and zoning permits respectively.
If there is such a thing as smart growth- something we’re beginning to doubt these days- then there certainly must be dumb growth. And if there ever was a poster child for dumb growth it would be an extension of the right for these sleezoids to develop Coco Palms.
Though they generally run the gamut from scum-sucking bottom-feeders to land-raping robber-barons occasionally they do their dirty deeds in such a dastardly, deceitfull, teeth-gnashing manner as to leave an irremovable toxic slug trail in their aftermath.
And that’s if the project goes forward- sometimes, even as we wish “good riddance to bad rubbish”, a failed con job can cause even more havoc than having to deal with paying for the needed infrastructure these grifters have managed to avoid paying for up front.
And so it was that the developers who tried to pull a fast one at Coco Palms managed to steal the nose off the faces of some equally greedy locally-based douche-bags who thought they were gonna get rich and instead got screwed.
Yesterday one of the Coco Palms developers actually dared to show his face at the planning commission meeting and ask for an extension to develop the mess they left us with even though, through their scam, we were left still holding the same bag containing the rat infested eyesore we began with.
The true story of their misdeeds has gotten little play and when we tried to sum it up last July we sort of buried it in the middle of three short pieces that day.
At the time we were spurred to report on some of the research we had done, after an article appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser about how a new developer might be seeking to take over the project.
Since then that plan apparently has died a much-desirable death but on July 3 last year we wrote:
Also in the news today is a report of a threat by whale-artist-turned-developer Wyland to buy and re-establish Coco Palms as a hotel despite recent moves to form a partnership and turn the former royal grounds into a Hawaiian cultural park and preserve the location in perpetuity (Honolulu Advertiser: Sunday, January 13, 2008 A Boost for Hawaii land preservation- link no longer available)
Given Wyland’s past reputation for lack of sensitivity to local culture it should be no surprise that he isn’t waiting to see, or more likely isn’t even aware of- the plans which have involved talks with the Office of Hawaiian affairs, legislative leaders on Kaua`i private organizations and Hawaiian cultural practitioners and activists.
But also in the article is this bit of history revision which in this case is more like the reality of the situation that caused the property to be up for sale after a recent failed development venture.
”Coco Palms Ventures, which bought the Wailua resort in 2006 for $12.3 million and put the 18.8-acre property up for sale last September, shelved plans to restore the resort made famous in Elvis Presley's film "Blue Hawaii" in favor of other projects on the East Coast and due to a slowdown in the residential resort market.
”For those who might have forgotten the “two local guys from Princeville” who were developing the property turned out to be huge Maryland based shopping center builders and land speculators Richard Weiser and Walt Petrie of the Weiser Companies, Inc. and Petrie Ventures.
When the bottom fell out of the real estate market a couple of years back their speculative development businesses there went sour and they could no longer afford their little Kaua`i venture. So to get out of it without being sued they insisted on putting in a spa in an area where they were told and knew they couldn’t develop.
Then they apparently falsely claimed that they had to abandon the project, not because they no longer had the money but because the spa was “essential” to the resort and they couldn’t go forward without it.
This put dozens of local real estate agents and others who put time and energy into selling units there not just out of business but unpaid- in many cases for more than a year of work.
Not the least of these was real estate agent and former Mayor Marianne Kusaka who, according to a very reliable source, told the source that she had to return millions of dollars in advance money when the project went belly up.
Kusaka publicly denied she was “out there looking for a commission, or looking to sell condos”. but basically ran the sales office where the sales people worked for her without getting paid after the project “fell through”.
Yet the report of the attempt to extend the expiring permits in today’s local paper says that Petrie and Weiser were nowhere to be found- possibly because their faces would have caused the usually brain-dead and memory-challenged planning commissioners to remember how they had been bamboozled a few years back.
Instead a previously unknown and unmentioned-anywhere “partner” has apparently surfaced.
The report says:
At the county Planning Commission meeting Tuesday at the Mo‘ikeha Building, Phil Ross, one of three owners of the historic property, argued the development should receive not just the two-year extension to its permits requested in a November letter but a three-year allowance due to current and future economic conditions.“Considering the economic times that we’re under today ... the available funds to move projects forward has all but dried up. Loans are not available today,” Ross said. “I believe it’s going to get worse in 2009, so I’m going to ask you for a three-year extension to this SMA.”
There are so many things wrong here it’s hard to know where to begin. We might start with the fact that the state, OHA and private native groups have been waiting patiently for the permits to expire so they can move forward with the long dreamed of Hawaiian cultural park on the former royal estate lands.
Or it could be that in the intervening years the county council and administration have failed to move to declare the dilapidated remains a public nuisance and tear it down and present a bill to the owners.
Even though some still have visions of “renovating” the old structure and “reclaiming it’s past glory” any one who’s ventured into the place recently knows what a pipe dream that is.
But the worst in all of this may be that the planning commission may not just laugh in their faces and refuse to even consider it- something that should have happened at yesterday’s meeting instead of the reported deferral keeping the matter alive for at least another two weeks.
It’s anyone’s guess whether the all-too-ready-to-capitulate commissioners have any idea that an extension here would be to ostensibly set Kaua`i back 20 years to the bad old days when there was no time limit on permits.
For those like the planning commissioners who may be in the dark, back then permits- and more importantly the zonings itself- were given out with no requirement for “substantial construction” to begin by a specific date.
So what happened was that developers would sit on their permits for 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years.
While the we-aim-to-please commission and planning department started to approve any and all manner of new development it combined with the already approved projects that were languishing with no time limit to cause a double-whammy and plethora of post-`Iniki concurrent development.
During the last 10-15 years that’s basically what’s caused Po`ipu to experience a man-made dust and noise storm and turned Kuhio Highway in Kapa`a into a parking lot.
When it’s all done it will have provided even more of the current “way too much” in the way of tourist accommodations with way too little infrastructure- roads, sewers, housing etc.- to support it.
The public started to notice the mess- especially around re-election time- during the late 90’s and early 00’s. But the answer they got from the entrenched councilmembers was that none of this was their faults since past councils and planning commissions had never bothered to put in conditions that would sunset the permit or zoning if “substantial construction” was not begun within five years .
And though it took many years of sometimes acrimonious nudging from the public to actually move on it, the council and department/ commission finally started putting in 5 year limits on most projects’ zoning and zoning permits respectively.
If there is such a thing as smart growth- something we’re beginning to doubt these days- then there certainly must be dumb growth. And if there ever was a poster child for dumb growth it would be an extension of the right for these sleezoids to develop Coco Palms.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
MOVE OVER ROVER:
MOVE OVER ROVER: Tomorrow will mark our 365th day doing whatever-the-heck-it-is-we-do.
Whatever you call it- reporting. political rabblerousing, activism, advocacy or just plain blithering jabber- we can’t help but see it as an outgrowth of the “new journalism” that’s now celebrating it’s 50th anniversary
“They” call it blogging now so we’ll stick with that and keep searching for an adjective to separate it from the social blather of the facebook and my space ilk..
And after this week is over we may just take a weekday off every once in a while whether it’s to do some research, attend a meeting or otherwise put a little leg work into more formal reportage or just watch some basketball on the tube.
But one thing we have done in the last year as the now-perennial low man on the Hawai`i news and political blogging totem poll, is figure out the pecking order in the world of daily on-line news, analysis and opinion.
And we mention it because there never was a better microcosmic case in point than a few posts over the past few days to provide a model of how news travels- and is impeded- in these days of battle between the emerging democratic and the dying corporate models of news delivery.
To pick it up sort of in the middle it all started over the weekend when one of the big three in Honolulu, ”I’m just a blogger” Doug White at Poinography, who works as a paper shuffling grunt at the legislature every year, discovered that new Chair of the House Judiciary Ricki Karamatsu’s usually bland politician-type blog had a post that Doug described as
A tour de force in bizarro rambling! Now, a post like that is less amusing coming from the Chair(!) of the Judiciary Committee than if it were from some random powerless “everyman,” but it still cracks me up.
