NOW YOU SEE IT...

NOW YOU SEE IT...: It’s always worth a chuckle whenever malihini- even ones who’s been around for a few years- try to navigate the Minotaur’s labyrinth.

So it was this morning as attorney-blogger Charley Foster wrote

Copies of ordinances are available at the County Clerk's Office for purchase by the public. For further information, please call"

That's what one finds under the "County Ordinances" tab on the County web site. 'If you want to know what the law says, you can purchase it from us.' Does that strike anyone else as potentially unconstitutional? I think I feel another non-billable research project coming on.

Charley doesn’t say what he thinks is worse, the fact that the “county code”- the place where ordinances are compiled- isn’t available on-line like it is in just about every other local jurisdiction in the country and all in the states - or the fact that you have to pay for it and then get it piecemeal, ordinance by ordinance... and travel downtown to get it to boot.

But while that’s an old story you’d expect that once we’re assured that information and documents will be posted on-line- especially after a brouhaha- it would be there.

But a trip to the “Council Documents” page at the county’s web site shows the last time the minutes and the recap memos were posted was early January.

As many will remember, after Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara tried to bring some sanity to the way county government operates and especially the way they make (or more accurately don’t make) documents available, they were assured by the chair and administration that from then on the council’s minutes and "recap memos"- a document which lists the actions taken at each council meeting that’s very existence was thentofore a secret- would be posted on the council’s web site.

STILL PEEIN’ ON THE TIRES

STILL PEEIN’ ON THE TIRES: The latest version of the flim-flam shell-game theft of kanaka maoli lands known as the Akaka bill that was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday has us thinking of our favorite “inside” joke of late.

It was just a throwaway bit on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” about the way the congressional Repugnacan’t are screwin’ with the Dummocraps and Oh-bummer by saying they want to work with them, and then unanimously refusing to vote for anything, even the stuff they said they supported the day before.

He compared it to a movie clip of a car-full of the “cool” kids who invite a dweeb to “get in” and open the door only to drive off just as the kid reaches for the handle. They stop 50 feet away and say “get in- we promise- we’ll let you in this time” so the kid runs to the car only to have them drive off another 50 feet away and the process repeats itself over and over with the gullible kid running to the new location in the insane hope they will let him in the next time.

“But guess what” Stewart says, leaning into the camera. “THEY’RE NEVER GOING TO LET YOU IN THE CAR”.

Over and over we see it- people banding together with faith that the U.S. government is that mythical one they were told of as children, only to find it populated by power-hungry corporate servants dedicated to strengthening the walls that keep them in and us out.

Whether it’s the local county council telling the good governance duo of Tim and Lani they too want reform before slamming the door on any reform of our Minataur system of governance, the advocates for civil rights for same gender couples who are jerked around by state legislators who claim to support them and then sabotage bills behind closed doors or the kanaka maoli who yearn for the independent nation with a land base that was stolen from them 117 years ago only to be offered a bill of goods that steals their land “one last time fair and square”, you ain’t getting in the car- not now, not tomorrow, not the next day... not ever.

In many places those who’ve had the car leave without them once too often take matters into their own hands and sabotage the brakes or maybe toss a lit bottle of gasoline at the fleeing vehicle.

Around here all we can say to the “in crowd” is that, to use another catch phrase, “the natives are getting restless”.

THEIR MASTER’S VOICE

THEIR MASTER’S VOICE: When the hand-held cell phone ban was passed a couple of weeks back a few members of the council- most notably Chair Kaipo Asing as well as Dickie Chang and Darryl Kaneshiro- expressed some reservations with their “aye” votes when a national study was revealed a few days before passage, questioning whether there were really any less deaths due to accidents involving people who were talking and/or texting while driving.

But Wednesday, when the bill was “reconsidered” for a minor “tweak” as the local newspaper called it, it seems a much more reliable and authoritative voice convinced the three that the study was in error.

Chang told the council that his doubts had been assuaged after hearing from none other that Oprah who has apparently entered the fray and declared cell phones to be deadly weapons.

Reassuring everyone he wasn’t a regular viewer or anything, by telling the assembled that he came across the vital information “while flipping channels” Chang said that if Oprah herself supports a cell phone bans, well that was good enough for him to now wholeheartedly support interdiction.

