SAME LEASH, NEW LAW: As we mentioned a few weeks ago former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber- an open and good governance advocate- has been appointed to the oft-criticized and apparently ethically challenged Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE).
He vows to bring a new era of openness and (gasp) lawful processing of complaints to the board which has recently refused to abide by the basic conflict-of-interest laws of the state and county even after a proposal to eliminate the county charter’s conflict laws in Section 20.02 provisions was rejected by voters last fall.
And one of the first things Bieber has done- even before his official swearing in- is to provide members of the public and PNN with a copy of the new draft administrative rules that coincidentally are on the BOE’s agenda for the meeting this Thursday at 9 a.m. in the “Liquor Conference Room” in the Mo`ikeha building in Lihu`e.
And while some of the rule changes are designed to actually bring the board’s antiquated rules into compliance with state law, some are apparently designed to befuddle the public, shut them out of the process and give the board even more discretionary, some might say arbitrary, power than they have now.
One change that is strewn all through the document is to change references to complying with “Section XX of the county charter”- the section on ethics and the board- to read, for instance,:
These rules, made pursuant to Section 20.05 B of the Charter of the County of Kaua`i, are intended to provide for the efficient administration of the declared policy of the Code of Ethics as set forth in Article XX of the Charter (addition) or Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code.
For those who don’t quite understand how laws and rules flow from one another, the charter sets the general rules and the laws, as passed by the council- in this case Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code (KCC)- flows from the Charter and must abide by it. Finally the rules are based on and must abide by both and cannot contradict them.
But often, unless challenged in court for some reason, the county code can conflict with the charter- both of which must also abide by all applicable state and federal laws which supercede anything the county enacts- even if it doesn’t mean to.
OK- stay with us. By saying Chapter XX “or” KCC Chapter 3 rather than “and” the Board can now pick and choose which provision they want to follow if they do conflict.
And then it’s up to someone aggrieved to go to court and get a ruling saying the law contradicts- or is different from- the charter.
But that’s only a preliminary problem with the proposed rules because one of the things the rules seeks to do is to seemingly give the BOE the power to actually ignore complaints solely at it’s arbitrary pleasure
First it leaves in a little know “automatic rejection” phrase that, in its current rules reads
Failure by the Board to render an advisory opinion within thirty (30) days after the filing of a request therefore shall be deemed a finding of no breach of Article XX.
That of course means that if the board doesn’t want to take up a complaint but wants to allow its target to go scott-free all they have to do is procrastinate or ignore the complaint for 30 days
The board, as a matter of fact, only meets once a month and not only is there often more than 30 days between scheduled meetings sometimes meetings are cancelled when not enough members show up to constitute a quorum.
That little provision is strengthened even further by a new proposed change that states that the BOE can just reject a complaint without any reason at all and decide not to even consider the matter. The added provision says:
Deliberation. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Board shall investigate and/or deliberate on its merits. The Board may request a meeting with the complainant to gather more information. The Board may reject such complaint at this time and so notify the complainant, or decide to investigate further by calling for an informal or formal hearing.
Notice it says “may” request a meeting, which means they don’t have to and can just reject a complaint out of hand for no reason at all.
In addition the section on “informal” hearings- which is also an option open to the BOE and which has been abused in the past to hide and reject complaints- is amended to say that
The Board reserves the right to not take witness testimony.
That means that if the Board decides on an informal hearing they can just decide not to hear from anyone- including the complainant.
This codifies a current practice of the board to adjudicate matters without the subject of the complaint even being aware of it.
The formal hearing section is also extensively amended to add a lot of specifics on how the hearings are to be conducted. Though they seem appropriate and may even improve the process by getting it to follow judicial standards we suspect devils in those details too knowing the BOE’s past actions.
Then there’s a little added paragraph toward the end is particularly open to abuse and therefore ominous. It says:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Board finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety or morals requires adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule without notice of a hearing or upon less than 30 days' notice of hearing and states in writing its reason for such finding, it may proceed without prior notice or hearing upon such abbreviated notice and hearing as it finds practicable to adopt an emergency rule to be effective for a period of not longer than one hundred twenty days without renewal.
Morals? And exactly what is the BOE adjudicating that effects public heath and safety?