Now Karamatsu has this thread of religious mumbo jumbo, very Buddhist in nature. But this post described his attempts at inner calm and “compassion” during a meeting in his office, when an elected official he called “5P8C” came in and immediately threatened him if he didn’t capitulate and pass through his committee the mystery man’s “law enforcement package” of bills.
Although as of our press time Karamatsu has put up a sort of zen notice at the permalink of his post that “the page you are looking for does not exist” it is still there on the main page at least until he discovers it.
In part it reads:
On Thursday, February 5, 2009, I had a meeting with 5P8C at my office at his request. I was ready to work with him with an open mind. However, his actions instantly changed my view. In his own words, he threatened me that he will come after me if I don’t agree with him like he did with the Judiciary chairs before me. I was shocked, considering this was my first meeting with this guy who is a couple decades older than me. Now, this is a person who fights for good against evil, yet is arrogant and mean-spirited like those he is fighting against. I just met this guy and he is already threatening me and trying to push around what power he has or thinks he has. He really tested my will.
Now it didn’t take a genius to figure out that it was Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle- especially since there’s five letters in Peter and eight in Carlisle.
But if Ricki was no Nazi Code Writer, the commenters at Doug’s post were no Navaho Code Breakers themselves with one even speculating it might have been Lt. Governor Duke Aiona despite the apt description of Carlisle as one who “fights for good against evil, yet is arrogant and mean-spirited like those he is fighting against” and especially when he added “childish” to the depiction.
Anyone who’s followed Carlisle didn’t even need the alpha-numeric clue.
Now a post by Doug or others of the three Honolulu wise men- former pro reporter Ian Lind and world-weary-traveler and discoverer Larry Geller of Disappeared News- usually gets the panties of we low-lifes and geographically-challenged neighbor-islanders in a bunch rehashing and analyzing their pearls.
But every once in a while there’s a hole in the filter and you-know-what floats to the “top”. And no time more so that when one of the mere mortal bloggers’ stories gets picked up by Honolulu Advertiser Capitol correspondent Derrick DePledge at his officially sanctioned “Notebook” blog at the Advertiser’s web site.
This time with little ado DePledge- who gets his phone calls returned and apparently lives at the legislature when it’s in session- lost little time in confirming the identity of 5P8C with Karamatsu and Carlisle himself
It seems like if the real political news- the stuff that doesn’t make us yawn- is actually reported, it’s in mainstream reporters’ blogs these days.
Notwithstanding the unequivocal comments from political reporters Richard Borreca of the Honolulu Star- Bulletin and Denby Fawcett of KITV on a KHET’s (PBS) “Island Insights” program a couple of weeks back that there is “never any news on the blogs” so they simply don’t read them and ignore anything that might have originated there, it doesn’t take a genius to see the self-fulfilling nature of those kinds of projections.
Now to be fair there are mainstream corporate press reporters like former S-B Editor Dave Shapiro- who was on the same program defending blogs- along with DePledge who can see past their cloistered employment to see the inevitability of the changes in news distribution to an electronic platform.
But for the most part it seems that until the budget cutting axe that we’ve seen at all the Honolulu newspapers and even TV news-providing station falls on them, most are content to live in their antiquated mid-to-late 20th century paradigm, seeing themselves as the gatekeepers who live by the motto “news is what we say it is”, as every first term J-School student is taught.
Only when the, to steal Larry’s term, ”Disappeared News” bubbles up so furiously that the steam fogs up their fish-eye lenses does it gets through to most of those gatekeepers and the public find out about the real news.
But then again even if the “news” is reported by DePledge in a corner of the Advertiser web site does it make a sound? Or does it serve as a dead end cul-de-sac where it reverberates in a sort of isolation booth?
You would think that a report of the Honolulu Prosecutor Carlisle intimidating and threatening the House Judiciary Committee chair Karamatsu would be, if not plastered on the front pages of a real newspaper and leading the 6 o’clock news, at least getting a little play.
But we’d bet dollars to donuts that the item will live and die it’s quasi-MSM life in DePledge’s blog albeit a slightly higher profile death than it would have died in Poinography.
How long can the corporate press editors survive by ignoring real news as “too much ‘inside baseball’”, as they are wont to tell their reporters and instead present a mélange of prepackaged competing quotes, rewritten press releases and regurgitated news from another member of their incestuous brethren.... and call it THE news?
When the last newspaper prints its last print edition some will, as they do now, bemoan the lack of the tactile pleasure of paper and ink. But few will bemoan the loss of their 21st century no-real-news “content” to a medium that has exploded in a much more democratic- if temporarily less conveniently transportable- medium.
When the actuarially inspired death of modern mainstream journalism comes, the current crop of gatekeepers will, with a few exceptions, have no one to blame but themselves for riding the corporate model dinosaur express to oblivion even as the dust from the asteroid settles in the cogs and shuts their presses down.
Whatever you call it- reporting. political rabblerousing, activism, advocacy or just plain blithering jabber- we can’t help but see it as an outgrowth of the “new journalism” that’s now celebrating it’s 50th anniversary
“They” call it blogging now so we’ll stick with that and keep searching for an adjective to separate it from the social blather of the facebook and my space ilk..
And after this week is over we may just take a weekday off every once in a while whether it’s to do some research, attend a meeting or otherwise put a little leg work into more formal reportage or just watch some basketball on the tube.
But one thing we have done in the last year as the now-perennial low man on the Hawai`i news and political blogging totem poll, is figure out the pecking order in the world of daily on-line news, analysis and opinion.
And we mention it because there never was a better microcosmic case in point than a few posts over the past few days to provide a model of how news travels- and is impeded- in these days of battle between the emerging democratic and the dying corporate models of news delivery.
To pick it up sort of in the middle it all started over the weekend when one of the big three in Honolulu, ”I’m just a blogger” Doug White at Poinography, who works as a paper shuffling grunt at the legislature every year, discovered that new Chair of the House Judiciary Ricki Karamatsu’s usually bland politician-type blog had a post that Doug described as
A tour de force in bizarro rambling! Now, a post like that is less amusing coming from the Chair(!) of the Judiciary Committee than if it were from some random powerless “everyman,” but it still cracks me up.
Now Karamatsu has this thread of religious mumbo jumbo, very Buddhist in nature. But this post described his attempts at inner calm and “compassion” during a meeting in his office, when an elected official he called “5P8C” came in and immediately threatened him if he didn’t capitulate and pass through his committee the mystery man’s “law enforcement package” of bills.
Although as of our press time Karamatsu has put up a sort of zen notice at the permalink of his post that “the page you are looking for does not exist” it is still there on the main page at least until he discovers it.
In part it reads:
On Thursday, February 5, 2009, I had a meeting with 5P8C at my office at his request. I was ready to work with him with an open mind. However, his actions instantly changed my view. In his own words, he threatened me that he will come after me if I don’t agree with him like he did with the Judiciary chairs before me. I was shocked, considering this was my first meeting with this guy who is a couple decades older than me. Now, this is a person who fights for good against evil, yet is arrogant and mean-spirited like those he is fighting against. I just met this guy and he is already threatening me and trying to push around what power he has or thinks he has. He really tested my will.
Now it didn’t take a genius to figure out that it was Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle- especially since there’s five letters in Peter and eight in Carlisle.
But if Ricki was no Nazi Code Writer, the commenters at Doug’s post were no Navaho Code Breakers themselves with one even speculating it might have been Lt. Governor Duke Aiona despite the apt description of Carlisle as one who “fights for good against evil, yet is arrogant and mean-spirited like those he is fighting against” and especially when he added “childish” to the depiction.
Anyone who’s followed Carlisle didn’t even need the alpha-numeric clue.
Now a post by Doug or others of the three Honolulu wise men- former pro reporter Ian Lind and world-weary-traveler and discoverer Larry Geller of Disappeared News- usually gets the panties of we low-lifes and geographically-challenged neighbor-islanders in a bunch rehashing and analyzing their pearls.