But, well, that’s Dickie- we would expect no less reverence for the infallibility of TV show hosts from him. As a matter of fact we pretty sure it was the basis of his campaign for office.

Less expected was that Dickie’s off-the-cuff recitation of Oprah’s spiel was followed by Kaipo who. saying Dickie had “taken the air out of his balloon”, read from an apparent print out of Oprah’s anecdotal admonitions against the evils of driving while yakking or texting, replete with descriptions of exploding train and bus wrecks.

Not to be outdone, Kaneshiro decried his original reservations saying basically that if that’s what Oprah thinks it was enough to remove his hesitations and reservations and that he was now in full support of the prohibition.

Then it was 4 p.m. and they all took an hour long recess to do their daily due diligence.

Well, alright maybe not but it sure goes a long way toward explaining how the council can so often be so misinformed. But it also explains why they are reelected over and over.

But it could be worse – they could be watching and citing Fox News.

NOT DEAD YET

NOT DEAD YET: We’ve been getting a bunch of emails lately from Larsen's (Lepeuli) Beach activist Richard Spacer with his hair on fire asking us to say something again about the battle against land-owner Waioli Corporation and rancher Bruce Laymon to preserve the easier- and traditional- access to the beach which has appeared all but lost lately with the issuing of Lymon’s Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP).

We told him that what we had discovered is that there was a split among many in the environmental community- including some who may be way too close to Waioli Corp to have full objectivity on the matter- with some claiming that easy access to all areas (and specifically this one) may not be the best thing lest we “love the place to death”... which many others think is code for “keep the naked hippies out”.

So we’re glad to hear the news today that, as usual, it’s Sierra Club- along with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (HLC) and the Surfrider Foundation- to the rescue and they’re ready to continue the battle and appeal the decision to grant a Conservation district Use Permit (CDUP) to Lymon to construct a fence across the traditional access and allow cattle to graze just above the beach.

But they really do need more cash to pay HLC than the SC or SF have provided thus far. As the letter we received says:

A coastal trail on Kaua`i, created hundreds of years ago by Hawaiians treading the path by foot, will be obliterated by cattle in a matter of months unless we act now.

Please read below to see how you can help preserve public access and set a precedent in protecting trails.

A traditional trail following the coastline leading to Larsen's (Lepeuli) Beach is on the verge of being turned into pasture land for a commercial cattle enterprise which will block public access to and along the trail. This ancient (alaloa) trail has been used by Hawaiians for subsistence fishing, gathering and cultural practices for many generations.

This past week the Department of Land and Natural Resources inappropriately granted Waioli Corporation’s lessee a permit for cattle fencing in 18 acres of conservation land next to the beach. They already have cattle operations in the adjacent 600 acres. This decision will have environmental impacts and threaten coastal and cultural resources.

Fortunately, Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation will appeal DLNR's decision, on behalf of a Native Hawaiian, provided they receive funding by Thursday, February 25th. The Kaua`i Group Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation have contributed toward the appeal, but a significant amount still needs to be raised.

We're asking people who care about preserving public access on traditional trails, who can make a contribution of any amount, to please help now.

Please make your check payable to "Sierra Club". If you wish to make a sizeable donation and want it to be tax deductible, make check payable to "Sierra Club Foundation". All checks to mailed to:

Sierra Club Kaua`i Group
PO Box 3412
Lihue, HI 9676

In addition, if you want to help in other ways please email: AuntyLokeWouldGo(at)gmail.com

Mahalo!

The Kaua`i Group Sierra Club

Attached to the letter was an amazingly complete and detailed letter listing all the deficiencies in and discrepancies with Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR) contained in the permit which the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) ignored in granting it.

It’s pretty long but worth the read so we’re posting the entire Jan. 8th Sierra Club letter to DLNR. It really puts together the way the sham of due process and the outright illegal nature of the granting of the permit occurred and includes all the reasons why the permit should be rescinded.