Who knows- but basically if they want to, they can call it an emergency, throw the rules out the window and do whatever they damn well please... including apparently conducting secret meetings with no agenda in violation of the state sunshine (HRS 92) and freedom of information (HRS 92F) laws.
Again making rules up on the spot is something they’ve been accused of routinely doing for years but this codifies the lawlessness.
Finally one of the little known facts about these BOE complaint hearings is that if the subject of the hearing requests that the hearing be conducted in a public session they must be conducted publicly. That they are “little known” is partially because the rules now are silent but state law says otherwise since the state’s “privacy” rights are generally granted to the “accused” or subject of the complaint.
And while the new rules adds one sentence saying
Open Session. The respondent may request that the hearing be held in open session. Otherwise, the hearing shall be held in closed session,
apparently what the BOE giveth the BOE taketh away with another addition saying
A contested case hearing shall be held in closed session, unless all parties to the proceeding choose to have the hearing in open session.
giving the filer or even any witness the right to close the entire matter to public scrutiny even if the subject of the complaint asks for an open hearing.
And of course even though the right of the accused to have an open hearing exists, that doesn’t mean it’s part of the information the provided to those who are accused- an oversight” that in the past has resulted in people thinking that opening the process wasn’t even possible because no one ever told them.
Bieber says that an amendment calling for notification of the right to a public hearing will be a priority for him as well as one on the “and/or” change to the “Charter/KCC" sentences.
While it seems to be a technological challenge to actually post the full set of proposed changes (with brackets for deleted and underlines for added materials) due to the limits of formatting on this “blogger” software (the underlining won’t transfer) we will send a copy via an email attachment to anyone who wants to view it. You can request a copy from us at gotwindmills (at) gmail.com . Specify pdf or MS Word attachment.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
KPD Blue; Regarding Sources
KPD Blue
By Anthony Sommer
Regarding Sources
Everything you read in this book is true. It all really happened.
But the story isn’t everything that happened. It can’t be and never will be the whole story because Kauai County government constantly defies both the spirit and the law of Hawaii’s open meetings and public records statutes.
This book is limited to a series of snapshots of the KPD and Kauai County government, afforded only when events align to open windows for a peek inside. In particular, they are drawn from lawsuits against the county and its police department.
To be sure, they represent the worst of the abuses. There are some very fine officers at the KPD and many good people who work for Kauai County.
Perhaps the most dysfunctional aspect of democracy throughout Hawaii is the failure of the news media, particularly in Honolulu.
The third-world attitudes and practices of Kauai County officials traditionally go unchallenged by the Hawaiian press, while in most of the United States the press functions as the watchdog on government. Therein lies the problem.
When a public official illegally closes a conference room door or locks up public records, newspapers in most of the country immediately dispatch their lawyers to the nearest courthouse to force open those meeting rooms and filing cabinets.
On Kauai and, more importantly, in Honolulu, where the state’s two major daily newspapers are published, the press is a willing and complacent lapdog of government. Newspapers and the electronic media only rarely take the government to court. In Kauai’s local culture, no one dares criticize the monarch.
So, the primary sources for this book rarely are Kauai County records or interviews with Kauai County officials or their staff members, whose jobs depend on blind loyalty.
On-the-record interviews with the mayor or county council members are exceedingly rare. Mayor Bryan Baptiste, in his entire first year in office, allowed only two interviews to any members of the press.
Kauai’s government officials believe they have a right to operate in secrecy. And unless the press takes them to court and bloodies their noses with open meeting and public records lawsuits, they will continue to do so.
The interviews for this book were requested. The records were sought. But most were refused.
Instead, I relied very heavily on other public records outside the control of Kauai County government: Court documents.
During the decade covered by the book, Kauai County and the Kauai Police Department (KPD) were sued again and again by both citizens and the police department’s own officers and employees. In almost every case, the county settled in order to avoid a public trial and testimony about how corrupt county government is.
The pleadings in those lawsuits, the case files, are public record. Unlike its own file cabinets, Kauai County can do nothing to block a journalist’s access to court documents.
Most lawsuits against Kauai County were filed in federal court—the U.S. District Court in Honolulu—rather than in state court on Kauai. The reason was simple enough: The local state judge was much too friendly to the county.
