TIME: The time elapsed since our piece last Friday hasn’t done anything to help us figure out how to sort out the reasons for- and thereby find a way to communicate- the conflation of civil unions and same gender marriage- or more actually “same ‘sex’ marriage” as opponents say, preferring to use the much more emotionally-packed term over the word that communicates a more neutral connotation.
Obviously there are the disingenuous who seek to confuse the issue given the knee-jerk reaction to the word marriage. But there are also the genuinely confused who are easily manipulated by the continual reference to marriage even after proponents gave up on full equality in addition to obtaining the enumerated rights conferred in civil unions.
The motives of some are transparently to deceive, such as those expressed in today’s local newspaper by the always conniving and smarmy Jimmy Tokioka who, when asked why he voted against civil unions responded that “state law indicates that marriage is valid only between a man and a woman” according to a paraphrase by the reporter who quoted Tokioka as saying:
“Again the concern from many is about ‘marriage’ — an issue that, if the Supreme Courts should ever opine, would make it clear what the separation of church and state actually means in regards to ‘marriage.’
“Until then Hawaii Revised Statutes clearly spells out the issue of marriage being between one man and one woman.
But then there are also those that allegedly responded to Tokioka’s manipulation after:
In addition to polling constituents via U.S. mail, Tokioka also sent out e-mails to constituents that read in part: “I hope you know that this issue was very difficult for me and I believe many others to make.”
They naturally repeat what they read and hear and probably, through no disingenuity on their part, actually believe that the bill is still a “same sex marriage” measure.
So why do we rehash this?
We assume a veto is in the cards having watched Unified Commander Lingle in action for almost eight years. And that means that we have to do one of two things.
The first option is to stop allowing those in the media to perpetuate the confusion and include in every reference to “same sex marriage” in an article about cavil unions a distinction between the two as a factual matter.
If every time they did it- which has been every day since passage and will most likely be every day until the veto- they got a handful of letter reminding them of the facts of the matter it would at least end the reinforcement through repetition- or “the big lie” as it’s called.
But we’ve got to wonder if it’s too late and the conflation has taken hold to the extent that it’s irreversible.
We’ve been speaking to some proponents over the last few days and it’s becoming apparent that with the failure during this two-year legislative cycle- as well as the one before- there’s a movement to play the final card... filing suit, the second possibility.
Although the makeup of the Hawai`i Supreme Court has changed since the early 90’s decision saying that denying same gender marriage was unconstitutional- which led to the 1998 constructional amendment allowing the legislature to restrict marriage to a man and an woman- the basic premise is the same.
The decision was based on the fact that the actual rights conferred to two people in a marriage were- and now are still- unavailable to some and the only difference is gender- a protected class under the Hawai`i state constitution.
Some say that after eight years of Republican Lingle’s appointments we should follow a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude toward the supreme court.
The question is whether we can we count on supposedly sober jurists to make the distinction. Whether or not may not matter as much as the answer to the question of how much longer we’re supposed to wait for civil rights.
For the past 12 years we’ve reluctantly given up on the fight for the word “marriage” and taken a “give the babies their bottle” approach. But that doesn’t mean we have to give up the milk even if we have to use a sippy cup to enjoy it.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
TAKE A LOAD FOR FREE
TAKE A LOAD FOR FREE: The rabid dog ladies- a term we’ve taken to use in describing the string of middle-aged haole women who have been streaming through the testimony table at recent county council meetings- will no doubt be back in force this Wednesday when the bill to allow dog-walking on the whole “dog path” comes up for a final committee session.
Their stridency is something to behold as is their mantra that “everyone” supports their “right” to walk their dogs on the path.
Today Joan Conrow reports on “an email sent around by Mr. Path, Thomas Noyes” saying”
Based on park users' overwhelming endorsement for allowing responsible dog walking on all of Kauai's existing and future multi-use path systems, as documented in the survey conducted under the direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Kauai Path board of directors supports responsible dog walking on all of Ke Ala Hele Makalae and future path systems.
This “survey” was conducted by 11 of the most hydrophobic of the supporters of allowing dogs on what is of course a “transportation, not recreation” bike path according to the federal law under which the original $40 million was obtained- although Noyes has succeeded in getting everyone to buy into calling it the “shared use path”.
So it’s no surprise then that in answer to the question “Did you experience any problems with dogs on the shred use path” way over 92.9% percent said no. Funny how when “staff”- i.e. county employees- were asked over 20% of those who answered said yes- a statistic that had to be gleaned since it and many other stats weren’t calculated by those that “compiled” the survey.
Of course the selection of participants by the dog ladies and the fact that “no” was the answer the surveyors wanted and expected- in addition to the local custom of telling people what they want to hear- had nothing to do with the answers.
But, as we pause to remove our tongue from our cheek, the one question that stands out when one peruses the entire “presentation” is the question “Is dog feces on the shared use path currently a significant problem?
The result reported was that 90.1% said no. But a look at the results of the staff survey showed that, again, of those who answered yes or no, 24.1% said yes and only 20% said no.
In answer to the question “Do you feel safe with leashed dogs on the shared use path?” again while 97% of the public said yes, a whopping 51.7% of staff (or about 3/4th of those who answered) said no while only 13.4% said yes.
Something’s fishy and it sounds like it just could be the “push poll” nature of the 11 dog zealots who took the public survey.
So what is the real situation with both leash violations and dog poop? Well, as we reported last week the union has filed a grievance because picking up dog crap is not currently in their job description.
A look at the actual “comments” of those volunteers themselves may show why there’s such a discrepancy.
Although the survey conveniently leaves off this info, council questioning revealed that during the period the survey was conducted the volunteers spent little time on the path, most under a half an hour a session on intermittent days- actually most of the surveys were completed by one person.
As a matter of fact total volunteer hours were 30 in December (2008) 24 in January (2009) and only 19.5 in February and a measly 8 in March.
That makes the report of 65 “notations of dog feces along the path” an unfathomable amount of crap if extrapolated for 12 hours a day. And that was only in a two and a half month period.
Buried on page 46 of the report is the meat- the violations reported not by staff but by the volunteers themselves.
We’re going to post the whole list here so you can get the “flavor”. Remember that as time has gone by volunteer monitoring has gone from meager to virtually non-existent despite promises that if the council passes the proposed dogs-on-the-whole-path ordinance they would “pick it up”- the monitoring that is.
Monitoring Log Comments (all sic)
p46
12/2/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/2/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (at rest pavilion) Cat feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/3/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/3/2008 Dog feces (2 piles) removed by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)
12/8/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/8/2008 Man with dog off leash at Lihi, reported by volunteer, no indication if warning was done by volunteer
12/11/2008 Stray dog found on path and picked up by Humane Society (noted by volunteer who brought dog to Ranger)
12/19/2008 Dog running loose near Kapaa Beach Park Pavilion, maybe from house where guy carves tikis
12/22/2008 Dog feces (3 piles removed at pavilion Kapaa N/C); (1 pile removed at the large dispenser at Kapaa N/C)
12/31/2008 Dispensers need to be refilled (Kealia & Kapaa N/C)
1/1/2009 Dog feces (2 piles) in the area of Pavilion #3(?) reported by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)(no notation if removed)
1/5/2009 Stray med sized white dog, at Lihi restroom, no license (no notation if Humane Society called for stray)
1/11/2009 Bicyclists w/dog not on leash - volunteer counseled riders & they complied
1/12/2009 Lady walker w/retracable leash (no indicate if spoke to walker)(AM)
1/12/2009 No bags at Lihi dispenser (empty several days), dispenser at Kapaa N/C stinks, not emptied in a couple of days (AM)
1/12/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces (1 on path other within 5' of path)(PM)
1/13/2009 Walkers w/two dogs, no visible poop bags (no indication if spoke to walkers) 1 pile of dog feces picked up within 5' of path
1/18/1900 Dog pot at Kealia overflowing & really stinks, also almost out of bags. "come on guys can't someone empty these"
1/20/2009 Graffitti path adjacent to Otsukas 6'x4' - red paint
1/21/2009 1 walker w/dog with a retractable leash (no notation if walker spoken to)
1/22/2009 Enforcement officer (Tony) picked up brown lab near Kapaa Pool. KHS picked up dog
1/26/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces near Kapaa Beach Park
1/26/2009 Lihi dispenser bottom missing & needs replacement parts ordered
1/26&27/09 Only poop on the path is chicken poop - Yahoo!