-----------

Sierra Club Kaua`i Group of the Hawai`i Chapter

January 8, 2010
Laura H. Thielen Samuel J. Lemmo, Administrator
BLNR Chairperson Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands
Department of Land & Natural Resources Department of Land & Natural Resources
P. O. Box 621 P. O. Box 621
Honolulu, HI 97809 Honolulu, HI 97809
SUBJECT: Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) KA‐3525; TMK (4) 5-1-003:003
Lepeuli, Kaua`i – Paradise Ranch, LLC
Dear Ms. Thielen and Mr. Lemmo:
The Sierra Club Kauai Group (SC) is extremely concerned that many of the requirements prescribed by HAR Chapter 13-5 are missing from the CDUA referenced above. In addition, many statements in the application do not bear up under examination of the facts. This letter provides further detail, supplemental to our October 23, 2009 letter to OCCL. The application should be denied based on reasons enumerated herein.

1. A Department Permit was not appropriate. According to HAR 13-5-40 and HAR 13-5-
33(j) a board permit with a public hearing should have been required (as requested in SC’s October 23, 2009 letter) because it involves: (1) land use for commercial purposes (ranching) and (2) that public interest warrants a hearing based on significant impacts.

2. The CDUA is not “complete” according to HAR 13-5-31(c) because many Adjacent Property Owners were not notified. Failure to notify, as required on page 14 of the Department’s CDUA Instructions, is one reason why this application incomplete.

3. Failure to comply with Required Attachments, Item 2 - Maps: Submit detailed contour maps for ocean areas and areas where slopes are 20% or more according to CDUA Instructions on page 2 and HAR 13‐5‐31(a). The CDUA survey map does not include elevation contours as required. From the plateau, a series of hills descend to the beach. The sloping terrain does not afford appropriate pasturage. Severe scarping already occurs in areas and cattle will exacerbate the erosion. Within the 20‐acre Conservation District, the degree of slope exceeds forty percent which is why it falls within the “Limited Subzone”. Any reference to slope is omitted in the application, but it is very relevant because the proposed use is a fence ‐‐ a structure which constitutes development.

4. Of the proposed fence replacement, only 1/3 is an “existing fence”. Only one-third of the proposed fencing was “existing”. Within the 20.7 acre Conservation District, which is primarily coastal scrub, only 3-acres might have been pasture. The pre-existing fence has not been in continuous use pursuant to Non‐conforming Shoreline Structures, HRS 13-222-19.

5. Failure to comply with Required Attachments, Item 2 – Maps: Provide a Certified Shoreline Map for shoreline parcels (see CDUA Instructions on page 2). The most recent certified shoreline was approved in 1978. To waive the certified shoreline requirement in lieu of the 110’ setback agreed to by the applicant is not prudent based on 30‐years of erosion (as much as .5‐ft per year in some areas). Further, evidence of the debris line indicates that the survey stakes did not correctly identify the high wash of the waves, especially at the property’s north end.

6. A Description of Coastal Hazards was Omitted in the CDUA. The applicant failed to describe the shoreline erosion that prompted subdivision of this property in Land Court Decree Application No. 1161, March 2, 2000.

7. The Unimproved Existing Road on the Beach Encroaches on State Property. The CDUA survey map indicates “existing roads”. Portions of this roadway are located on the sandy beach, within the shoreline and on state property. Requiring a certified shoreline would verify this encroachment.

8. Reference to Lepeuli Stream was omitted in the CDUA. The stream channel is a distinct topographic feature. It was not identified in the application or on the survey map. Environmental impacts of grazing in proximity to the riparian zone of Lepeuli Stream were not examined.

9. The NRCS Conservation Plan does not identify the Conservation District (Field 12) for “Prescribed Grazing” (see Enclosure A). This fact was omitted in the CDUA. According to HAR 13-5-42(19): Use of the area shall conform with the program of appropriate soil and water conservation district or plan approved by and on file with the department, where applicable. In the Plan, grazing is disallowed in the Conservation District because the land is unsuitable; it is: a) susceptible to erosion due its slope and shallow soil profiles. b) designated by FIRM Maps as zone VE -- subject to wave action, high‐velocity flow, and erosion during the 1000 year flood.