But every once in a while there’s a hole in the filter and you-know-what floats to the “top”. And no time more so that when one of the mere mortal bloggers’ stories gets picked up by Honolulu Advertiser Capitol correspondent Derrick DePledge at his officially sanctioned “Notebook” blog at the Advertiser’s web site.
This time with little ado DePledge- who gets his phone calls returned and apparently lives at the legislature when it’s in session- lost little time in confirming the identity of 5P8C with Karamatsu and Carlisle himself
It seems like if the real political news- the stuff that doesn’t make us yawn- is actually reported, it’s in mainstream reporters’ blogs these days.
Notwithstanding the unequivocal comments from political reporters Richard Borreca of the Honolulu Star- Bulletin and Denby Fawcett of KITV on a KHET’s (PBS) “Island Insights” program a couple of weeks back that there is “never any news on the blogs” so they simply don’t read them and ignore anything that might have originated there, it doesn’t take a genius to see the self-fulfilling nature of those kinds of projections.
Now to be fair there are mainstream corporate press reporters like former S-B Editor Dave Shapiro- who was on the same program defending blogs- along with DePledge who can see past their cloistered employment to see the inevitability of the changes in news distribution to an electronic platform.
But for the most part it seems that until the budget cutting axe that we’ve seen at all the Honolulu newspapers and even TV news-providing station falls on them, most are content to live in their antiquated mid-to-late 20th century paradigm, seeing themselves as the gatekeepers who live by the motto “news is what we say it is”, as every first term J-School student is taught.
Only when the, to steal Larry’s term, ”Disappeared News” bubbles up so furiously that the steam fogs up their fish-eye lenses does it gets through to most of those gatekeepers and the public find out about the real news.
But then again even if the “news” is reported by DePledge in a corner of the Advertiser web site does it make a sound? Or does it serve as a dead end cul-de-sac where it reverberates in a sort of isolation booth?
You would think that a report of the Honolulu Prosecutor Carlisle intimidating and threatening the House Judiciary Committee chair Karamatsu would be, if not plastered on the front pages of a real newspaper and leading the 6 o’clock news, at least getting a little play.
But we’d bet dollars to donuts that the item will live and die it’s quasi-MSM life in DePledge’s blog albeit a slightly higher profile death than it would have died in Poinography.
How long can the corporate press editors survive by ignoring real news as “too much ‘inside baseball’”, as they are wont to tell their reporters and instead present a mélange of prepackaged competing quotes, rewritten press releases and regurgitated news from another member of their incestuous brethren.... and call it THE news?
When the last newspaper prints its last print edition some will, as they do now, bemoan the lack of the tactile pleasure of paper and ink. But few will bemoan the loss of their 21st century no-real-news “content” to a medium that has exploded in a much more democratic- if temporarily less conveniently transportable- medium.
When the actuarially inspired death of modern mainstream journalism comes, the current crop of gatekeepers will, with a few exceptions, have no one to blame but themselves for riding the corporate model dinosaur express to oblivion even as the dust from the asteroid settles in the cogs and shuts their presses down.
Monday, February 9, 2009
SAME LEASH. NEW LAW
SAME LEASH, NEW LAW: As we mentioned a few weeks ago former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber- an open and good governance advocate- has been appointed to the oft-criticized and apparently ethically challenged Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE).
He vows to bring a new era of openness and (gasp) lawful processing of complaints to the board which has recently refused to abide by the basic conflict-of-interest laws of the state and county even after a proposal to eliminate the county charter’s conflict laws in Section 20.02 provisions was rejected by voters last fall.
And one of the first things Bieber has done- even before his official swearing in- is to provide members of the public and PNN with a copy of the new draft administrative rules that coincidentally are on the BOE’s agenda for the meeting this Thursday at 9 a.m. in the “Liquor Conference Room” in the Mo`ikeha building in Lihu`e.
And while some of the rule changes are designed to actually bring the board’s antiquated rules into compliance with state law, some are apparently designed to befuddle the public, shut them out of the process and give the board even more discretionary, some might say arbitrary, power than they have now.
One change that is strewn all through the document is to change references to complying with “Section XX of the county charter”- the section on ethics and the board- to read, for instance,:
These rules, made pursuant to Section 20.05 B of the Charter of the County of Kaua`i, are intended to provide for the efficient administration of the declared policy of the Code of Ethics as set forth in Article XX of the Charter (addition) or Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code.
For those who don’t quite understand how laws and rules flow from one another, the charter sets the general rules and the laws, as passed by the council- in this case Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code (KCC)- flows from the Charter and must abide by it. Finally the rules are based on and must abide by both and cannot contradict them.
But often, unless challenged in court for some reason, the county code can conflict with the charter- both of which must also abide by all applicable state and federal laws which supercede anything the county enacts- even if it doesn’t mean to.
OK- stay with us. By saying Chapter XX “or” KCC Chapter 3 rather than “and” the Board can now pick and choose which provision they want to follow if they do conflict.
And then it’s up to someone aggrieved to go to court and get a ruling saying the law contradicts- or is different from- the charter.
But that’s only a preliminary problem with the proposed rules because one of the things the rules seeks to do is to seemingly give the BOE the power to actually ignore complaints solely at it’s arbitrary pleasure
First it leaves in a little know “automatic rejection” phrase that, in its current rules reads
Failure by the Board to render an advisory opinion within thirty (30) days after the filing of a request therefore shall be deemed a finding of no breach of Article XX.
That of course means that if the board doesn’t want to take up a complaint but wants to allow its target to go scott-free all they have to do is procrastinate or ignore the complaint for 30 days
The board, as a matter of fact, only meets once a month and not only is there often more than 30 days between scheduled meetings sometimes meetings are cancelled when not enough members show up to constitute a quorum.
That little provision is strengthened even further by a new proposed change that states that the BOE can just reject a complaint without any reason at all and decide not to even consider the matter. The added provision says:
Deliberation. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Board shall investigate and/or deliberate on its merits. The Board may request a meeting with the complainant to gather more information. The Board may reject such complaint at this time and so notify the complainant, or decide to investigate further by calling for an informal or formal hearing.
Notice it says “may” request a meeting, which means they don’t have to and can just reject a complaint out of hand for no reason at all.
In addition the section on “informal” hearings- which is also an option open to the BOE and which has been abused in the past to hide and reject complaints- is amended to say that
The Board reserves the right to not take witness testimony.
That means that if the Board decides on an informal hearing they can just decide not to hear from anyone- including the complainant.
This codifies a current practice of the board to adjudicate matters without the subject of the complaint even being aware of it.
The formal hearing section is also extensively amended to add a lot of specifics on how the hearings are to be conducted. Though they seem appropriate and may even improve the process by getting it to follow judicial standards we suspect devils in those details too knowing the BOE’s past actions.
Then there’s a little added paragraph toward the end is particularly open to abuse and therefore ominous. It says:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Board finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety or morals requires adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule without notice of a hearing or upon less than 30 days' notice of hearing and states in writing its reason for such finding, it may proceed without prior notice or hearing upon such abbreviated notice and hearing as it finds practicable to adopt an emergency rule to be effective for a period of not longer than one hundred twenty days without renewal.
Morals? And exactly what is the BOE adjudicating that effects public heath and safety?
Who knows- but basically if they want to, they can call it an emergency, throw the rules out the window and do whatever they damn well please... including apparently conducting secret meetings with no agenda in violation of the state sunshine (HRS 92) and freedom of information (HRS 92F) laws.
Again making rules up on the spot is something they’ve been accused of routinely doing for years but this codifies the lawlessness.
Finally one of the little known facts about these BOE complaint hearings is that if the subject of the hearing requests that the hearing be conducted in a public session they must be conducted publicly. That they are “little known” is partially because the rules now are silent but state law says otherwise since the state’s “privacy” rights are generally granted to the “accused” or subject of the complaint.