1/27/2009 Many chicken manure piles & dead & live slugs & snails
1/29/2009 2 walkers with dogs, no license, were informed
2/8/2009 No litter bags @ bathroom, rest site #1, Dogi pot #2 both sides full, Dogi pot #3 (pool) left side empty, Right full
2/8/2009 Dogi pot #4 upper empty, lower 1/4 full (lookout), Dogi pot #5 both full, Kealia Bridge, stray dog Kealia (no indication if Humane Society called)
2/8/2009 Walker didn't have dog on leash, conunseled her-she put dog on leash, 1 pile feces removed near Kapaa Neighborhood Center
2/12/2009 Launch bathroom doggie bags empty
2/13/2009 No dogs today
2/13/2009 Boat launch bathrooms/doggie bags empty, Kealia Lookout/dogi bag empty, 1 pile dog feces Kealia pavilion (no indication if removed)
2/17/2009 Dogi bag dispenser empty boat ramp bathrooms, Dogi bag dispenser police station bathroom empty, 2 piles feces within 5' of path (no location)
2/18/2009 2 walkers with dogs off leash, put them all on leash, 1 speeding ultra-fast bicyclist - no bike bell, 1 pile feces removed by neighborhood center
2/18/2009 No more poop bags at doggie pot dispenser scenic parking lot
If anyone wants to go through the whole presentation we have the “power point” file (you need PP software to download it) and we’ll forward to you upon request.
We should note that we don’t hate dogs. But what we do hate is allowing a small group to dictate policy through intimidation and falsified and manipulated information.
We do support the right of people who are genuinely afraid of dogs- especially little kids who are at eye-to-eye level with some of them- to be able to use the path, along with those on bicycles (whose use should be a priority) to not have to veer off the path when a dog, as they are prone to do, lunges at them, leashes notwithstanding.
Their stridency is something to behold as is their mantra that “everyone” supports their “right” to walk their dogs on the path.
Today Joan Conrow reports on “an email sent around by Mr. Path, Thomas Noyes” saying”
Based on park users' overwhelming endorsement for allowing responsible dog walking on all of Kauai's existing and future multi-use path systems, as documented in the survey conducted under the direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Kauai Path board of directors supports responsible dog walking on all of Ke Ala Hele Makalae and future path systems.
This “survey” was conducted by 11 of the most hydrophobic of the supporters of allowing dogs on what is of course a “transportation, not recreation” bike path according to the federal law under which the original $40 million was obtained- although Noyes has succeeded in getting everyone to buy into calling it the “shared use path”.
So it’s no surprise then that in answer to the question “Did you experience any problems with dogs on the shred use path” way over 92.9% percent said no. Funny how when “staff”- i.e. county employees- were asked over 20% of those who answered said yes- a statistic that had to be gleaned since it and many other stats weren’t calculated by those that “compiled” the survey.
Of course the selection of participants by the dog ladies and the fact that “no” was the answer the surveyors wanted and expected- in addition to the local custom of telling people what they want to hear- had nothing to do with the answers.
But, as we pause to remove our tongue from our cheek, the one question that stands out when one peruses the entire “presentation” is the question “Is dog feces on the shared use path currently a significant problem?
The result reported was that 90.1% said no. But a look at the results of the staff survey showed that, again, of those who answered yes or no, 24.1% said yes and only 20% said no.
In answer to the question “Do you feel safe with leashed dogs on the shared use path?” again while 97% of the public said yes, a whopping 51.7% of staff (or about 3/4th of those who answered) said no while only 13.4% said yes.
Something’s fishy and it sounds like it just could be the “push poll” nature of the 11 dog zealots who took the public survey.
So what is the real situation with both leash violations and dog poop? Well, as we reported last week the union has filed a grievance because picking up dog crap is not currently in their job description.
A look at the actual “comments” of those volunteers themselves may show why there’s such a discrepancy.
Although the survey conveniently leaves off this info, council questioning revealed that during the period the survey was conducted the volunteers spent little time on the path, most under a half an hour a session on intermittent days- actually most of the surveys were completed by one person.
As a matter of fact total volunteer hours were 30 in December (2008) 24 in January (2009) and only 19.5 in February and a measly 8 in March.
That makes the report of 65 “notations of dog feces along the path” an unfathomable amount of crap if extrapolated for 12 hours a day. And that was only in a two and a half month period.
Buried on page 46 of the report is the meat- the violations reported not by staff but by the volunteers themselves.
We’re going to post the whole list here so you can get the “flavor”. Remember that as time has gone by volunteer monitoring has gone from meager to virtually non-existent despite promises that if the council passes the proposed dogs-on-the-whole-path ordinance they would “pick it up”- the monitoring that is.
Monitoring Log Comments (all sic)
p46
12/2/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/2/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (at rest pavilion) Cat feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/3/2008 Dog chained to tree near pavilion, Kapaa Beach Park, noted by volunteer
12/3/2008 Dog feces (2 piles) removed by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)
12/8/2008 Dog feces removed by volunteer (within 5' of path)
12/8/2008 Man with dog off leash at Lihi, reported by volunteer, no indication if warning was done by volunteer
12/11/2008 Stray dog found on path and picked up by Humane Society (noted by volunteer who brought dog to Ranger)
12/19/2008 Dog running loose near Kapaa Beach Park Pavilion, maybe from house where guy carves tikis
12/22/2008 Dog feces (3 piles removed at pavilion Kapaa N/C); (1 pile removed at the large dispenser at Kapaa N/C)
12/31/2008 Dispensers need to be refilled (Kealia & Kapaa N/C)
1/1/2009 Dog feces (2 piles) in the area of Pavilion #3(?) reported by volunteer (within 5' of path & on path)(no notation if removed)
1/5/2009 Stray med sized white dog, at Lihi restroom, no license (no notation if Humane Society called for stray)
1/11/2009 Bicyclists w/dog not on leash - volunteer counseled riders & they complied
1/12/2009 Lady walker w/retracable leash (no indicate if spoke to walker)(AM)
1/12/2009 No bags at Lihi dispenser (empty several days), dispenser at Kapaa N/C stinks, not emptied in a couple of days (AM)
1/12/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces (1 on path other within 5' of path)(PM)
1/13/2009 Walkers w/two dogs, no visible poop bags (no indication if spoke to walkers) 1 pile of dog feces picked up within 5' of path
1/18/1900 Dog pot at Kealia overflowing & really stinks, also almost out of bags. "come on guys can't someone empty these"
1/20/2009 Graffitti path adjacent to Otsukas 6'x4' - red paint
1/21/2009 1 walker w/dog with a retractable leash (no notation if walker spoken to)
1/22/2009 Enforcement officer (Tony) picked up brown lab near Kapaa Pool. KHS picked up dog
1/26/2009 Removed 2 piles of dog feces near Kapaa Beach Park
1/26/2009 Lihi dispenser bottom missing & needs replacement parts ordered
1/26&27/09 Only poop on the path is chicken poop - Yahoo!