10. The CDUA did not provide written justification to deviate from the NRCS Plan according to HAR 13-5-42(c). Any deviation from the standard conditions (i.e. HAR 13- 5-42(19) -- described above -- must be supported by a satisfactory written justification stating: (1) the deviation is necessary because of the lack of practical alternatives; (2) the deviation shall not result in any substantial adverse impacts to natural resources; and (3) the deviation does not conflict with the objective of the subzone. No justification was provided. Grazing in Field 12—the 20.7 acres of the Conservation District was not permitted by the NRCS Conservation plan. The applicant has practical alternatives for pasturage within the other 600+ acres he leases. Cattle do not benefit coastal ecosystems.

11. The Brush Management Plan to enhance wildlife habitat fails to identify what species are to be “enhanced”. Brush management as a tool to “eliminate the frequency of trespass transients” that are “camping illegally” is not the purpose of an NRCS conservation plan or a CDUP – that is the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

12. Existing Fauna was not Described and the Wildlife Management Plan was omitted from the CDUA (although it was referred to several times in the application). No list of wildlife species to be benefited is provided in the CDUA. There is no evidence corroborating the applicant’s need for “brush management for wildlife purposes”.

13. Endangered and threatened species were not adequately identified in the CDUA. New evidence regarding the presence of endangered and threatened species needs to be included in this CDUA. An Hawaiian monk seal (endangered species) was born at Larsen’s Beach and 94 green sea turtles (a threatened species) hatched on the beach Fall 2009. Migratory birds of concern – the Laysan albatross – nest on the property. Impacts of fencing and cattle on these species was not addressed in the application. The NRCS Conservation Plan should be updated as well to identify these species.

14. The CDUA Failed to describe Existing Flora and provide general locations and types on a map entitled resources as required in the application. There are a number of threatened medicinal plants species, the ihi, ilima, and pohinahina. The endangered Hawaiian ground cover, ulei, and the native pohuehue are also found in this area. These species will be decimated once cattle are introduced. When pesticides or herbicides are introduced, the gathering of la`au that grow in this coastal area will have to cease because of contamination by proximity.

15. The CDUA fails to comply with HAR 13-5-22 and 23 - in the Limited Subzone, “Natural vegetative plant cover, where disturbed, shall be restored or replaced with endemic or indigenous planting.” The CDUA states that the applicant will remove trees and undergrowth to encourage reestablishment of grasses, however, no grass species have been identified for preservation or reestablishment. Only naupaka is designated for “protection” in the Conservation District but this is the same location where the applicant wants to graze cattle.

16. Tree replacement should be required in the CDUA with a one-for-one replacement of trees 6-inches or more in diameter. The species and size of those trees to be removed and the species and size of the replacement trees should be identified in the CDUA. The backshore is covered with beach heliotrope, naupaka, milo, and false kamani.

17. The CDUA failed to identify the historic, archeological and cultural sites within or near the parcel. The application denied that any Hawaiian habitation occurred on the property after the 1850’s despite readily available evidence that: - There were 35 acres of lo`i kalo agriculture in Lepeuli according to Kilauea Sugar Plantation’s 1932 map. Most were located in the SMA and Conservation District along stream channels or on auwai and next to native Hawaiian habitation (kuleanas).
- The 1835 census recorded a population of 85 adults and children in Lepeuli.
- Kuleana claims for Lepeuli are found at www.ulukau.org
- Known cultural resources in the coastal zone area of the Conservation District include: streams, trails, coral reef, fishing areas, a possible fish trap, historic cultivation areas and house sites, a burial, limu gathering areas, sandy beach, turtle nesting area, native plants and possible fish sighting spots (kilo i`a).

18. The CDUA failed to describe how the proposed project would impact the historic resources and Hawaiian cultural resources, usage and rights in or near the project area. It omitted any discussion of traditional and customary Hawaiian practices for subsistence, cultural, medicinal or religious purposes that take place in or near the project area. It erroneously states that there is no record that the property was being used by native Hawaiians for their cultural beliefs, practices or resources (page 6) as it was under private ownership since the 1850’s. Evidence of kuleana lands and taro lo`i dispute that assertion.