And while the new rules adds one sentence saying
Open Session. The respondent may request that the hearing be held in open session. Otherwise, the hearing shall be held in closed session,
apparently what the BOE giveth the BOE taketh away with another addition saying
A contested case hearing shall be held in closed session, unless all parties to the proceeding choose to have the hearing in open session.
giving the filer or even any witness the right to close the entire matter to public scrutiny even if the subject of the complaint asks for an open hearing.
And of course even though the right of the accused to have an open hearing exists, that doesn’t mean it’s part of the information the provided to those who are accused- an oversight” that in the past has resulted in people thinking that opening the process wasn’t even possible because no one ever told them.
Bieber says that an amendment calling for notification of the right to a public hearing will be a priority for him as well as one on the “and/or” change to the “Charter/KCC" sentences.
While it seems to be a technological challenge to actually post the full set of proposed changes (with brackets for deleted and underlines for added materials) due to the limits of formatting on this “blogger” software (the underlining won’t transfer) we will send a copy via an email attachment to anyone who wants to view it. You can request a copy from us at gotwindmills (at) gmail.com . Specify pdf or MS Word attachment.
He vows to bring a new era of openness and (gasp) lawful processing of complaints to the board which has recently refused to abide by the basic conflict-of-interest laws of the state and county even after a proposal to eliminate the county charter’s conflict laws in Section 20.02 provisions was rejected by voters last fall.
And one of the first things Bieber has done- even before his official swearing in- is to provide members of the public and PNN with a copy of the new draft administrative rules that coincidentally are on the BOE’s agenda for the meeting this Thursday at 9 a.m. in the “Liquor Conference Room” in the Mo`ikeha building in Lihu`e.
And while some of the rule changes are designed to actually bring the board’s antiquated rules into compliance with state law, some are apparently designed to befuddle the public, shut them out of the process and give the board even more discretionary, some might say arbitrary, power than they have now.
One change that is strewn all through the document is to change references to complying with “Section XX of the county charter”- the section on ethics and the board- to read, for instance,:
These rules, made pursuant to Section 20.05 B of the Charter of the County of Kaua`i, are intended to provide for the efficient administration of the declared policy of the Code of Ethics as set forth in Article XX of the Charter (addition) or Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code.
For those who don’t quite understand how laws and rules flow from one another, the charter sets the general rules and the laws, as passed by the council- in this case Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code (KCC)- flows from the Charter and must abide by it. Finally the rules are based on and must abide by both and cannot contradict them.
But often, unless challenged in court for some reason, the county code can conflict with the charter- both of which must also abide by all applicable state and federal laws which supercede anything the county enacts- even if it doesn’t mean to.
OK- stay with us. By saying Chapter XX “or” KCC Chapter 3 rather than “and” the Board can now pick and choose which provision they want to follow if they do conflict.
And then it’s up to someone aggrieved to go to court and get a ruling saying the law contradicts- or is different from- the charter.
But that’s only a preliminary problem with the proposed rules because one of the things the rules seeks to do is to seemingly give the BOE the power to actually ignore complaints solely at it’s arbitrary pleasure
First it leaves in a little know “automatic rejection” phrase that, in its current rules reads
Failure by the Board to render an advisory opinion within thirty (30) days after the filing of a request therefore shall be deemed a finding of no breach of Article XX.
That of course means that if the board doesn’t want to take up a complaint but wants to allow its target to go scott-free all they have to do is procrastinate or ignore the complaint for 30 days
The board, as a matter of fact, only meets once a month and not only is there often more than 30 days between scheduled meetings sometimes meetings are cancelled when not enough members show up to constitute a quorum.
That little provision is strengthened even further by a new proposed change that states that the BOE can just reject a complaint without any reason at all and decide not to even consider the matter. The added provision says:
Deliberation. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Board shall investigate and/or deliberate on its merits. The Board may request a meeting with the complainant to gather more information. The Board may reject such complaint at this time and so notify the complainant, or decide to investigate further by calling for an informal or formal hearing.
Notice it says “may” request a meeting, which means they don’t have to and can just reject a complaint out of hand for no reason at all.
In addition the section on “informal” hearings- which is also an option open to the BOE and which has been abused in the past to hide and reject complaints- is amended to say that
The Board reserves the right to not take witness testimony.
That means that if the Board decides on an informal hearing they can just decide not to hear from anyone- including the complainant.
This codifies a current practice of the board to adjudicate matters without the subject of the complaint even being aware of it.
The formal hearing section is also extensively amended to add a lot of specifics on how the hearings are to be conducted. Though they seem appropriate and may even improve the process by getting it to follow judicial standards we suspect devils in those details too knowing the BOE’s past actions.
Then there’s a little added paragraph toward the end is particularly open to abuse and therefore ominous. It says:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Board finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety or morals requires adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule without notice of a hearing or upon less than 30 days' notice of hearing and states in writing its reason for such finding, it may proceed without prior notice or hearing upon such abbreviated notice and hearing as it finds practicable to adopt an emergency rule to be effective for a period of not longer than one hundred twenty days without renewal.
Morals? And exactly what is the BOE adjudicating that effects public heath and safety?
Who knows- but basically if they want to, they can call it an emergency, throw the rules out the window and do whatever they damn well please... including apparently conducting secret meetings with no agenda in violation of the state sunshine (HRS 92) and freedom of information (HRS 92F) laws.
Again making rules up on the spot is something they’ve been accused of routinely doing for years but this codifies the lawlessness.
Finally one of the little known facts about these BOE complaint hearings is that if the subject of the hearing requests that the hearing be conducted in a public session they must be conducted publicly. That they are “little known” is partially because the rules now are silent but state law says otherwise since the state’s “privacy” rights are generally granted to the “accused” or subject of the complaint.
And while the new rules adds one sentence saying
Open Session. The respondent may request that the hearing be held in open session. Otherwise, the hearing shall be held in closed session,
apparently what the BOE giveth the BOE taketh away with another addition saying
A contested case hearing shall be held in closed session, unless all parties to the proceeding choose to have the hearing in open session.
giving the filer or even any witness the right to close the entire matter to public scrutiny even if the subject of the complaint asks for an open hearing.
And of course even though the right of the accused to have an open hearing exists, that doesn’t mean it’s part of the information the provided to those who are accused- an oversight” that in the past has resulted in people thinking that opening the process wasn’t even possible because no one ever told them.
Bieber says that an amendment calling for notification of the right to a public hearing will be a priority for him as well as one on the “and/or” change to the “Charter/KCC" sentences.
While it seems to be a technological challenge to actually post the full set of proposed changes (with brackets for deleted and underlines for added materials) due to the limits of formatting on this “blogger” software (the underlining won’t transfer) we will send a copy via an email attachment to anyone who wants to view it. You can request a copy from us at gotwindmills (at) gmail.com . Specify pdf or MS Word attachment.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
KPD Blue; Regarding Sources
KPD Blue
By Anthony Sommer
Regarding Sources
Everything you read in this book is true. It all really happened.
But the story isn’t everything that happened. It can’t be and never will be the whole story because Kauai County government constantly defies both the spirit and the law of Hawaii’s open meetings and public records statutes.
This book is limited to a series of snapshots of the KPD and Kauai County government, afforded only when events align to open windows for a peek inside. In particular, they are drawn from lawsuits against the county and its police department.
To be sure, they represent the worst of the abuses. There are some very fine officers at the KPD and many good people who work for Kauai County.
Perhaps the most dysfunctional aspect of democracy throughout Hawaii is the failure of the news media, particularly in Honolulu.
The third-world attitudes and practices of Kauai County officials traditionally go unchallenged by the Hawaiian press, while in most of the United States the press functions as the watchdog on government. Therein lies the problem.
When a public official illegally closes a conference room door or locks up public records, newspapers in most of the country immediately dispatch their lawyers to the nearest courthouse to force open those meeting rooms and filing cabinets.
On Kauai and, more importantly, in Honolulu, where the state’s two major daily newspapers are published, the press is a willing and complacent lapdog of government. Newspapers and the electronic media only rarely take the government to court. In Kauai’s local culture, no one dares criticize the monarch.