1/27/2009 Many chicken manure piles & dead & live slugs & snails
1/29/2009 2 walkers with dogs, no license, were informed
2/8/2009 No litter bags @ bathroom, rest site #1, Dogi pot #2 both sides full, Dogi pot #3 (pool) left side empty, Right full
2/8/2009 Dogi pot #4 upper empty, lower 1/4 full (lookout), Dogi pot #5 both full, Kealia Bridge, stray dog Kealia (no indication if Humane Society called)
2/8/2009 Walker didn't have dog on leash, conunseled her-she put dog on leash, 1 pile feces removed near Kapaa Neighborhood Center
2/12/2009 Launch bathroom doggie bags empty
2/13/2009 No dogs today
2/13/2009 Boat launch bathrooms/doggie bags empty, Kealia Lookout/dogi bag empty, 1 pile dog feces Kealia pavilion (no indication if removed)
2/17/2009 Dogi bag dispenser empty boat ramp bathrooms, Dogi bag dispenser police station bathroom empty, 2 piles feces within 5' of path (no location)
2/18/2009 2 walkers with dogs off leash, put them all on leash, 1 speeding ultra-fast bicyclist - no bike bell, 1 pile feces removed by neighborhood center
2/18/2009 No more poop bags at doggie pot dispenser scenic parking lot
If anyone wants to go through the whole presentation we have the “power point” file (you need PP software to download it) and we’ll forward to you upon request.
We should note that we don’t hate dogs. But what we do hate is allowing a small group to dictate policy through intimidation and falsified and manipulated information.
We do support the right of people who are genuinely afraid of dogs- especially little kids who are at eye-to-eye level with some of them- to be able to use the path, along with those on bicycles (whose use should be a priority) to not have to veer off the path when a dog, as they are prone to do, lunges at them, leashes notwithstanding.
Friday, April 30, 2010
LET THE GOOD GUY WIN EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE
LET THE GOOD GUY WIN EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE: The “last minute” maneuver in the state house to pass the civil-unions bill- HB 444- was still quite a shock to the system despite the fact that we’d heard that a massive push was underway by civil rights activists in Honolulu including some pretty intense one-on-one lobbying of house members by those with access.
Process geeks like us can check out Derrick DePledge’s blow by blow live twittering to find out how it came down.
It was aided by, if there’s such a thing within a legislative body, a grassroots effort by a handful of house members that greased the skids on promoting access and putting their own time and effort into convincing their colleagues to force the vote.
Next time you see Mina Morita give her a hug.
But what strikes us is the brilliant political move of the activist in letting the sleeping dog lie as the session wore suckering the bigots and religious zealots into complacency and do their work under the radar.
Now for the next six months we’re going to hear the big lie that’s becoming the popular rallying cry for many of the wing-nuts and, well, nut-case groups in general... that they are some kind of overwhelming majority even when their ranks are far outnumbered.
Whether it’s the same 18% (in a NY Times poll) of the populace that makes up the tea partiers- the same percentage that supported the war criminals by the end of the last administration- who bafflingly maintain they speak for the majority or the dog ladies on Kaua`i who claim “everybody” wants to engage their dirty smelly mutts when they go down to the ocean (and designed a push survey to prove it) it’s the latest in bogus lobbying through lies.
If you don’t have the majority on your side, just say you do over and over and get the press to report that you said it in their “he said she said” coverage.
Which is why we’ve got to make sure that if the homophobic lobby is going to try to make the November election about this we’ve gotta make sure we turn out and both support those who supported civil rights and replace those who didn’t- or keep those new candidates who don’t on the outside.
Here on Kaua`i the no votes came from the always bigoted Jimmy Tokioka and his west side cohort Roland Sagum. We can only hope good candidates will come forward to challenge them.
But assuming a Lingle veto- meaning we’d have to start from scratch in 2011- we’re going to need someone to sign the bill next year and that leaves only Neil Abercrombie.
Most know that Duke Aiona is generally one of the worst religion-addled ass-wipes around. But fewer know that the corrupt Mayor of Honolulu Mufi Hannemann opposes civil unions too.
Candidates aside our most daunting task will be to make sure that the other big lie- that civil unions are somehow related to same gender marriage- is put to rest by November... and that includes whenever some well meaning pea-brains like Jerry Burris conflates them as he did in today’s Honolulu Advertiser... just as columnist Dave Shapiro did as we mentioned last week.
Whatever Ms. Ding-a-Lingle decides to do we’ve go our work cut out for us on this one.
Process geeks like us can check out Derrick DePledge’s blow by blow live twittering to find out how it came down.
It was aided by, if there’s such a thing within a legislative body, a grassroots effort by a handful of house members that greased the skids on promoting access and putting their own time and effort into convincing their colleagues to force the vote.
Next time you see Mina Morita give her a hug.
But what strikes us is the brilliant political move of the activist in letting the sleeping dog lie as the session wore suckering the bigots and religious zealots into complacency and do their work under the radar.
Now for the next six months we’re going to hear the big lie that’s becoming the popular rallying cry for many of the wing-nuts and, well, nut-case groups in general... that they are some kind of overwhelming majority even when their ranks are far outnumbered.
Whether it’s the same 18% (in a NY Times poll) of the populace that makes up the tea partiers- the same percentage that supported the war criminals by the end of the last administration- who bafflingly maintain they speak for the majority or the dog ladies on Kaua`i who claim “everybody” wants to engage their dirty smelly mutts when they go down to the ocean (and designed a push survey to prove it) it’s the latest in bogus lobbying through lies.
If you don’t have the majority on your side, just say you do over and over and get the press to report that you said it in their “he said she said” coverage.
Which is why we’ve got to make sure that if the homophobic lobby is going to try to make the November election about this we’ve gotta make sure we turn out and both support those who supported civil rights and replace those who didn’t- or keep those new candidates who don’t on the outside.
Here on Kaua`i the no votes came from the always bigoted Jimmy Tokioka and his west side cohort Roland Sagum. We can only hope good candidates will come forward to challenge them.
But assuming a Lingle veto- meaning we’d have to start from scratch in 2011- we’re going to need someone to sign the bill next year and that leaves only Neil Abercrombie.
Most know that Duke Aiona is generally one of the worst religion-addled ass-wipes around. But fewer know that the corrupt Mayor of Honolulu Mufi Hannemann opposes civil unions too.
Candidates aside our most daunting task will be to make sure that the other big lie- that civil unions are somehow related to same gender marriage- is put to rest by November... and that includes whenever some well meaning pea-brains like Jerry Burris conflates them as he did in today’s Honolulu Advertiser... just as columnist Dave Shapiro did as we mentioned last week.
Whatever Ms. Ding-a-Lingle decides to do we’ve go our work cut out for us on this one.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
(PNN) MAYOR WITHDRAWS LIQUOR COMMISSION NOMINATION AFTER WATCHDOG CHALLENGE
MAYOR WITHDRAWS LIQUOR COMMISSION NOMINATION AFTER WATCHDOG CHALLENGE
(PNN) -- Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s nomination of Heidy Yamamoto to the Liquor Commission has been withdrawn after the county attorney’s office told the administration that “it would be prudent to withdraw this nomination to avoid any potential conflicts given the fact that part of Costco's merchandising includes alcoholic beverages.” according to a letter to councilmembers from Board and Commission administrator John Isobe.
As PNN reported last month Ms. Yamamoto’s job at Costco would make her ineligible to serve due to the plain language of the county charter which prohibits anyone “who is or becomes engaged, or is directly or indirectly interested in any business for the manufacture or sale of liquor”.
Council watchdog Rob Abrew who discovered the conflict of interest obtained the letter only after the council voted to receive the resolution that would have confirmed Yamamoto.
At first the administration tried to go forward with the nomination claiming that since Yamamoto didn’t deal directly with liquor in her job duties she was exempt from following the law.
Abrew persisted in trying to get answers from the council as to what happened in the interim during his public testimony and finally was told of the letter. Then, during a recess Abrew said was chided by an angry Councilperson Jay Furfaro for exposing the matter to on-camera public scrutiny.
Abrew discovered the conflict of interest after a successful battle earlier this year to obtain the applications of prospective board and commission members when their names are put before the council, a practice that the Office of Information Practices (OIP) required in a previous opinion.
Abrew still has an outstanding case with the OIP after filing a complaint earlier this year due to what he says was stonewalling and intentional delays by the council in following the sunshine law.