19. Archeological Sites at Lepeuli are not acknowledged in the CDUA. Based on the quantity and significance of finds documented in the archeological inventory surveys for the adjacent coastal properties, a study should be required. A Kaua`i resident reported to SHPD on December 17, 2009 a new archeological site on the property having been exposed by erosion from recent high wave events and storm runoff. A complex of rock walls, terraces and a possible subsurface house overlooking the Lepeuli Stream channel have also been reported by residents and photo documentation is available.

20. There is no Cultural Resources Assessment in the CDUA. Practitioners of Hawaiian culture who live in, have experience with, or have knowledge about the affected district were not contacted for this application. Based on historic documentation about coastal habitation in Lepeuli and the well-known Ka`aka`aniu Reef which is a valued resource for throw-netting, spear-fishing, pole fishing, seaweed harvesting, etc., a cultural resource assessment is warranted.

21. Traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights exercised in the Conservation District will be affected or impaired by the proposed action. By law, such traditional and customary rights shall include, but not be limited to the gathering of hihiwai, opae, o`opu, limu, thatch, ti leaf, aho cord, and medicinal plants for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes.
a) The State and its agencies are obligated to protect the reasonable exercise of customarily and traditionally exercised rights of Hawaiians to the extent feasible;
b) The agencies are obligated to make an assessment of impacts upon traditional and customary practices of native Hawaiians that is independent of the applicant;
c) The independent assessment must include the following:
(1) the identity and scope of “valued cultural, historical, or natural resources” in the area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the affected area;
(2) the extent to which those resources – including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and
(3) the feasible action, if any, to be taken by the agency to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist.

22. No legal basis is provided for the assertion that no prescriptive rights accrue over lands registered with the Land Court of the State of Hawaii. It is in the interest of the public, that the State provide definitive legal documentation as to whether its right to the traditional and customary trail has been relinquished.

23. Consideration of Traditional Hawaiian Values and Native Hawaiian Access was Omitted from CDUA. HRS 205A-2(b)(2)(A) establishes the objectives and policies of the coastal zone management program and provides that the objectives should, -Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore those natural and manmade historic and prehistoric resources in the coastal zone management area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture.- Evidence of settlement patterns as of 1932, demonstrate that the coastal area was inhabited by Hawaiians. And, the coastal alaloa was the means by which they would walk from lo`i to kuleanas. The applicant’s denial of any native Hawaiian cultural resources contradicts testimony of neighbors, community organizations, and cultural practitioners. Attached (Enclosure B) is the March 2, 2007 letter from Curt Cottrell, NAH Program Manager to Patricia Hanwright, the adjacent property owner in the ahupua`a of Ka`aka`aniu, stating that ”DLNR has determined that the historic trail identified on registered maps is still owned by the State pursuant to Chapter 264-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes.”

24. The CDUA failed to describe the traditional use of the “existing trail” behind the beach which is identified as “existing trail” on the CDUA survey map.
a) Hiranaka Surveyor’s analysis of Registered Map No 432 dated 1833, depicts the approximate location of Koolau Road. This is clearly not the coastal trail when compared with the government Survey Registered Map No 1395 of the Island of Kauai, dated 1878 (submitted by SC) documenting the coastal alaloa and Koolau Road. Both run parallel to the coast and Koolau Road is mauka of the coastal trail.
b) Identified as State Archeological site No. 50-30-04-1034, the alaloa is “an important access route in both traditional and historic times”.
c) The statement that the existing trail “appears to have been created” by current day beachgoers is contrary to historic evidence. This coastal right‐of‐way provided native tenants and travelers access between kuleana lands, cultivating fields and ahupua`a linking the past to present use. The coastal trail through Lepeuli, which connects the adjacent ahupua`a of Ka`aka`aniu and Waipake has been used continuously by cultural practitioners and the public.
d) Fencing will suppress, limit and restrict native Hawaiian rights to use the traditional and customary trail for access to and along the shoreline for subsistence gathering of food and plants for cultural and medicinal purposes.