So, the primary sources for this book rarely are Kauai County records or interviews with Kauai County officials or their staff members, whose jobs depend on blind loyalty.
On-the-record interviews with the mayor or county council members are exceedingly rare. Mayor Bryan Baptiste, in his entire first year in office, allowed only two interviews to any members of the press.
Kauai’s government officials believe they have a right to operate in secrecy. And unless the press takes them to court and bloodies their noses with open meeting and public records lawsuits, they will continue to do so.
The interviews for this book were requested. The records were sought. But most were refused.
Instead, I relied very heavily on other public records outside the control of Kauai County government: Court documents.
During the decade covered by the book, Kauai County and the Kauai Police Department (KPD) were sued again and again by both citizens and the police department’s own officers and employees. In almost every case, the county settled in order to avoid a public trial and testimony about how corrupt county government is.
The pleadings in those lawsuits, the case files, are public record. Unlike its own file cabinets, Kauai County can do nothing to block a journalist’s access to court documents.
Most lawsuits against Kauai County were filed in federal court—the U.S. District Court in Honolulu—rather than in state court on Kauai. The reason was simple enough: The local state judge was much too friendly to the county.
The federal courthouse was the best source of available and accurate official documentation. So, this book focuses primarily on those lawsuits.
If it appears Kauai County’s position—and the debate among county officials on formulating those public policies— sometimes is not fully discussed in these pages, it is only because the county refused to cooperate. County officials fought every attempt at access.
I certainly wish it were otherwise, because it is in my professional nature to provide a complete and balanced story. However, Kauai County elected officials repeatedly refused to cooperate.
It also will be obvious that the events related in this book involve a much broader perspective than the KPD.
There is much discussion of the administrations of the two mayors and the conduct of the county council because it is only in the context of their self-imposed secrecy and blatant disregard for the rule of law that this story can be told.
The simple fact is that the woes of the KPD are symptomatic of a much broader problem: the lack of accountability of Kauai County’s elected officials and the cronies and political hacks they appoint to key government posts.
There are efforts afoot to replace Kauai’s “strong mayor” system (which never was intended for small, rural governments) with a “council-manager” form of government in which a professional administrator runs the county and the mayor’s powers are limited to chairing council meetings and cutting ribbons.
The current “strong mayor” system has been an abject failure. Kauai County government and its elected leaders have for too long been totally out of control, hiding their corruption and their blunders in closed-door “executive sessions” and in locked files in constant violation of the state’s sunshine laws.
Accountability to the public—to the voters who put them in office—simply does not exist in Kauai County. That’s the way the mayor and the council members want it.
Historian Robert A. Caro, in his splendid multi-volume biography of President Lyndon Johnson, disputes the popular notion that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Instead, Caro points out: Power reveals the true nature of those who attain it.
Friday, February 6, 2009
KIBBLE AND BITS
KIBBLE AND BITS: Former County Attorney (CA) Matthew Pyun couldn’t run fast enough to escape the morass of the bizarro-world of Kaua`i County’s through-the-looking-glass view of law when administrations changed.
And we’ve been trying to figure out what exactly is going on with the county council’s confirmation of previously rumored and sort-of announced CA appointee, former deputy prosecutor and now defense attorney Al Castillo.
We were kind of taken aback by the selection since he apparently has no experience in governmental law and comes from the criminal law community but chalked it up to more of the same from Mayor Bernard “You (can go to hell) and Me (I’ll pay off my supporters) Together (we’ll steal you blind)” Carvalho.
Almost two months have gone by with no confirmation from the council as is required by the county charter- and no word as to why.
But at the last full council meeting our ears perked up when deputy CA Darren “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” Suzuki introduced himself as the “acting CA” while he was not answering a question, as is apparently part of the CA’s job description these days.
Now, silently and stealthily, it appears that another appointment has been made.
Former deputy county attorney and county council legal analyst Amy Esaki’s name appears on this week’s council agenda, with Carvalho requesting council confirmation for her to lead the office of the county attorney.
Now of course you’re expecting the usual tirade and excoriation along with the requisite exposition of another revolving-door hack and crony, listing the misdeeds and sneaky crap the nominee has pulled over the years.
But apparently Carvalho was asleep at the wheel of his patronage-addled office because Esaki would be on our short list of who we would pick if we had the ability to do so.
Esaki is one of those attorneys who hasn’t been through that revolving door except for the time when she apparently quit the CA’s office under the widely reviled Lani Nakazawa to work for the council, writing and reading legislation.
She’s actually one of the most straightforward and seemingly honest, diligent and even (gasp) helpful lawyers ever employed by the county.
We have nothing but good things to say about her and can only hope against hope that she will bring a new era of openness and professionalism that’s been lacking in the office for a long time.
-----------
With the legislature doing it’s biannual dance-of-the-headless-chicken over the budget and its projected shortfalls, we’ve heard about of a lot of cockamamie bills containing schemes ranging from the brainless to the downright dangerous..
It’s the time of year when un-enterprising reporters can sit at a desk, riffle though the stack of introduced bills, stop anywhere and find something that causes heads to shake back and forth and eyes to roll..
But we have to wonder why none of them have seen one little ditty that has thus far gone unreported, whereby the state would steal the county’s share of the Transient Accommodation Tax (TAT) for the next six years.
Although to the relief of all the state’s mayors and councils it hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing, House Bill 1744 (Status) would “(s)uspend... for 6 years from 07/01/2009 to 06/30/2015 the distribution of transient accommodations tax revenues to the counties.”
The measure, introduced under the radar by House Speaker Calvin Say, has passed first reading and been referred to the Finance Committee.
It amends HRS 237D-6.5 by adding a section at the end that reads:
Subsection (b)(3), with regard to transfer of revenues to the counties, and subsection (c), with regard to computation and payment to the counties, shall not be operative from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2015. During the period that subsection (b)(3) is not operative, the remainder of the revenues collected shall be deposited into the state general fund."
Subsection (b)3 reads:
44.8 per cent of the revenues collected under this chapter shall be transferred as follows: Kauai county shall receive 14.5 per cent, Hawaii county shall receive 18.6 per cent, city and county of Honolulu shall receive 44.1 per cent, and Maui county shall receive 22.8 per cent.
The TAT is collected, as one might expect from the name, from people staying at tourist accommodations. The counties’ shares were originally included as a way to mitigate the impact of tourism on the counties’ budgets by giving them a share rather than allowing them to have their own taxation power (perish the thought), as had been proposed before the measure was enacted.
But now, rather than keeping their grubby paws to themselves they’ve got a bill handy to either rob Peter to pay Paul or use in some kind of extortion scheme to balance their budget by sloughing off their politically untenable choices- like actually taxing their precious campaign contributing faux hi-tech companies, land-raping developers and bottom-feeding military contractors- on the county level pols.
The measure would cost Kaua`i an estimated $15 million a year in revenue- more than 10% of the island’s operating budget- on top of the 10% across the board cuts ordered by Mayor Bernard Carvalho for the upcoming ’09-10 fiscal year.
---------
And finally an update- and a happy one for those following the HUD non-discrimination bill in the Senate that we reported on again yesterday.
After a flurry of emails and phone calls yesterday from many people to Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee Chair Roz Baker, SB 456 is now set for a hearing on Friday February 13 at 8:30 a.m..
Testimony may be emailed, if it’s less than 5 pages in length, to the Committee at CPNTestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov Indicate it’s “Testimony for SB 456 for the 2/13/09 8:30 a.m. hearing” in the subject line.
And we’ve been trying to figure out what exactly is going on with the county council’s confirmation of previously rumored and sort-of announced CA appointee, former deputy prosecutor and now defense attorney Al Castillo.
We were kind of taken aback by the selection since he apparently has no experience in governmental law and comes from the criminal law community but chalked it up to more of the same from Mayor Bernard “You (can go to hell) and Me (I’ll pay off my supporters) Together (we’ll steal you blind)” Carvalho.
Almost two months have gone by with no confirmation from the council as is required by the county charter- and no word as to why.