The federal courthouse was the best source of available and accurate official documentation. So, this book focuses primarily on those lawsuits.
If it appears Kauai County’s position—and the debate among county officials on formulating those public policies— sometimes is not fully discussed in these pages, it is only because the county refused to cooperate. County officials fought every attempt at access.
I certainly wish it were otherwise, because it is in my professional nature to provide a complete and balanced story. However, Kauai County elected officials repeatedly refused to cooperate.
It also will be obvious that the events related in this book involve a much broader perspective than the KPD.
There is much discussion of the administrations of the two mayors and the conduct of the county council because it is only in the context of their self-imposed secrecy and blatant disregard for the rule of law that this story can be told.
The simple fact is that the woes of the KPD are symptomatic of a much broader problem: the lack of accountability of Kauai County’s elected officials and the cronies and political hacks they appoint to key government posts.
There are efforts afoot to replace Kauai’s “strong mayor” system (which never was intended for small, rural governments) with a “council-manager” form of government in which a professional administrator runs the county and the mayor’s powers are limited to chairing council meetings and cutting ribbons.
The current “strong mayor” system has been an abject failure. Kauai County government and its elected leaders have for too long been totally out of control, hiding their corruption and their blunders in closed-door “executive sessions” and in locked files in constant violation of the state’s sunshine laws.
Accountability to the public—to the voters who put them in office—simply does not exist in Kauai County. That’s the way the mayor and the council members want it.
Historian Robert A. Caro, in his splendid multi-volume biography of President Lyndon Johnson, disputes the popular notion that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Instead, Caro points out: Power reveals the true nature of those who attain it.
Friday, February 6, 2009
KIBBLE AND BITS
KIBBLE AND BITS: Former County Attorney (CA) Matthew Pyun couldn’t run fast enough to escape the morass of the bizarro-world of Kaua`i County’s through-the-looking-glass view of law when administrations changed.
And we’ve been trying to figure out what exactly is going on with the county council’s confirmation of previously rumored and sort-of announced CA appointee, former deputy prosecutor and now defense attorney Al Castillo.
We were kind of taken aback by the selection since he apparently has no experience in governmental law and comes from the criminal law community but chalked it up to more of the same from Mayor Bernard “You (can go to hell) and Me (I’ll pay off my supporters) Together (we’ll steal you blind)” Carvalho.
Almost two months have gone by with no confirmation from the council as is required by the county charter- and no word as to why.
But at the last full council meeting our ears perked up when deputy CA Darren “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” Suzuki introduced himself as the “acting CA” while he was not answering a question, as is apparently part of the CA’s job description these days.
Now, silently and stealthily, it appears that another appointment has been made.
Former deputy county attorney and county council legal analyst Amy Esaki’s name appears on this week’s council agenda, with Carvalho requesting council confirmation for her to lead the office of the county attorney.
Now of course you’re expecting the usual tirade and excoriation along with the requisite exposition of another revolving-door hack and crony, listing the misdeeds and sneaky crap the nominee has pulled over the years.
But apparently Carvalho was asleep at the wheel of his patronage-addled office because Esaki would be on our short list of who we would pick if we had the ability to do so.
Esaki is one of those attorneys who hasn’t been through that revolving door except for the time when she apparently quit the CA’s office under the widely reviled Lani Nakazawa to work for the council, writing and reading legislation.
She’s actually one of the most straightforward and seemingly honest, diligent and even (gasp) helpful lawyers ever employed by the county.
We have nothing but good things to say about her and can only hope against hope that she will bring a new era of openness and professionalism that’s been lacking in the office for a long time.
-----------
With the legislature doing it’s biannual dance-of-the-headless-chicken over the budget and its projected shortfalls, we’ve heard about of a lot of cockamamie bills containing schemes ranging from the brainless to the downright dangerous..
It’s the time of year when un-enterprising reporters can sit at a desk, riffle though the stack of introduced bills, stop anywhere and find something that causes heads to shake back and forth and eyes to roll..
But we have to wonder why none of them have seen one little ditty that has thus far gone unreported, whereby the state would steal the county’s share of the Transient Accommodation Tax (TAT) for the next six years.