For PNN’s prior coverage of Abrew’s attempts to bring sunshine to the board and commission nomination process see:
Friday, January 8, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS
Monday, January 11, 2010 (PNN) ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGING
Monday, January 25, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST
Friday, February 19, 2010 (PNN) ABREW SUCCEEDS IN OBTAINING PROSPECTIVE B&C MEMBERS’ APPLICATIONS
Monday, March 22, 2010
(PNN) CARVALHO, ISOBE VIOLATE CHARTER IN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION APPOINTMENT, APPLICATION REVEALS
The following is the full text of the letter from the county attorney
----
(To) Honorable Kaipo Asing, Council Chairperson; Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Vice Chairperson
(From) Mr. John Isobe, Executive Assistant to the Mayor
April 12, 2010
Withdrawal of Appointment to Liquor Commission
This responds to your request for clarification regarding a possible conflict of interest on the appointment of Ms. Heidy Yamamoto to the Liquor Commission based on her employment at Costco, who is a retailer of liquor.
This matter was referred to the County Attorney's Office for review and opinion along with Ms. Yamamoto's job responsibilities none of which include a reference to the manufacture or sale of liquor. Although the County Attorney's Office did not provide a definitive answer, they have advised that it would be prudent to withdraw this nomination to avoid any potential conflicts given the fact that part of Costco's merchandising includes alcoholic beverages.
For this reason, we are hereby withdrawing the appointment of Ms. Heidy Yamamoto to the Liquor Commission.
Please be informed that we have advised Ms. Yamamoto about this possible conflict and she is in agreement with this course of action.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
(PNN) -- Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s nomination of Heidy Yamamoto to the Liquor Commission has been withdrawn after the county attorney’s office told the administration that “it would be prudent to withdraw this nomination to avoid any potential conflicts given the fact that part of Costco's merchandising includes alcoholic beverages.” according to a letter to councilmembers from Board and Commission administrator John Isobe.
As PNN reported last month Ms. Yamamoto’s job at Costco would make her ineligible to serve due to the plain language of the county charter which prohibits anyone “who is or becomes engaged, or is directly or indirectly interested in any business for the manufacture or sale of liquor”.
Council watchdog Rob Abrew who discovered the conflict of interest obtained the letter only after the council voted to receive the resolution that would have confirmed Yamamoto.
At first the administration tried to go forward with the nomination claiming that since Yamamoto didn’t deal directly with liquor in her job duties she was exempt from following the law.
Abrew persisted in trying to get answers from the council as to what happened in the interim during his public testimony and finally was told of the letter. Then, during a recess Abrew said was chided by an angry Councilperson Jay Furfaro for exposing the matter to on-camera public scrutiny.
Abrew discovered the conflict of interest after a successful battle earlier this year to obtain the applications of prospective board and commission members when their names are put before the council, a practice that the Office of Information Practices (OIP) required in a previous opinion.
Abrew still has an outstanding case with the OIP after filing a complaint earlier this year due to what he says was stonewalling and intentional delays by the council in following the sunshine law.
For PNN’s prior coverage of Abrew’s attempts to bring sunshine to the board and commission nomination process see:
Friday, January 8, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS
Monday, January 11, 2010 (PNN) ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGING
Monday, January 25, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST
Friday, February 19, 2010 (PNN) ABREW SUCCEEDS IN OBTAINING PROSPECTIVE B&C MEMBERS’ APPLICATIONS
Monday, March 22, 2010
(PNN) CARVALHO, ISOBE VIOLATE CHARTER IN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION APPOINTMENT, APPLICATION REVEALS
The following is the full text of the letter from the county attorney
----
(To) Honorable Kaipo Asing, Council Chairperson; Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Vice Chairperson
(From) Mr. John Isobe, Executive Assistant to the Mayor
April 12, 2010
Withdrawal of Appointment to Liquor Commission
This responds to your request for clarification regarding a possible conflict of interest on the appointment of Ms. Heidy Yamamoto to the Liquor Commission based on her employment at Costco, who is a retailer of liquor.
This matter was referred to the County Attorney's Office for review and opinion along with Ms. Yamamoto's job responsibilities none of which include a reference to the manufacture or sale of liquor. Although the County Attorney's Office did not provide a definitive answer, they have advised that it would be prudent to withdraw this nomination to avoid any potential conflicts given the fact that part of Costco's merchandising includes alcoholic beverages.
For this reason, we are hereby withdrawing the appointment of Ms. Heidy Yamamoto to the Liquor Commission.
Please be informed that we have advised Ms. Yamamoto about this possible conflict and she is in agreement with this course of action.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
COPY!
COPY!: After twenty-five years plus of providing unending targets for ridicule it was a bit uncomfortable for us to gush over anything remotely related to our joke-of-a-local-newspaper during the brief period that saw reporter Mike Levine waste his talents on Kaua`i.
But if it’s possible, with Mike’s departure, the paper might just be the worst it’s been in at least a decade or more with the addition of Leo Azambuja who has quite apparently never seen the inside of a basic newswriting textbook.
As if the flighty fluffmeister “Business Editor” Coco Zickos and the always incomprehensible “police and courts reporter” Paul Curtis weren’t bad enough, Azambuja seems totally baffled after being hired to cover the all important “government beat”.
A new article is supposed to have what’s called a lead- or lede as it’s spelled in the trade. A good reporter sits down to file a story and takes a breath to come up with the most important thing that that happened and put it at the top- all in 25 words or less.
The rest of the story follows what’s called the “inverted triangle” and tells a story- another important element- with the more important information nearer the top and the less important depth and background to follow.
It’s kind of the opposite of normal writing and a writer who is not a journalist must unlearn everything he or she knows in order to be a good reporter.
In covering a meeting the one thing you don’t want to see is a chronological regurgitation of what happened and a lede something like “A meeting of the county council was held yesterday at 9 a.m. in the council chambers at the county building”.
But apparently Azambuja either missed that day’s lesson or never attended a class.
Take his wrap-up of the budget hearings- which individually were a minute by minute recap with no context or narrative. Here’s his lede:
NAWILIWILI — Kaua‘i County Council members have been keeping busy since April 9, reviewing Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.’s proposed $146.29 million operating budget for Fiscal Year 2011, which starts July 1.
Classic. It the type of thing that a frst day student might turn in- one who hadn’t bothered to do the reading or pay attention in class.
Another skill is deciding the most important story to report if there’s more than one. But today. while Azambuja was filing a somewhat disjointed report from yesterday’s planning commission meeting about an ongoing, weeks-old story about an art gallery permit in Hanalei, Joan Conrow was reporting about the Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) bill that was passed out of the planning commission- a bill will basically ditches all the restrictions the council placed on TVRs last year and could, if passed by the council, have repercussions for decades to come.
Perhaps the most egregious thing one can do is to “bury the lede”, waiting until halfway through the article until you report the most important thing.
Azambuja’s story last Thursday on the “dog path” bill started with the end, calling the deferral of the bill to allow dogs on the entire bike path a “surprise” and regurgitating much the testimony of the “dog ladies”.
Finally 634 words into an 874 word story in the 22nd paragraph of a 27 paragraph report he writes that
The Parks and Recreation new plan suggests leashed dogs be allowed from Kealia lookout to the north end of Kuna Beach, popularly known as Donkey Beach.
United Public Workers Business Agent Trina Horner said the union supports leashed dogs on the portion of the path proposed by Rapozo, because allowing them on the entire path would put an extra burden on maintenance workers.
And that was it- no other reference to the administration’s official recommendation that dogs be allowed only on the extreme northern section of the path rather than the entire path as the bill currently calls for. There was no reference at all to an all important grievance filed by the union that could make the use of the entire path as a dog walk difficult without a resolution to the filing.
Seems that the workers are willing to perform the added maintenance duties on the northern portion for now as a compromise. They could have said no to any additions since new job descriptions cannot, by law, be imposed on them unilaterally and must be negotiated.... especially, apparently, the job of picking up dog poop.