But at the last full council meeting our ears perked up when deputy CA Darren “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” Suzuki introduced himself as the “acting CA” while he was not answering a question, as is apparently part of the CA’s job description these days.
Now, silently and stealthily, it appears that another appointment has been made.
Former deputy county attorney and county council legal analyst Amy Esaki’s name appears on this week’s council agenda, with Carvalho requesting council confirmation for her to lead the office of the county attorney.
Now of course you’re expecting the usual tirade and excoriation along with the requisite exposition of another revolving-door hack and crony, listing the misdeeds and sneaky crap the nominee has pulled over the years.
But apparently Carvalho was asleep at the wheel of his patronage-addled office because Esaki would be on our short list of who we would pick if we had the ability to do so.
Esaki is one of those attorneys who hasn’t been through that revolving door except for the time when she apparently quit the CA’s office under the widely reviled Lani Nakazawa to work for the council, writing and reading legislation.
She’s actually one of the most straightforward and seemingly honest, diligent and even (gasp) helpful lawyers ever employed by the county.
We have nothing but good things to say about her and can only hope against hope that she will bring a new era of openness and professionalism that’s been lacking in the office for a long time.
-----------
With the legislature doing it’s biannual dance-of-the-headless-chicken over the budget and its projected shortfalls, we’ve heard about of a lot of cockamamie bills containing schemes ranging from the brainless to the downright dangerous..
It’s the time of year when un-enterprising reporters can sit at a desk, riffle though the stack of introduced bills, stop anywhere and find something that causes heads to shake back and forth and eyes to roll..
But we have to wonder why none of them have seen one little ditty that has thus far gone unreported, whereby the state would steal the county’s share of the Transient Accommodation Tax (TAT) for the next six years.
Although to the relief of all the state’s mayors and councils it hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing, House Bill 1744 (Status) would “(s)uspend... for 6 years from 07/01/2009 to 06/30/2015 the distribution of transient accommodations tax revenues to the counties.”
The measure, introduced under the radar by House Speaker Calvin Say, has passed first reading and been referred to the Finance Committee.
It amends HRS 237D-6.5 by adding a section at the end that reads:
Subsection (b)(3), with regard to transfer of revenues to the counties, and subsection (c), with regard to computation and payment to the counties, shall not be operative from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2015. During the period that subsection (b)(3) is not operative, the remainder of the revenues collected shall be deposited into the state general fund."
Subsection (b)3 reads:
44.8 per cent of the revenues collected under this chapter shall be transferred as follows: Kauai county shall receive 14.5 per cent, Hawaii county shall receive 18.6 per cent, city and county of Honolulu shall receive 44.1 per cent, and Maui county shall receive 22.8 per cent.
The TAT is collected, as one might expect from the name, from people staying at tourist accommodations. The counties’ shares were originally included as a way to mitigate the impact of tourism on the counties’ budgets by giving them a share rather than allowing them to have their own taxation power (perish the thought), as had been proposed before the measure was enacted.
But now, rather than keeping their grubby paws to themselves they’ve got a bill handy to either rob Peter to pay Paul or use in some kind of extortion scheme to balance their budget by sloughing off their politically untenable choices- like actually taxing their precious campaign contributing faux hi-tech companies, land-raping developers and bottom-feeding military contractors- on the county level pols.
The measure would cost Kaua`i an estimated $15 million a year in revenue- more than 10% of the island’s operating budget- on top of the 10% across the board cuts ordered by Mayor Bernard Carvalho for the upcoming ’09-10 fiscal year.
---------
And finally an update- and a happy one for those following the HUD non-discrimination bill in the Senate that we reported on again yesterday.
After a flurry of emails and phone calls yesterday from many people to Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee Chair Roz Baker, SB 456 is now set for a hearing on Friday February 13 at 8:30 a.m..
Testimony may be emailed, if it’s less than 5 pages in length, to the Committee at CPNTestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov Indicate it’s “Testimony for SB 456 for the 2/13/09 8:30 a.m. hearing” in the subject line.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
THE PIT BULL CAN STAY, BUT YOU?
THE PIT BULL CAN STAY, BUT YOU?: It’s good news bad news Senate bill 456 to stop housing discrimination against people and families that receive federal housing subsidy vouchers through the county housing agency- a subject we wrote about twice recently.
The bad news is that without testimony the bill in Sen. Roz Baker’s Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection could die, according to Anne Punohu of the Kaua`i Fair Housing Law Coalition
But the good news is that representative Mina Morita and four others have introduced a house companion bill HB 1274.
Anne’s testimony is an in depth look at the real problems HUD Section 8 recipients face and a good description of what the bill would do and what it wouldn’t do. It is presented here to give those who care about the issue and want to testify some ideas on what to say.
Testimony can be emailed for now to Committee Chair Roz Baker at senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov along with a request to schedule a hearing
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL SB456
HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME -
Anne Punohu, organizer Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition, HUD OK NOW
The coalition testifies today in support of SB456 which would prohibit landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on the source of their income.
Decent housing is a fundamental right. The protection of the human dignity of every person and the right to a decent home require both individual action and structural policies and practices. Our concern is not simply for houses or programs but for the people who inhabit these dwellings or are affected by these programs. The statistics we cite are not simply numbers or points on a graph; they are individual human tragedies.
Governor Linda Lingle has estimated that as many as 15,000 people may be homeless in our state. According to a recent national study, in regards to housing discrimination faced by Asians and Pacific Islanders, the discrimination rates held at 37% percent, the same rate as for African Americans. The statistics in large part came from the state of Hawaii. HUD Choice Voucher lists are currently closed on O`ahu, due to not enough people moving off the lists to make way for new people to sign up. Reports have been stated that up to 60% percent of individuals who obtained HUD Choice Vouchers were unable to use them. Not because they suddenly found a rental on their own, or came into a lot of money but because they simply could not find a rental that, in many cases would accept HUD Choice Vouchers.
Our coalition made over 250 calls to individuals who placed rental ads in our local newspaper on Kauai. At times, the rates of ads stating “No HUD” was at 40%, not including vacation rentals. Cold calls were made, sometimes 4 and 5 times to the same phone number, using different voices and personalities. 80% of the time, the caller would originally site one of three main options for their discrimination. They were: Ignorance of the HUD program, not liking HUD paperwork or inspections, or a previous bad renter.
(However, although we realize that a minute percentage of these reasons may be legitimate, we are of the opinion that these are superficial and unsubstantiated reasons for discrimination. HUD has paperwork, yes, but it is no more cumbersome than anyone else’s, and the inspections are based on current codes. As for bad renters they happen without someone being on HUD.)
After these initial responses were brought forth, we continued to engage the landlords in conversation, and were able to obtain numerous statements that were made verbally stating preferences, prejudices and opinions which violated the Federal Law, such as familial status, race, age and disability, the four most frequently mentioned categories.
(In addition, after we held a public meeting, we received calls from individuals that stated that they were discriminating, but may be willing to pull their ads which made the “No HUD, or No Section 8”, voluntarily, and we also heard of some success stories where individuals which had been adverse to renting to HUD were now willing to try it.)
Our coalition is of the strong opinion that even though these may be some improvements, this law is necessary to ensure a continuing “safety net” during these most difficult of economic times for these individuals and families.
The assumption that at this time some people may be more willing to rent to HUD clients does not erase the cold hard fact that during most of these phone calls we made, the majority of those who would consider it were more concerned with how to evict the tenants rather than how to keep them.
This is a red flag to all concerned, and accurately reflects what will happen to those who may have benefited in the short term, and may suffer in the long term.
(Our coalition does want to express our general opinion that there are many rental agents and rental companies that have an excellent working relationship both with HUD agencies and clients. This law is not aimed at rental agents and rental companies. We wish to make that case very clear. This law is in the name of equity, across the board, and would involve any rental regardless of whether it came from a rental agent, a rental company or a private sector landlord.)
To give you two examples of the types of answers we received over the phone, here follows two different quotes from landlords :
(Again we wish to clarify that these were private individuals, and not rental agents or rental companies).