Although to the relief of all the state’s mayors and councils it hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing, House Bill 1744 (Status) would “(s)uspend... for 6 years from 07/01/2009 to 06/30/2015 the distribution of transient accommodations tax revenues to the counties.”
The measure, introduced under the radar by House Speaker Calvin Say, has passed first reading and been referred to the Finance Committee.
It amends HRS 237D-6.5 by adding a section at the end that reads:
Subsection (b)(3), with regard to transfer of revenues to the counties, and subsection (c), with regard to computation and payment to the counties, shall not be operative from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2015. During the period that subsection (b)(3) is not operative, the remainder of the revenues collected shall be deposited into the state general fund."
Subsection (b)3 reads:
44.8 per cent of the revenues collected under this chapter shall be transferred as follows: Kauai county shall receive 14.5 per cent, Hawaii county shall receive 18.6 per cent, city and county of Honolulu shall receive 44.1 per cent, and Maui county shall receive 22.8 per cent.
The TAT is collected, as one might expect from the name, from people staying at tourist accommodations. The counties’ shares were originally included as a way to mitigate the impact of tourism on the counties’ budgets by giving them a share rather than allowing them to have their own taxation power (perish the thought), as had been proposed before the measure was enacted.
But now, rather than keeping their grubby paws to themselves they’ve got a bill handy to either rob Peter to pay Paul or use in some kind of extortion scheme to balance their budget by sloughing off their politically untenable choices- like actually taxing their precious campaign contributing faux hi-tech companies, land-raping developers and bottom-feeding military contractors- on the county level pols.
The measure would cost Kaua`i an estimated $15 million a year in revenue- more than 10% of the island’s operating budget- on top of the 10% across the board cuts ordered by Mayor Bernard Carvalho for the upcoming ’09-10 fiscal year.
---------
And finally an update- and a happy one for those following the HUD non-discrimination bill in the Senate that we reported on again yesterday.
After a flurry of emails and phone calls yesterday from many people to Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee Chair Roz Baker, SB 456 is now set for a hearing on Friday February 13 at 8:30 a.m..
Testimony may be emailed, if it’s less than 5 pages in length, to the Committee at CPNTestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov Indicate it’s “Testimony for SB 456 for the 2/13/09 8:30 a.m. hearing” in the subject line.
And we’ve been trying to figure out what exactly is going on with the county council’s confirmation of previously rumored and sort-of announced CA appointee, former deputy prosecutor and now defense attorney Al Castillo.
We were kind of taken aback by the selection since he apparently has no experience in governmental law and comes from the criminal law community but chalked it up to more of the same from Mayor Bernard “You (can go to hell) and Me (I’ll pay off my supporters) Together (we’ll steal you blind)” Carvalho.
Almost two months have gone by with no confirmation from the council as is required by the county charter- and no word as to why.
But at the last full council meeting our ears perked up when deputy CA Darren “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” Suzuki introduced himself as the “acting CA” while he was not answering a question, as is apparently part of the CA’s job description these days.
Now, silently and stealthily, it appears that another appointment has been made.
Former deputy county attorney and county council legal analyst Amy Esaki’s name appears on this week’s council agenda, with Carvalho requesting council confirmation for her to lead the office of the county attorney.
Now of course you’re expecting the usual tirade and excoriation along with the requisite exposition of another revolving-door hack and crony, listing the misdeeds and sneaky crap the nominee has pulled over the years.
But apparently Carvalho was asleep at the wheel of his patronage-addled office because Esaki would be on our short list of who we would pick if we had the ability to do so.
Esaki is one of those attorneys who hasn’t been through that revolving door except for the time when she apparently quit the CA’s office under the widely reviled Lani Nakazawa to work for the council, writing and reading legislation.
She’s actually one of the most straightforward and seemingly honest, diligent and even (gasp) helpful lawyers ever employed by the county.
We have nothing but good things to say about her and can only hope against hope that she will bring a new era of openness and professionalism that’s been lacking in the office for a long time.
-----------
With the legislature doing it’s biannual dance-of-the-headless-chicken over the budget and its projected shortfalls, we’ve heard about of a lot of cockamamie bills containing schemes ranging from the brainless to the downright dangerous..