But you’d never know that from the story which only mentions the administration’s position in passing as if it had no consequence when in actuality it very well could cause the first veto of Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s administration.
Though the story ranted on and on about the survey there was no mention that it was as nonscientific as could be or that the information was gathered by dogs-on-the-path zealots and so predictably found that “everyone” wants dogs on the path- apparently including those who have been bitten or harassed by or just don’t like being around huge unpredictable animals.
Which leads us to the “surprise” deferral- one that was, as Parks and Transportation Committee Chair Lani Kawahara said, done to allow for the committee to decide on an amendment to give the administrations proposal it’s due consideration and then either accept or reject it... and do so in committee where council’s “work” is supposed to be done.
These are just a few examples of the piss-poor job being done by the one person who this community relies upon to inform the public of governmental doings via the self-proclaimed “newspaper of record”.
There’s no shortage of excellent reporters in the state and even the island and a slew more out-of-work journalists to come with today’s announcement that the merger of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star Bulletin will proceed, initiating mass layoffs as the two staffs combine into one.
But hiring one of them would entail actually paying them a living wage, something the local paper avoids at all costs according to many past employees.
We don’t like denying anyone their job. But the tracking of the doings of government for the community is too important to be left to amateurs.
But if it’s possible, with Mike’s departure, the paper might just be the worst it’s been in at least a decade or more with the addition of Leo Azambuja who has quite apparently never seen the inside of a basic newswriting textbook.
As if the flighty fluffmeister “Business Editor” Coco Zickos and the always incomprehensible “police and courts reporter” Paul Curtis weren’t bad enough, Azambuja seems totally baffled after being hired to cover the all important “government beat”.
A new article is supposed to have what’s called a lead- or lede as it’s spelled in the trade. A good reporter sits down to file a story and takes a breath to come up with the most important thing that that happened and put it at the top- all in 25 words or less.
The rest of the story follows what’s called the “inverted triangle” and tells a story- another important element- with the more important information nearer the top and the less important depth and background to follow.
It’s kind of the opposite of normal writing and a writer who is not a journalist must unlearn everything he or she knows in order to be a good reporter.
In covering a meeting the one thing you don’t want to see is a chronological regurgitation of what happened and a lede something like “A meeting of the county council was held yesterday at 9 a.m. in the council chambers at the county building”.
But apparently Azambuja either missed that day’s lesson or never attended a class.
Take his wrap-up of the budget hearings- which individually were a minute by minute recap with no context or narrative. Here’s his lede:
NAWILIWILI — Kaua‘i County Council members have been keeping busy since April 9, reviewing Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.’s proposed $146.29 million operating budget for Fiscal Year 2011, which starts July 1.
Classic. It the type of thing that a frst day student might turn in- one who hadn’t bothered to do the reading or pay attention in class.
Another skill is deciding the most important story to report if there’s more than one. But today. while Azambuja was filing a somewhat disjointed report from yesterday’s planning commission meeting about an ongoing, weeks-old story about an art gallery permit in Hanalei, Joan Conrow was reporting about the Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) bill that was passed out of the planning commission- a bill will basically ditches all the restrictions the council placed on TVRs last year and could, if passed by the council, have repercussions for decades to come.
Perhaps the most egregious thing one can do is to “bury the lede”, waiting until halfway through the article until you report the most important thing.
Azambuja’s story last Thursday on the “dog path” bill started with the end, calling the deferral of the bill to allow dogs on the entire bike path a “surprise” and regurgitating much the testimony of the “dog ladies”.
Finally 634 words into an 874 word story in the 22nd paragraph of a 27 paragraph report he writes that
The Parks and Recreation new plan suggests leashed dogs be allowed from Kealia lookout to the north end of Kuna Beach, popularly known as Donkey Beach.
United Public Workers Business Agent Trina Horner said the union supports leashed dogs on the portion of the path proposed by Rapozo, because allowing them on the entire path would put an extra burden on maintenance workers.
And that was it- no other reference to the administration’s official recommendation that dogs be allowed only on the extreme northern section of the path rather than the entire path as the bill currently calls for. There was no reference at all to an all important grievance filed by the union that could make the use of the entire path as a dog walk difficult without a resolution to the filing.
Seems that the workers are willing to perform the added maintenance duties on the northern portion for now as a compromise. They could have said no to any additions since new job descriptions cannot, by law, be imposed on them unilaterally and must be negotiated.... especially, apparently, the job of picking up dog poop.
But you’d never know that from the story which only mentions the administration’s position in passing as if it had no consequence when in actuality it very well could cause the first veto of Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s administration.
Though the story ranted on and on about the survey there was no mention that it was as nonscientific as could be or that the information was gathered by dogs-on-the-path zealots and so predictably found that “everyone” wants dogs on the path- apparently including those who have been bitten or harassed by or just don’t like being around huge unpredictable animals.
Which leads us to the “surprise” deferral- one that was, as Parks and Transportation Committee Chair Lani Kawahara said, done to allow for the committee to decide on an amendment to give the administrations proposal it’s due consideration and then either accept or reject it... and do so in committee where council’s “work” is supposed to be done.
These are just a few examples of the piss-poor job being done by the one person who this community relies upon to inform the public of governmental doings via the self-proclaimed “newspaper of record”.
There’s no shortage of excellent reporters in the state and even the island and a slew more out-of-work journalists to come with today’s announcement that the merger of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star Bulletin will proceed, initiating mass layoffs as the two staffs combine into one.
But hiring one of them would entail actually paying them a living wage, something the local paper avoids at all costs according to many past employees.
We don’t like denying anyone their job. But the tracking of the doings of government for the community is too important to be left to amateurs.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
...AND THE UGLY
...AND THE UGLY: There’s good news and bad news on the Lepeuli- aka Larsen’s Beach- front.
The good news is that the appeal of the Bruce Laymon’s CDUA permit- filed by Sierra Club- along with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (HLC) and the Surfrider Foundation and supported by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has been granted.
The bad news is that it will be heard in Honolulu on the May 13th meeting of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR).
According to Hope Kallai of Malama Moloa`a (MM) Laymon has clearcut the beach and shredded coral and apparently no agency seems to care. And there’s still no usable access while the various “stakeholder” parties wrangle over whether or not to honor the traditional Alaloa or make believe it never existed with the later seemingly being the one thing they all agree upon.
For those who are uninitiated in the debacle, follow the links above for our past posts.
Apparently the best Kaua`i people who can’t afford airfare can do is to write to various people and agencies.
Here’s a primer in preparing testimony from MM.
----
Lepeuli CDUA appeal will be discussed at the BLNR meeting May 13 in Honolulu
According to (Tiger) Kimberly K. Tiger Mills, Staff Planner for the State of Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources (DLNR) Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL), the appeal of the approval of the Paradise Ranch Conservation District Use Application to convert shorefront coastal scrub into commercial cattle pasture will be considered by the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) on THURSDAY, May 13, 2010. Meetings begin at 9 am at the
Kalanimoku Building1151 Punchbowl St.Honolulu , HI 96813www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/occl
dlnr@hawaii.gov
The agenda is not available yet, but Lepeuli as an agenda item has been confirmed. Book flights now!
The BLNR meeting agenda for May 13th will appear on our website one week prior on May 6th: http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/chair/meeting
· There are many reasons for considering the appeal of this CDUA. There has been seriously inadequate community involvement. Repeated requests from the public as well as 3 requests from Senator Gary Hooser (even offering to fund the DLNR trip to Kauai for the meeting) have been refused.
-There are inadequate agency comments. Three federally listed species will potentially be negatively impacted by this project, yet there is no Habitat Conservation Plan (as required under HRS 195D-21) for these species. Federal funds are being used for pasture conversion of a native habitat with potential impacts to endangered species.