25. The existing County right-of way is currently under scrutiny by county officials due to several discrepancies. An apparent boulder fall on the original trail decades ago and a boundary fence blocking access to that trail are prompting the county to conduct a survey to verify whether the existing public trail alignment corresponds to the metes and bounds in the deed for the county’s purchase from Waioli Corporation in 1979. The path currently maintained by the county is apparently sited on Waioli’s private property. Sierra Club Kaua`i Group recommends that the OCCL staff and Board members come to Kaua`i for a site visit to fully understand the threats and impacts to the resources that the Coastal Zone Management Act seeks to protect.
The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating that the proposed land use is consistent with the criteria of HAR 13-5-30(c). Procedurally, many of the requirements prescribed by HAR Chapter 13-5 are missing from the CDUA. Furthermore, the facts would have been flushed out had a Board permit been sought instead of a Department permit which does not provide for a public hearing. As noted in SC’s October 23, 2009 letter, a hearing is warranted based on significant impacts and public interest.
Lastly, we find that the November 11, 2009 letter to SC from Ms. Nishimitsu, the applicant’s representative, is wholly unsatisfactory in addressing the concerns outlined in our letter to OCCL on October 23, 2009. Procedurally, the department should not have to rely on information that is incomplete, inaccurate or false. And, if approved, the permit may need to be modified, suspended or revoked after-the-fact in accordance with HAR 13-5-42 (11).

It is paramount to preserve the integrity and fragile nature of the Lepeuli coastal resources, species and cultural assets -- they deserve the conscientious stewardship afforded in Conservation District permit regulations, in which this application has fallen short. CDUA KA‐3525 should be denied.

Sincerely,
Judy Dalton and Rayne Regush
Sierra Club Executive Committee
Kaua`i Group, Hawai`i Chapter

cc: Ron Agor, Kaua`i Rep, BLNR
BLNR Members
Bob Schleck & Board Members, Waioli Corporation
Mayor Bernard Carvalho
Kaua`i County Council
Ian Costa, County of Kaua`i Planning Dept.
Kai Markel, OHA
Lex Riggle, NRCS
Robert Harris, Sierra Club Hawai`i Chapter

(PNN) ABREW SUCCEEDS IN OBTAINING PROSPECTIVE B&C MEMBERS’ APPLICATIONS

ABREW SUCCEEDS IN OBTAINING PROSPECTIVE B&C MEMBERS’ APPLICATIONS

(PNN) -- The county council finally complied with an Office of Information Practices opinion and the county charter last week in making applications of prospective board and commission (B&C) member available to the public before council confirmation and asking them about their political party affiliation.

Open and good governance activist Rob Abrew- who has battled the council for months to get them to comply- said he was pleased to be able to get the applications in a timely manner although he continued to question why the council had to wait for the administration’s B&C office to do the job of redacting certain confidential information contained in the applications such as addresses and phone numbers.

Although the B&C office did draw up a new application form to comply with the charter provision that B&Cs contain no more than a bare majority of any one political party and nominees did fill out that section of the new forms, the county apparently still does not have a way to confirm that the answers were truthful.

It is unknown whether the county will attempt to verify the party affiliation, if any, of the new board members. According to Abrew, who has reviewed the applications, almost all of them answered that they were not a member of any party.

Party membership in Hawai`i is strictly the domain of the individual parties and is optional on the part of voters. The lists of members is not considered public information under state sunshine and open records law.

Once someone “signs a card” for membership in one of the two major parties they are considered members for life unless or until they act to leave the party or change affiliation.

That has meant that many in Hawai`i may not even be aware of whether or not they are members, including the tens of thousands who joined the democratic party to vote in the Obama-Clinton presidential primary held in 2008.

See the following for PNN’s past coverage of Abrew’s efforts:

Monday, January 25, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST

Monday, January 11, 2010 (PNN) ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGING

Friday, January 8, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS

ONE WAY OR ANOTHER

ONE WAY OR ANOTHER: Watching yesterday’s council meeting we feared the council as a whole might have to march en masse to the hospital after their session to have the same kind of shoulder surgery we recently endured due to the way they twisted themselves into pretzels patting themselves on their own backs over the increase in ratings for the $120 million dollars in bonds they plan to issue on March 3.

And indeed, credit where credit is due. It will mean that the county will have to pay a lower interest rate to service those bonds saving the taxpayer money over the years. In addition we’re borrowing enough to cover outstanding bonds that we’re now paying off at a higher interest rate.