It’s the time of year when un-enterprising reporters can sit at a desk, riffle though the stack of introduced bills, stop anywhere and find something that causes heads to shake back and forth and eyes to roll..
But we have to wonder why none of them have seen one little ditty that has thus far gone unreported, whereby the state would steal the county’s share of the Transient Accommodation Tax (TAT) for the next six years.
Although to the relief of all the state’s mayors and councils it hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing, House Bill 1744 (Status) would “(s)uspend... for 6 years from 07/01/2009 to 06/30/2015 the distribution of transient accommodations tax revenues to the counties.”
The measure, introduced under the radar by House Speaker Calvin Say, has passed first reading and been referred to the Finance Committee.
It amends HRS 237D-6.5 by adding a section at the end that reads:
Subsection (b)(3), with regard to transfer of revenues to the counties, and subsection (c), with regard to computation and payment to the counties, shall not be operative from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2015. During the period that subsection (b)(3) is not operative, the remainder of the revenues collected shall be deposited into the state general fund."
Subsection (b)3 reads:
44.8 per cent of the revenues collected under this chapter shall be transferred as follows: Kauai county shall receive 14.5 per cent, Hawaii county shall receive 18.6 per cent, city and county of Honolulu shall receive 44.1 per cent, and Maui county shall receive 22.8 per cent.
The TAT is collected, as one might expect from the name, from people staying at tourist accommodations. The counties’ shares were originally included as a way to mitigate the impact of tourism on the counties’ budgets by giving them a share rather than allowing them to have their own taxation power (perish the thought), as had been proposed before the measure was enacted.
But now, rather than keeping their grubby paws to themselves they’ve got a bill handy to either rob Peter to pay Paul or use in some kind of extortion scheme to balance their budget by sloughing off their politically untenable choices- like actually taxing their precious campaign contributing faux hi-tech companies, land-raping developers and bottom-feeding military contractors- on the county level pols.
The measure would cost Kaua`i an estimated $15 million a year in revenue- more than 10% of the island’s operating budget- on top of the 10% across the board cuts ordered by Mayor Bernard Carvalho for the upcoming ’09-10 fiscal year.
---------
And finally an update- and a happy one for those following the HUD non-discrimination bill in the Senate that we reported on again yesterday.
After a flurry of emails and phone calls yesterday from many people to Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee Chair Roz Baker, SB 456 is now set for a hearing on Friday February 13 at 8:30 a.m..
Testimony may be emailed, if it’s less than 5 pages in length, to the Committee at CPNTestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov Indicate it’s “Testimony for SB 456 for the 2/13/09 8:30 a.m. hearing” in the subject line.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
THE PIT BULL CAN STAY, BUT YOU?
THE PIT BULL CAN STAY, BUT YOU?: It’s good news bad news Senate bill 456 to stop housing discrimination against people and families that receive federal housing subsidy vouchers through the county housing agency- a subject we wrote about twice recently.
The bad news is that without testimony the bill in Sen. Roz Baker’s Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection could die, according to Anne Punohu of the Kaua`i Fair Housing Law Coalition
But the good news is that representative Mina Morita and four others have introduced a house companion bill HB 1274.
Anne’s testimony is an in depth look at the real problems HUD Section 8 recipients face and a good description of what the bill would do and what it wouldn’t do. It is presented here to give those who care about the issue and want to testify some ideas on what to say.
Testimony can be emailed for now to Committee Chair Roz Baker at senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov along with a request to schedule a hearing
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL SB456
HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME -
Anne Punohu, organizer Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition, HUD OK NOW
The coalition testifies today in support of SB456 which would prohibit landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on the source of their income.
Decent housing is a fundamental right. The protection of the human dignity of every person and the right to a decent home require both individual action and structural policies and practices. Our concern is not simply for houses or programs but for the people who inhabit these dwellings or are affected by these programs. The statistics we cite are not simply numbers or points on a graph; they are individual human tragedies.
Governor Linda Lingle has estimated that as many as 15,000 people may be homeless in our state. According to a recent national study, in regards to housing discrimination faced by Asians and Pacific Islanders, the discrimination rates held at 37% percent, the same rate as for African Americans. The statistics in large part came from the state of Hawaii. HUD Choice Voucher lists are currently closed on O`ahu, due to not enough people moving off the lists to make way for new people to sign up. Reports have been stated that up to 60% percent of individuals who obtained HUD Choice Vouchers were unable to use them. Not because they suddenly found a rental on their own, or came into a lot of money but because they simply could not find a rental that, in many cases would accept HUD Choice Vouchers.