-There must be a current shoreline certification. There has not been a state survey since 1978. Project applicant states “property boundary is makai of shoreline.” He manages the coral cobble and sand with a BrushHog. This is PUBLIC LAND in the Conservation District. Applicant has removed the debris line with machinery.
-Ancient Alaloa has NEVER been closed off. It is a significant trail with important cultural and PASH access needs. It has been in continual use for many hundreds of years. All ancient roads and trails are state land. The cultural comments of segment of the Alaloa (Arch siste 1034) managed by the Na Ala Hele trail system document the importance of this trail system and the antiquity of it. The Lepeuli must be recognized as an Archaeological Site and offered state protection.
-There must be a Cultural Impact Assessment of the ahupua`a of Lepeuli before any more mechanized manipulation of cultural sites present.
DLNR never contacted any harvesters or user groups of the most important limu kohu resources in Hawaii .
-Agriculture (cattle operations) will not benefit the reef. This statement is ridiculous.
-There has never been an estimate at the usage and visitation of the Alaloa or the County Right-Of-Way. The user groups must be defined and consulted before any new trail is designed. Traditional gathers must be consulted about trail access.
-Any new trail configuration must be designed to PASH and ADA Standards. The Ancient Alaloa falls under Historic Trail standards; the County Right of Way must adhere to ADA Trail standards.
-Impact to protected species of Alaloa closure (and subsequent increase in beach travel) has not been considered.
-Native plant communities and indigenous wildlife are protected under HRS 195.
-Beach access is protected by Hawaii state laws including the right of safe transit along the shorelines. HRS 115-5 offers the public a 6’ transit corridor in areas where there are rocky shorelines or cliffs. Blocking any public access with fences or gates to the shoreline is a misdemeanor and punishable by fines.
Letters can be written to the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) at
Adaline Cummings, SecretaryBoard of Land & Natural Resources1151 Punchbowl Street, Suite 130Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Phone: 808-587-0404Fax: 808-587-0390
adaline.f.cummings@hawaii.gov
Comments should also be sent to Tiger Mills of the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
Kimberly K. (Tiger) Mills, Staff PlannerState of HawaiiDepartment of Land & Natural ResourcesOffice of Conservation and Coastal LandsP.O. Box 621Honolulu, Hawaii 96809
kimberly.mills@hawaii.gov
Request a current Shoreline Certification from the State Land Survey Division
Reid K. Siarot, State Land Surveyor
Department of Accounting & General Services
Land Survey Division
1151 Punchbowl St., Rm 210
Honolulu Hawaii 96813
(808) 586-0390
(808) 586-0383 fax
reid.k.siarot@hawaii.gov
and
Christopher L. Conger, Shoreline Specialist
University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program
Department of Land and Natural Resources
1151 Punchbowl St., Rm 131
Honolulu Hawaii 96813
(808) 587-0049 work
(808) 520-4892 work cell
(808) 587-0322 fax
Chris.L.Conger@hawaii.gov
Request a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) and Archaeological Inventory/Assessment from
Puaalaokalani Aiu, Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
Kakuhihewa Building,
601 Kamokila Blvd., Suite 555,
Kapolei, Hawai`i , 96707Ph: (808) 692-8015Fax: (808) 692-8020
Pua.Aiu@hawaii.gov
nancy.a.mcmahon@hawaii.gov
And
Clyde Namu`o
OHA
711 Kapi'olani Blvd., Ste. 500
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 594-1835
Fax: (808) 594-1865
clydenamuo@oha.org
OHA Washington, D.C., Bureau50 F St. NW, Ste. 3300Washington, D.C. 20001 Ph: (202) 454-0920 Fax: (202) 789-1758 timjohnson@ohadc.org
OHA Kaua'i & Ni'ihau2970 Kele Street, Ste. 113Lihu'e, HI 96766Phone: (808) 241-3390Fax: (808) 241-3508 kalikos@oha.org
kaim@oha.org
Comments should also be sent to the county at
mayor@kauai.gov;openspace@kauai.gov; councilmembers@kauai.gov; CouncilTestimony@kauai.gov; csimao@kauai.gov;
State emails:
dlnr@hawaii.gov; adaline.f.cummings@hawaii.gov; kimberly.mills@hawaii.gov; reid.k.siarot@hawaii.gov; Chris.L.Conger@hawaii.gov; Pua.Aiu@hawaii.gov;
nancy.a.mcmahon@hawaii.gov; clydenamuo@oha.org; timjohnson@ohadc.org; kalikos@oha.org
kaim@oha.org
The good news is that the appeal of the Bruce Laymon’s CDUA permit- filed by Sierra Club- along with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (HLC) and the Surfrider Foundation and supported by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has been granted.
The bad news is that it will be heard in Honolulu on the May 13th meeting of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR).
According to Hope Kallai of Malama Moloa`a (MM) Laymon has clearcut the beach and shredded coral and apparently no agency seems to care. And there’s still no usable access while the various “stakeholder” parties wrangle over whether or not to honor the traditional Alaloa or make believe it never existed with the later seemingly being the one thing they all agree upon.
For those who are uninitiated in the debacle, follow the links above for our past posts.
Apparently the best Kaua`i people who can’t afford airfare can do is to write to various people and agencies.
Here’s a primer in preparing testimony from MM.
----
Lepeuli CDUA appeal will be discussed at the BLNR meeting May 13 in Honolulu
According to (Tiger) Kimberly K. Tiger Mills, Staff Planner for the State of Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources (DLNR) Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL), the appeal of the approval of the Paradise Ranch Conservation District Use Application to convert shorefront coastal scrub into commercial cattle pasture will be considered by the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) on THURSDAY, May 13, 2010. Meetings begin at 9 am at the
Kalanimoku Building1151 Punchbowl St.Honolulu , HI 96813www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/occl
dlnr@hawaii.gov
The agenda is not available yet, but Lepeuli as an agenda item has been confirmed. Book flights now!
The BLNR meeting agenda for May 13th will appear on our website one week prior on May 6th: http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/chair/meeting
· There are many reasons for considering the appeal of this CDUA. There has been seriously inadequate community involvement. Repeated requests from the public as well as 3 requests from Senator Gary Hooser (even offering to fund the DLNR trip to Kauai for the meeting) have been refused.
-There are inadequate agency comments. Three federally listed species will potentially be negatively impacted by this project, yet there is no Habitat Conservation Plan (as required under HRS 195D-21) for these species. Federal funds are being used for pasture conversion of a native habitat with potential impacts to endangered species.
-There must be a current shoreline certification. There has not been a state survey since 1978. Project applicant states “property boundary is makai of shoreline.” He manages the coral cobble and sand with a BrushHog. This is PUBLIC LAND in the Conservation District. Applicant has removed the debris line with machinery.
-Ancient Alaloa has NEVER been closed off. It is a significant trail with important cultural and PASH access needs. It has been in continual use for many hundreds of years. All ancient roads and trails are state land. The cultural comments of segment of the Alaloa (Arch siste 1034) managed by the Na Ala Hele trail system document the importance of this trail system and the antiquity of it. The Lepeuli must be recognized as an Archaeological Site and offered state protection.
-There must be a Cultural Impact Assessment of the ahupua`a of Lepeuli before any more mechanized manipulation of cultural sites present.
DLNR never contacted any harvesters or user groups of the most important limu kohu resources in Hawaii .
-Agriculture (cattle operations) will not benefit the reef. This statement is ridiculous.
-There has never been an estimate at the usage and visitation of the Alaloa or the County Right-Of-Way. The user groups must be defined and consulted before any new trail is designed. Traditional gathers must be consulted about trail access.
-Any new trail configuration must be designed to PASH and ADA Standards. The Ancient Alaloa falls under Historic Trail standards; the County Right of Way must adhere to ADA Trail standards.
-Impact to protected species of Alaloa closure (and subsequent increase in beach travel) has not been considered.
-Native plant communities and indigenous wildlife are protected under HRS 195.