CALL #1
“This is an upscale neighborhood.(Wailua house lots, typically an area full of local Hawaii residents of mixed ancestry).We are getting rid of these people here, and we are making our neighborhood nice now. You can park a car here and not get it broken into now. We don't have those people around here, so don't worry, you will like it.”*This was a woman who responded, for this call we were assuming the personality of someone who had recently moved here from California, had a job, and was inquiring about the rental.
Same woman, second time calling different personality:
“No, no, no, no, we don't accept HUD. No. You are from here? Anahola, oh I see. Yes, well, you know we don't have a lot of room, here its only a two bedroom, we are not set up for HUD people here. And you know, you people have big families, and they all come over here with their cars and things. Do you work or have a job? Then why do you need that HUD thing? Well, we don't accept HUD here, no so sorry. Goodbye.”*The caller was responding to a personality claiming to be from Anahola, an area populated heavily with Native Hawaiians, and using a heavy pigeon accent.
CALL #2
“Hello? What? HUD? No, no, no, no, no, we don't accept those people here. No no, you have to be working to rent over here. No we don't want any lazy people here, and all those local guys they have too many cars and kids running all around, no, no way. Why are you calling me? I said no HUD in the ad. Is it legal for you to call me? Yea, I know that’s against the Federal law, that’s why I put that in there. That way I don't get calls from those bums.”*This in response to a call using our coalition name, and inquiring as to why the landlord stated no HUD.
Same man, second time calling different personality:
“What? Oh, yes, OK do you work? Oh, you have a kid? What is it boy or girl? Girl? That’s good, girls are quieter. Yes, that’s the rent. Do You work? That’s good. You have HUD? Oh we don't accept that here. Oh, you cant find a place huh. Where are you from.? California? Oh you just moved here? Oh well you sound nice. Do you do drugs? Well, I might consider it. Do you have parents? What do they do? Did you get a divorce or something? Well, I cant have any guys running around here, you know this is a respectable neighborhood. Well, I'm not sure, I don’t usually accept HUD. Well, Ill let you know. Give me your number.”*The man is responding to a different personality claiming to be a single mother, recently moved here from California and employed, on HUD.
The case for “source of income” legislation
These households are more than a figure in a table. They are real families experiencing the tragedies of homelessness or inadequate housing. The households are made up of parents and children, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews. Each is affected by their family’s difficulty in affording an adequate place to live. Adults worry about how to pay utility, clothing, and food bills when the great majority of their income goes toward rent. When they can’t pay their rent, they strategize on moving between hotels, friends’ sofas, and shelters. Children suffer from exposure to unsafe and unstable living conditions.
The coalition holds that one of government’s primary responsibilities is to ensure that the most basic needs of its people are met. In the United States, our federal government does this, in part, through the Section 8 Rental Choice Voucher Program. Hawaii serves the housing needs of its lowest-income residents through the State’s Rental Allowance Program . However, though a family may be successful in accessing assistance through Section 8, or some other program, in most parts of Hawaii, they face yet another hurdle in their search for housing. Hawaii residents receiving housing assistance are often discriminated against in their search for housing.
It is common to see newspaper or internet ads that contain the words, “No Section 8.” It is more common for low-income Hawaii residents to hear this refrain when they inquire into available housing. Such discrimination is also faced by people who base their income, in part or in total, on disability assistance, cash assistance, child support, or alimony. To anyone who encounters it, the discrimination is frustrating and demoralizing.
Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent or buy housing should not be denied that housing based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit-worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent or buy – the single mom depending on child-support payments, the low-income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability assistance, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent or buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.
Recognizing housing as a fundamental human right, and also the severe hardships – including discrimination – low-income Hawaii residents face in finding housing they can afford, we respectfully ask that you give SB456 a favorable report. Thank you for your consideration.
SB456- HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME; Sponsor: Senator Gary Hooser
What does SB 456 do?
SB456 prohibits “source of income” discrimination against those seeking housing. That is, the bill prohibits landlords/sellers from discriminating against potential renters/buyers based on the source of their income.
What does “source of income” mean?
“Source of income” means any lawful source of money to be used in the rental or purchase of housing. It includes money from: (1) any lawful profession or occupation; (2) any government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including Section 8 vouchers; (3) any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration; (4) and any sale of property.
What does SB456 NOT do?
SB 4561 does NOT prohibit a landlord/seller from determining the ability of a potential renter/buyer to pay a rent/purchase price, by: (1) verifying the source and amount of income of the renter/buyer; and (2) evaluating the stability, security, and credit‐worthiness of the renter/buyer or their source of income. SB 456 does NOT prevent a landlord/seller from refusing to consider income derived from any criminal activity.
Who would benefit from the passage of SB 456?
Individuals and families planning to rent/buy housing, in part or in full, with income from Section 8 vouchers, Rental Allowance Program subsidies, disability payments, Temporary Cash Assistance grants, pensions, alimony, child support, and other lawful sources of income.
Why should SB456 be passed?
Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent/buy housing should not be denied that housing, based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent/buy – the single mom depending on child support payments, the low‐income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability payments, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent/buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.
Does source of income discrimination happen?
Yes. It is common for landlords to refuse to consider applicants who will use a Section 8 voucher as part of their rental payment. This makes it difficult for Section 8 recipients – who may have spent years on waiting lists before receiving the vouchers – to find places where they can be used. It may also have the effect of clustering voucher users in the poorest sections of a community, where landlords receive few rental applicants.
Is source of income discrimination already prohibited in other places?
Yes. In Maryland, Howard and Montgomery Counties have laws prohibiting source of income discrimination, as does the city of Frederick. Nationwide, twelve states (CA, CT, ME, MA, MN, NJ, ND, OK, OR, UT, VT, WI) and the District of Columbia have housing laws that prohibit source of income discrimination. Several cities and counties – including, as of last month, New York City , and now the State of New York– also have such laws.
Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition
C/O
Anne Punohu
4417 Maka Rd #3A
Kalaheo, HI 96741
Phone: (808)332-0341
email: coalitionkauai@yahoo.com
The bad news is that without testimony the bill in Sen. Roz Baker’s Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection could die, according to Anne Punohu of the Kaua`i Fair Housing Law Coalition
But the good news is that representative Mina Morita and four others have introduced a house companion bill HB 1274.
Anne’s testimony is an in depth look at the real problems HUD Section 8 recipients face and a good description of what the bill would do and what it wouldn’t do. It is presented here to give those who care about the issue and want to testify some ideas on what to say.
Testimony can be emailed for now to Committee Chair Roz Baker at senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov along with a request to schedule a hearing
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL SB456
HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME -
Anne Punohu, organizer Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition, HUD OK NOW
The coalition testifies today in support of SB456 which would prohibit landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on the source of their income.
Decent housing is a fundamental right. The protection of the human dignity of every person and the right to a decent home require both individual action and structural policies and practices. Our concern is not simply for houses or programs but for the people who inhabit these dwellings or are affected by these programs. The statistics we cite are not simply numbers or points on a graph; they are individual human tragedies.
Governor Linda Lingle has estimated that as many as 15,000 people may be homeless in our state. According to a recent national study, in regards to housing discrimination faced by Asians and Pacific Islanders, the discrimination rates held at 37% percent, the same rate as for African Americans. The statistics in large part came from the state of Hawaii. HUD Choice Voucher lists are currently closed on O`ahu, due to not enough people moving off the lists to make way for new people to sign up. Reports have been stated that up to 60% percent of individuals who obtained HUD Choice Vouchers were unable to use them. Not because they suddenly found a rental on their own, or came into a lot of money but because they simply could not find a rental that, in many cases would accept HUD Choice Vouchers.
Our coalition made over 250 calls to individuals who placed rental ads in our local newspaper on Kauai. At times, the rates of ads stating “No HUD” was at 40%, not including vacation rentals. Cold calls were made, sometimes 4 and 5 times to the same phone number, using different voices and personalities. 80% of the time, the caller would originally site one of three main options for their discrimination. They were: Ignorance of the HUD program, not liking HUD paperwork or inspections, or a previous bad renter.