Our coalition made over 250 calls to individuals who placed rental ads in our local newspaper on Kauai. At times, the rates of ads stating “No HUD” was at 40%, not including vacation rentals. Cold calls were made, sometimes 4 and 5 times to the same phone number, using different voices and personalities. 80% of the time, the caller would originally site one of three main options for their discrimination. They were: Ignorance of the HUD program, not liking HUD paperwork or inspections, or a previous bad renter.
(However, although we realize that a minute percentage of these reasons may be legitimate, we are of the opinion that these are superficial and unsubstantiated reasons for discrimination. HUD has paperwork, yes, but it is no more cumbersome than anyone else’s, and the inspections are based on current codes. As for bad renters they happen without someone being on HUD.)
After these initial responses were brought forth, we continued to engage the landlords in conversation, and were able to obtain numerous statements that were made verbally stating preferences, prejudices and opinions which violated the Federal Law, such as familial status, race, age and disability, the four most frequently mentioned categories.
(In addition, after we held a public meeting, we received calls from individuals that stated that they were discriminating, but may be willing to pull their ads which made the “No HUD, or No Section 8”, voluntarily, and we also heard of some success stories where individuals which had been adverse to renting to HUD were now willing to try it.)
Our coalition is of the strong opinion that even though these may be some improvements, this law is necessary to ensure a continuing “safety net” during these most difficult of economic times for these individuals and families.
The assumption that at this time some people may be more willing to rent to HUD clients does not erase the cold hard fact that during most of these phone calls we made, the majority of those who would consider it were more concerned with how to evict the tenants rather than how to keep them.
This is a red flag to all concerned, and accurately reflects what will happen to those who may have benefited in the short term, and may suffer in the long term.
(Our coalition does want to express our general opinion that there are many rental agents and rental companies that have an excellent working relationship both with HUD agencies and clients. This law is not aimed at rental agents and rental companies. We wish to make that case very clear. This law is in the name of equity, across the board, and would involve any rental regardless of whether it came from a rental agent, a rental company or a private sector landlord.)
To give you two examples of the types of answers we received over the phone, here follows two different quotes from landlords :
(Again we wish to clarify that these were private individuals, and not rental agents or rental companies).
CALL #1
“This is an upscale neighborhood.(Wailua house lots, typically an area full of local Hawaii residents of mixed ancestry).We are getting rid of these people here, and we are making our neighborhood nice now. You can park a car here and not get it broken into now. We don't have those people around here, so don't worry, you will like it.”*This was a woman who responded, for this call we were assuming the personality of someone who had recently moved here from California, had a job, and was inquiring about the rental.
Same woman, second time calling different personality:
“No, no, no, no, we don't accept HUD. No. You are from here? Anahola, oh I see. Yes, well, you know we don't have a lot of room, here its only a two bedroom, we are not set up for HUD people here. And you know, you people have big families, and they all come over here with their cars and things. Do you work or have a job? Then why do you need that HUD thing? Well, we don't accept HUD here, no so sorry. Goodbye.”*The caller was responding to a personality claiming to be from Anahola, an area populated heavily with Native Hawaiians, and using a heavy pigeon accent.
CALL #2
“Hello? What? HUD? No, no, no, no, no, we don't accept those people here. No no, you have to be working to rent over here. No we don't want any lazy people here, and all those local guys they have too many cars and kids running all around, no, no way. Why are you calling me? I said no HUD in the ad. Is it legal for you to call me? Yea, I know that’s against the Federal law, that’s why I put that in there. That way I don't get calls from those bums.”*This in response to a call using our coalition name, and inquiring as to why the landlord stated no HUD.