-Beach access is protected by Hawaii state laws including the right of safe transit along the shorelines. HRS 115-5 offers the public a 6’ transit corridor in areas where there are rocky shorelines or cliffs. Blocking any public access with fences or gates to the shoreline is a misdemeanor and punishable by fines.
Letters can be written to the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) at
Adaline Cummings, SecretaryBoard of Land & Natural Resources1151 Punchbowl Street, Suite 130Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Phone: 808-587-0404Fax: 808-587-0390
adaline.f.cummings@hawaii.gov
Comments should also be sent to Tiger Mills of the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
Kimberly K. (Tiger) Mills, Staff PlannerState of HawaiiDepartment of Land & Natural ResourcesOffice of Conservation and Coastal LandsP.O. Box 621Honolulu, Hawaii 96809
kimberly.mills@hawaii.gov
Request a current Shoreline Certification from the State Land Survey Division
Reid K. Siarot, State Land Surveyor
Department of Accounting & General Services
Land Survey Division
1151 Punchbowl St., Rm 210
Honolulu Hawaii 96813
(808) 586-0390
(808) 586-0383 fax
reid.k.siarot@hawaii.gov
and
Christopher L. Conger, Shoreline Specialist
University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program
Department of Land and Natural Resources
1151 Punchbowl St., Rm 131
Honolulu Hawaii 96813
(808) 587-0049 work
(808) 520-4892 work cell
(808) 587-0322 fax
Chris.L.Conger@hawaii.gov
Request a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) and Archaeological Inventory/Assessment from
Puaalaokalani Aiu, Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
Kakuhihewa Building,
601 Kamokila Blvd., Suite 555,
Kapolei, Hawai`i , 96707Ph: (808) 692-8015Fax: (808) 692-8020
Pua.Aiu@hawaii.gov
nancy.a.mcmahon@hawaii.gov
And
Clyde Namu`o
OHA
711 Kapi'olani Blvd., Ste. 500
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 594-1835
Fax: (808) 594-1865
clydenamuo@oha.org
OHA Washington, D.C., Bureau50 F St. NW, Ste. 3300Washington, D.C. 20001 Ph: (202) 454-0920 Fax: (202) 789-1758 timjohnson@ohadc.org
OHA Kaua'i & Ni'ihau2970 Kele Street, Ste. 113Lihu'e, HI 96766Phone: (808) 241-3390Fax: (808) 241-3508 kalikos@oha.org
kaim@oha.org
Comments should also be sent to the county at
mayor@kauai.gov;openspace@kauai.gov; councilmembers@kauai.gov; CouncilTestimony@kauai.gov; csimao@kauai.gov;
State emails:
dlnr@hawaii.gov; adaline.f.cummings@hawaii.gov; kimberly.mills@hawaii.gov; reid.k.siarot@hawaii.gov; Chris.L.Conger@hawaii.gov; Pua.Aiu@hawaii.gov;
nancy.a.mcmahon@hawaii.gov; clydenamuo@oha.org; timjohnson@ohadc.org; kalikos@oha.org
kaim@oha.org
Monday, April 26, 2010
THE HARD PREJUDICE OF HIGH EXPECTATIONS
THE HARD PREJUDICE OF HIGH EXPECTATIONS: When we first heard about the new “Peer News” project- E-Bay founder Pierre Omidyar’s new Hawai`i based on-line journalism project- we were excited to say the least.
Afterall he’d hired John Temple, late of the now defunct Rocky Mountain News as editor and what with slowly dying “he said she said”, ledeing/bleeding, corporate TV and print press- all of it Honolulu centric- we’d expected that soon we’d be seeing a healthy dose of investigative and enterprise journalism and investigative reporting.
We looked forward to them digging deep into the corruption behind the daily reporting headlines, along the lines of what ProPublica.org is doing nationally or sites like CaliforniaWatch.com, Voice of San Diego, New England Center for Investigative Reporting, WisconsinWatch.org or The Bay Citizen are doing in their local markets.
Thanks to Ian Lind for the list and descriptions of each in his piece last Thursday, Peering at the Civil Beat,
Civil Beat.com is the name of the news venture as previewed last Tuesday in a soft launch with a the promise of a May 4 official “launch” and Ian, like us- and apparently many people- is apparently more than a little disappointed.
First eyebrow raised was at the price- a $240 a year tag ($20 a month) which ‘Disappeared News’ Larry Geller called “a gated community”, which as he and others have pointed out is more than even the Wall Street Journal charges.
We were prepared for paying for great content, even if many of those leaving comments on Ian’s piece thought it was way too much. But as far as we’re concerned the problem isn’t the price but the mission of Civil Beat itself.
Omidyar’s introductory piece speaks volumes for those who have been looking for what the “publications” listed above offer. He writes
Welcome to Civil Beat! We're glad you're here. We are building a new civic square for Hawaii, and we hope you'll join us.
One thing I've noticed since moving back here four years ago is that Hawaii is blessed to have many people who are committed to making our Islands a better place to live...
(L)earning from people who have different backgrounds from ourselves, and being enriched by it -- informs what we are trying to build here: a new kind of civic square.
What does it mean to build a civic square? For us, it's about building a place where we can all learn about and better understand our home, the challenges we face, and debate and discover ideas and strategies for moving forward. Our greatest asset in successfully doing that is the richness and diversity that Hawaii represents. In my experience, the best solutions come out of discussions that involve a diversity of points of view, conducted in a respectful and good-faith search for common ground and meaningful compromise.
That's what we're going to try to do. But building a new civic square isn't something any of us has done before. We're going to be learning constantly as we build. One thing we're pretty sure about, however, is that we have to start with a different kind of news service.
High minded words but more notable for what it isn’t than what it is. Compare it to the statements of the others- quoted in Ian’s piece- and you find none of those words like
-shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them
-exposes injustice, waste, mismanagement, wrongdoing, questionable practices, and corruption so that those responsible can be held to account and so the public can be armed with the information needed to debate solutions and spark change.
-arm citizens with information needed to fully participate in the democratic process (and) hold the powerful – including major institutions, officials and policy makers – accountable to the public.
-Protect the vulnerable. Expose wrongdoing. Seek solutions to problems.
Omidyar makes it clear that his main thrust will be to create:
a new civic square without putting up any news articles. That’s different – a news service without news, at least initially. It’s intentional. We want to begin by talking with you about what we’re doing, to hear what you want from us and what you think we should be asking. We believe conversation and civil debate with our reporter-hosts and with other members is central to what will make Civil Beat valuable.
That’s apparently exactly what his reporter-hosts are for the most part, doing now if you read through the blog formatted entries so far- throwing out short bursts of some facts and soliciting feedback.
But if Omidyar’s mission is not what we were expecting, Editor Temple’s description of the nuts and bolts make it clear we’re at the wrong place.
I’d like to tell you about the journalism you can expect to find here from our team of reporter-hosts. It’s different. And I’m excited to begin talking with you about it before we start publishing articles on May 4.
We start this news service with the belief that we’re here to serve you. That means our daily work is to ask the important questions citizens might have in the face of the complex issues facing our community. And to answer them in a way that helps members reach an informed opinion, based on our reporting and the discussion that will take place as we together create the new civic square.
While there are people who complain that reporters talk “at” and not “with” readers we suspect that their number is small compared to those who just want more out of reporters than shallow “sound bite” interviews from the “two sides”. All that’s seems new here is that the reporters will actually answer the commenters, unlike most news sites.
But if a reporters’ next story is limited to living up to the rather limited expectations of their readers- as opposed to “enterprise journalism” where a story writes itself based on days, weeks or even months of research, evolving as the facts present themselves- it will be a rather limited product since readers generally “don’t know what they don’t know” as the saying goes.
The kicker is that apparently the content- the news article, as it were- are going to be open to non-members and those who pay are essentially paying for the ability to “comment” and “discuss” issues raised by their seven “reporter-host(s)”.
It’s truly baffling. While there are differences between Omidyar’s for-profit model and the non-profit nature of most of these other new local sites this venture seems to be more of a social networking site than a news site... a kind of Facebook for news and politics junkies like us.