(However, although we realize that a minute percentage of these reasons may be legitimate, we are of the opinion that these are superficial and unsubstantiated reasons for discrimination. HUD has paperwork, yes, but it is no more cumbersome than anyone else’s, and the inspections are based on current codes. As for bad renters they happen without someone being on HUD.)
After these initial responses were brought forth, we continued to engage the landlords in conversation, and were able to obtain numerous statements that were made verbally stating preferences, prejudices and opinions which violated the Federal Law, such as familial status, race, age and disability, the four most frequently mentioned categories.
(In addition, after we held a public meeting, we received calls from individuals that stated that they were discriminating, but may be willing to pull their ads which made the “No HUD, or No Section 8”, voluntarily, and we also heard of some success stories where individuals which had been adverse to renting to HUD were now willing to try it.)
Our coalition is of the strong opinion that even though these may be some improvements, this law is necessary to ensure a continuing “safety net” during these most difficult of economic times for these individuals and families.
The assumption that at this time some people may be more willing to rent to HUD clients does not erase the cold hard fact that during most of these phone calls we made, the majority of those who would consider it were more concerned with how to evict the tenants rather than how to keep them.
This is a red flag to all concerned, and accurately reflects what will happen to those who may have benefited in the short term, and may suffer in the long term.
(Our coalition does want to express our general opinion that there are many rental agents and rental companies that have an excellent working relationship both with HUD agencies and clients. This law is not aimed at rental agents and rental companies. We wish to make that case very clear. This law is in the name of equity, across the board, and would involve any rental regardless of whether it came from a rental agent, a rental company or a private sector landlord.)
To give you two examples of the types of answers we received over the phone, here follows two different quotes from landlords :
(Again we wish to clarify that these were private individuals, and not rental agents or rental companies).
CALL #1
“This is an upscale neighborhood.(Wailua house lots, typically an area full of local Hawaii residents of mixed ancestry).We are getting rid of these people here, and we are making our neighborhood nice now. You can park a car here and not get it broken into now. We don't have those people around here, so don't worry, you will like it.”*This was a woman who responded, for this call we were assuming the personality of someone who had recently moved here from California, had a job, and was inquiring about the rental.
Same woman, second time calling different personality:
“No, no, no, no, we don't accept HUD. No. You are from here? Anahola, oh I see. Yes, well, you know we don't have a lot of room, here its only a two bedroom, we are not set up for HUD people here. And you know, you people have big families, and they all come over here with their cars and things. Do you work or have a job? Then why do you need that HUD thing? Well, we don't accept HUD here, no so sorry. Goodbye.”*The caller was responding to a personality claiming to be from Anahola, an area populated heavily with Native Hawaiians, and using a heavy pigeon accent.
CALL #2
“Hello? What? HUD? No, no, no, no, no, we don't accept those people here. No no, you have to be working to rent over here. No we don't want any lazy people here, and all those local guys they have too many cars and kids running all around, no, no way. Why are you calling me? I said no HUD in the ad. Is it legal for you to call me? Yea, I know that’s against the Federal law, that’s why I put that in there. That way I don't get calls from those bums.”*This in response to a call using our coalition name, and inquiring as to why the landlord stated no HUD.
Same man, second time calling different personality:
“What? Oh, yes, OK do you work? Oh, you have a kid? What is it boy or girl? Girl? That’s good, girls are quieter. Yes, that’s the rent. Do You work? That’s good. You have HUD? Oh we don't accept that here. Oh, you cant find a place huh. Where are you from.? California? Oh you just moved here? Oh well you sound nice. Do you do drugs? Well, I might consider it. Do you have parents? What do they do? Did you get a divorce or something? Well, I cant have any guys running around here, you know this is a respectable neighborhood. Well, I'm not sure, I don’t usually accept HUD. Well, Ill let you know. Give me your number.”*The man is responding to a different personality claiming to be a single mother, recently moved here from California and employed, on HUD.
The case for “source of income” legislation
These households are more than a figure in a table. They are real families experiencing the tragedies of homelessness or inadequate housing. The households are made up of parents and children, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews. Each is affected by their family’s difficulty in affording an adequate place to live. Adults worry about how to pay utility, clothing, and food bills when the great majority of their income goes toward rent. When they can’t pay their rent, they strategize on moving between hotels, friends’ sofas, and shelters. Children suffer from exposure to unsafe and unstable living conditions.
The coalition holds that one of government’s primary responsibilities is to ensure that the most basic needs of its people are met. In the United States, our federal government does this, in part, through the Section 8 Rental Choice Voucher Program. Hawaii serves the housing needs of its lowest-income residents through the State’s Rental Allowance Program . However, though a family may be successful in accessing assistance through Section 8, or some other program, in most parts of Hawaii, they face yet another hurdle in their search for housing. Hawaii residents receiving housing assistance are often discriminated against in their search for housing.
It is common to see newspaper or internet ads that contain the words, “No Section 8.” It is more common for low-income Hawaii residents to hear this refrain when they inquire into available housing. Such discrimination is also faced by people who base their income, in part or in total, on disability assistance, cash assistance, child support, or alimony. To anyone who encounters it, the discrimination is frustrating and demoralizing.
Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent or buy housing should not be denied that housing based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit-worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent or buy – the single mom depending on child-support payments, the low-income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability assistance, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent or buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.
Recognizing housing as a fundamental human right, and also the severe hardships – including discrimination – low-income Hawaii residents face in finding housing they can afford, we respectfully ask that you give SB456 a favorable report. Thank you for your consideration.
SB456- HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME; Sponsor: Senator Gary Hooser
What does SB 456 do?
SB456 prohibits “source of income” discrimination against those seeking housing. That is, the bill prohibits landlords/sellers from discriminating against potential renters/buyers based on the source of their income.
What does “source of income” mean?
“Source of income” means any lawful source of money to be used in the rental or purchase of housing. It includes money from: (1) any lawful profession or occupation; (2) any government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including Section 8 vouchers; (3) any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration; (4) and any sale of property.
What does SB456 NOT do?
SB 4561 does NOT prohibit a landlord/seller from determining the ability of a potential renter/buyer to pay a rent/purchase price, by: (1) verifying the source and amount of income of the renter/buyer; and (2) evaluating the stability, security, and credit‐worthiness of the renter/buyer or their source of income. SB 456 does NOT prevent a landlord/seller from refusing to consider income derived from any criminal activity.
Who would benefit from the passage of SB 456?
Individuals and families planning to rent/buy housing, in part or in full, with income from Section 8 vouchers, Rental Allowance Program subsidies, disability payments, Temporary Cash Assistance grants, pensions, alimony, child support, and other lawful sources of income.
Why should SB456 be passed?
Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent/buy housing should not be denied that housing, based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent/buy – the single mom depending on child support payments, the low‐income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability payments, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent/buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.
Does source of income discrimination happen?
Yes. It is common for landlords to refuse to consider applicants who will use a Section 8 voucher as part of their rental payment. This makes it difficult for Section 8 recipients – who may have spent years on waiting lists before receiving the vouchers – to find places where they can be used. It may also have the effect of clustering voucher users in the poorest sections of a community, where landlords receive few rental applicants.
Is source of income discrimination already prohibited in other places?
Yes. In Maryland, Howard and Montgomery Counties have laws prohibiting source of income discrimination, as does the city of Frederick. Nationwide, twelve states (CA, CT, ME, MA, MN, NJ, ND, OK, OR, UT, VT, WI) and the District of Columbia have housing laws that prohibit source of income discrimination. Several cities and counties – including, as of last month, New York City , and now the State of New York– also have such laws.
Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition
C/O
Anne Punohu
4417 Maka Rd #3A
Kalaheo, HI 96741
Phone: (808)332-0341
email: coalitionkauai@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