As the Honolulu Advertiser wrote yesterday:

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has raised it's rating on Kaua`i County outstanding general obligation bonds to AA, it's third-highest rating for municipal bonds.

The ratings agency also assigned an AA rating to the county's $120 million general obligation bond sale that's expected in early March. Standard & Poor's said the ratings upgrade related to Kaua'i's strong financial performance and its reserve position.

Fitch Ratings assigned an AA- rating on Kaua`i bonds that will be sold, and upgraded its outstanding general obligation debt to AA- from A+.

The council touted how they had done it by fully funding their obligations to the county retirement funds unlike the other counties and fixed the 19 different “problems” a required audit found a couple of years back.

But one thing barely mentioned- and for good reason- is that the primary reason for the better rating is that Kaua`i has been operating with huge surpluses for many years.

Now don’t get us wrong- we’re not one of those “lower my taxes” wing-nut tea-baggers, especially when it comes to the progressive types like property and income taxes. We often joke that the reason we don’t run for office is they we favor more government- especially fiscal and environmental regulations - and higher taxes to fully fund safety net and social spending.

One of the problems has been that there is a question of exactly how much money is in this slush fund awaiting appropriation- a question that has never been answered despite the queries from council watchers from Glenn Mickens to Ray Chuan over the last 20 years.

Trying to find out from that shell game they call the annual financial audit has been an exercise in frustration according to those with the skills to try.

Another is that is isn’t spent on social programs... it just kind of sits there like a slush fund ready for appropriation whenever someone convinces the council to spend it.

But the main problem in all this is that at the very moment the council was claiming to be flush out of one side of our collective mouths the administration was talking out of the other side while testifying before a legislative committee in Honolulu where they are considering stealing the counties’ shares of the transient accommodations tax (TAT) which could cost Kaua`i around $15 million this year.

As the Advertiser reported this morning, at the hearing

(Kaua`i Administrative Assistant) Gary Heu, administrative assistant to Kaua`i Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr., said they would have to raise property taxes to a level necessary to offset the TAT losses.

So are we flush enough to achieve a better bond rating because of our vast surpluses or are we so broke that losing 10% of our resources will cause an increase in our property tax rates to fund the same level of services as last year?

All we know is you can’t have it both ways.

ON HIS OWN TERMS

ON HIS OWN TERMS: There are two worlds in Kalalau Valley. One is populated by tourists hikers and campers. The other is inhabited by the “outlaws”... some of the best people you’d ever want to meet.

Rodney Ahn was one of them and that’s where we met him about two decades ago.

Those self proclaimed “outlaws”- who, like the “nitpickers” at county council meetings take pride in the pejorative name given them by the authorities who harass them and chase them down- are the heart and soul of the valley and without them the valley would suffer tremendously.

They are the ones who are always there- except for when they become all but invisible upon the invasions of the conservation enforcement agents who “sweep” through the valley now and again- and remind the real transients to be respectful of not just the physical environment but the more intangible elements with which they co-populate the hills.

We met Rodney there sitting across a circle, the two of us playing the only two guitars in the valley, reeling off Elton John songs- of which Rodney, despite being a local boy, somehow had an encyclopedic knowledge.

We saw him back there over the years and also we’d see him around town. We ask “whatcha up to Rodney” and he’d say “just got out of the valley and I’m headed back in as soon as I can”.

He’d usually find some work, buy some supplies and return to the world he loved.

Rodney and the other outlaws have found something back there that is impossible to find anywhere else, at least for them. It’s not always clear what that is as we live out our lives here on the outside. But every time we go back there we remember what that is and what drives Rodney and the other handful of outlaws to return over and over despite the dozens of tickets and even jail time some receive for daring to live their dream.

We’ll always envy Rodney. As his brother was quoted as saying in today’s newspaper

(Rodney) told him, “‘That’s where I wanna be and that’s where I want to end up.’ So I guess he was happy.... He got all the choices he wanted. Maybe we should all get that lucky,”

It was a shock but not a surprise to find out that he left this world from his camp in the valley.

Even those who spew venom at the “outlaws” have said they envied Rodney.

See ya in the valley brother.