Apparently its business model is not to sign up those who crave deeper news reporting without the economic biases of the shallow corporate-controlled press but to take advantage of the boom in “comments” on blogs, on-line versions of print newspapers and social networking sites and to do it for an issue-oriented audience.
The only difference seems to be that Civil Beat will mandate that all comments be, well, civil- as a matter of fact that’s why they named it that. They are apparently not going to take “anonymous” comments which is a plus. But who’s going to determine what’s civil and what’s not is a question that’s eventually going to have to be answered.
But even so, it’s gotten to the point where we personally never leave or even read comments at newspaper sites anymore and only sometimes peruse the comment sections at blogs and only very occasionally leave a comment- and then only in order to provide information pertinent to the post not the other comments... something that is many times the last thing you find in most comment sections.
Even the blogs with the best comment sections are generally dominated by those who seem to choose up sides and go at it with “conventional wisdom” comments reflecting their side’s take on the issue. Some are even paid to do so, as evidenced by how some of the more prominent blogs like Derrick DePledge’s and Dave Shapiro’s at the Honolulu Advertiser grow in length when candidates for office are mentioned... or the issue is Honolulu rail.
Maybe we’re wrong. Maybe we’re missing something. We certainly will find out on May 4 and will certainly return to the subject. We really hate to be so critical so soon but after a ponderous weekend we felt the need to say this now rather than later.
So far, paying $20 a month to be able to leave comments- even if it is billed as a discussion with a civil “town hall” format- doesn’t sound like what we or most people were expecting, waiting for or are willing to shell out $20 a month to do.
Afterall he’d hired John Temple, late of the now defunct Rocky Mountain News as editor and what with slowly dying “he said she said”, ledeing/bleeding, corporate TV and print press- all of it Honolulu centric- we’d expected that soon we’d be seeing a healthy dose of investigative and enterprise journalism and investigative reporting.
We looked forward to them digging deep into the corruption behind the daily reporting headlines, along the lines of what ProPublica.org is doing nationally or sites like CaliforniaWatch.com, Voice of San Diego, New England Center for Investigative Reporting, WisconsinWatch.org or The Bay Citizen are doing in their local markets.
Thanks to Ian Lind for the list and descriptions of each in his piece last Thursday, Peering at the Civil Beat,
Civil Beat.com is the name of the news venture as previewed last Tuesday in a soft launch with a the promise of a May 4 official “launch” and Ian, like us- and apparently many people- is apparently more than a little disappointed.
First eyebrow raised was at the price- a $240 a year tag ($20 a month) which ‘Disappeared News’ Larry Geller called “a gated community”, which as he and others have pointed out is more than even the Wall Street Journal charges.
We were prepared for paying for great content, even if many of those leaving comments on Ian’s piece thought it was way too much. But as far as we’re concerned the problem isn’t the price but the mission of Civil Beat itself.
Omidyar’s introductory piece speaks volumes for those who have been looking for what the “publications” listed above offer. He writes
Welcome to Civil Beat! We're glad you're here. We are building a new civic square for Hawaii, and we hope you'll join us.
One thing I've noticed since moving back here four years ago is that Hawaii is blessed to have many people who are committed to making our Islands a better place to live...
(L)earning from people who have different backgrounds from ourselves, and being enriched by it -- informs what we are trying to build here: a new kind of civic square.
What does it mean to build a civic square? For us, it's about building a place where we can all learn about and better understand our home, the challenges we face, and debate and discover ideas and strategies for moving forward. Our greatest asset in successfully doing that is the richness and diversity that Hawaii represents. In my experience, the best solutions come out of discussions that involve a diversity of points of view, conducted in a respectful and good-faith search for common ground and meaningful compromise.
That's what we're going to try to do. But building a new civic square isn't something any of us has done before. We're going to be learning constantly as we build. One thing we're pretty sure about, however, is that we have to start with a different kind of news service.
High minded words but more notable for what it isn’t than what it is. Compare it to the statements of the others- quoted in Ian’s piece- and you find none of those words like
-shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them
-exposes injustice, waste, mismanagement, wrongdoing, questionable practices, and corruption so that those responsible can be held to account and so the public can be armed with the information needed to debate solutions and spark change.
-arm citizens with information needed to fully participate in the democratic process (and) hold the powerful – including major institutions, officials and policy makers – accountable to the public.
-Protect the vulnerable. Expose wrongdoing. Seek solutions to problems.
Omidyar makes it clear that his main thrust will be to create:
a new civic square without putting up any news articles. That’s different – a news service without news, at least initially. It’s intentional. We want to begin by talking with you about what we’re doing, to hear what you want from us and what you think we should be asking. We believe conversation and civil debate with our reporter-hosts and with other members is central to what will make Civil Beat valuable.
That’s apparently exactly what his reporter-hosts are for the most part, doing now if you read through the blog formatted entries so far- throwing out short bursts of some facts and soliciting feedback.
But if Omidyar’s mission is not what we were expecting, Editor Temple’s description of the nuts and bolts make it clear we’re at the wrong place.
I’d like to tell you about the journalism you can expect to find here from our team of reporter-hosts. It’s different. And I’m excited to begin talking with you about it before we start publishing articles on May 4.
We start this news service with the belief that we’re here to serve you. That means our daily work is to ask the important questions citizens might have in the face of the complex issues facing our community. And to answer them in a way that helps members reach an informed opinion, based on our reporting and the discussion that will take place as we together create the new civic square.
While there are people who complain that reporters talk “at” and not “with” readers we suspect that their number is small compared to those who just want more out of reporters than shallow “sound bite” interviews from the “two sides”. All that’s seems new here is that the reporters will actually answer the commenters, unlike most news sites.
But if a reporters’ next story is limited to living up to the rather limited expectations of their readers- as opposed to “enterprise journalism” where a story writes itself based on days, weeks or even months of research, evolving as the facts present themselves- it will be a rather limited product since readers generally “don’t know what they don’t know” as the saying goes.
The kicker is that apparently the content- the news article, as it were- are going to be open to non-members and those who pay are essentially paying for the ability to “comment” and “discuss” issues raised by their seven “reporter-host(s)”.
It’s truly baffling. While there are differences between Omidyar’s for-profit model and the non-profit nature of most of these other new local sites this venture seems to be more of a social networking site than a news site... a kind of Facebook for news and politics junkies like us.
Apparently its business model is not to sign up those who crave deeper news reporting without the economic biases of the shallow corporate-controlled press but to take advantage of the boom in “comments” on blogs, on-line versions of print newspapers and social networking sites and to do it for an issue-oriented audience.
The only difference seems to be that Civil Beat will mandate that all comments be, well, civil- as a matter of fact that’s why they named it that. They are apparently not going to take “anonymous” comments which is a plus. But who’s going to determine what’s civil and what’s not is a question that’s eventually going to have to be answered.
But even so, it’s gotten to the point where we personally never leave or even read comments at newspaper sites anymore and only sometimes peruse the comment sections at blogs and only very occasionally leave a comment- and then only in order to provide information pertinent to the post not the other comments... something that is many times the last thing you find in most comment sections.
Even the blogs with the best comment sections are generally dominated by those who seem to choose up sides and go at it with “conventional wisdom” comments reflecting their side’s take on the issue. Some are even paid to do so, as evidenced by how some of the more prominent blogs like Derrick DePledge’s and Dave Shapiro’s at the Honolulu Advertiser grow in length when candidates for office are mentioned... or the issue is Honolulu rail.
Maybe we’re wrong. Maybe we’re missing something. We certainly will find out on May 4 and will certainly return to the subject. We really hate to be so critical so soon but after a ponderous weekend we felt the need to say this now rather than later.
So far, paying $20 a month to be able to leave comments- even if it is billed as a discussion with a civil “town hall” format- doesn’t sound like what we or most people were expecting, waiting for or are willing to shell out $20 a month to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