Same man, second time calling different personality:
“What? Oh, yes, OK do you work? Oh, you have a kid? What is it boy or girl? Girl? That’s good, girls are quieter. Yes, that’s the rent. Do You work? That’s good. You have HUD? Oh we don't accept that here. Oh, you cant find a place huh. Where are you from.? California? Oh you just moved here? Oh well you sound nice. Do you do drugs? Well, I might consider it. Do you have parents? What do they do? Did you get a divorce or something? Well, I cant have any guys running around here, you know this is a respectable neighborhood. Well, I'm not sure, I don’t usually accept HUD. Well, Ill let you know. Give me your number.”*The man is responding to a different personality claiming to be a single mother, recently moved here from California and employed, on HUD.
The case for “source of income” legislation
These households are more than a figure in a table. They are real families experiencing the tragedies of homelessness or inadequate housing. The households are made up of parents and children, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews. Each is affected by their family’s difficulty in affording an adequate place to live. Adults worry about how to pay utility, clothing, and food bills when the great majority of their income goes toward rent. When they can’t pay their rent, they strategize on moving between hotels, friends’ sofas, and shelters. Children suffer from exposure to unsafe and unstable living conditions.
The coalition holds that one of government’s primary responsibilities is to ensure that the most basic needs of its people are met. In the United States, our federal government does this, in part, through the Section 8 Rental Choice Voucher Program. Hawaii serves the housing needs of its lowest-income residents through the State’s Rental Allowance Program . However, though a family may be successful in accessing assistance through Section 8, or some other program, in most parts of Hawaii, they face yet another hurdle in their search for housing. Hawaii residents receiving housing assistance are often discriminated against in their search for housing.
It is common to see newspaper or internet ads that contain the words, “No Section 8.” It is more common for low-income Hawaii residents to hear this refrain when they inquire into available housing. Such discrimination is also faced by people who base their income, in part or in total, on disability assistance, cash assistance, child support, or alimony. To anyone who encounters it, the discrimination is frustrating and demoralizing.
Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent or buy housing should not be denied that housing based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit-worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent or buy – the single mom depending on child-support payments, the low-income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability assistance, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent or buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.
Recognizing housing as a fundamental human right, and also the severe hardships – including discrimination – low-income Hawaii residents face in finding housing they can afford, we respectfully ask that you give SB456 a favorable report. Thank you for your consideration.
SB456- HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME; Sponsor: Senator Gary Hooser
What does SB 456 do?
SB456 prohibits “source of income” discrimination against those seeking housing. That is, the bill prohibits landlords/sellers from discriminating against potential renters/buyers based on the source of their income.
What does “source of income” mean?
“Source of income” means any lawful source of money to be used in the rental or purchase of housing. It includes money from: (1) any lawful profession or occupation; (2) any government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including Section 8 vouchers; (3) any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration; (4) and any sale of property.
What does SB456 NOT do?
SB 4561 does NOT prohibit a landlord/seller from determining the ability of a potential renter/buyer to pay a rent/purchase price, by: (1) verifying the source and amount of income of the renter/buyer; and (2) evaluating the stability, security, and credit‐worthiness of the renter/buyer or their source of income. SB 456 does NOT prevent a landlord/seller from refusing to consider income derived from any criminal activity.
Who would benefit from the passage of SB 456?
Individuals and families planning to rent/buy housing, in part or in full, with income from Section 8 vouchers, Rental Allowance Program subsidies, disability payments, Temporary Cash Assistance grants, pensions, alimony, child support, and other lawful sources of income.
Why should SB456 be passed?
Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent/buy housing should not be denied that housing, based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent/buy – the single mom depending on child support payments, the low‐income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability payments, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent/buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.
Does source of income discrimination happen?
Yes. It is common for landlords to refuse to consider applicants who will use a Section 8 voucher as part of their rental payment. This makes it difficult for Section 8 recipients – who may have spent years on waiting lists before receiving the vouchers – to find places where they can be used. It may also have the effect of clustering voucher users in the poorest sections of a community, where landlords receive few rental applicants.
Is source of income discrimination already prohibited in other places?
Yes. In Maryland, Howard and Montgomery Counties have laws prohibiting source of income discrimination, as does the city of Frederick. Nationwide, twelve states (CA, CT, ME, MA, MN, NJ, ND, OK, OR, UT, VT, WI) and the District of Columbia have housing laws that prohibit source of income discrimination. Several cities and counties – including, as of last month, New York City , and now the State of New York– also have such laws.
Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition
C/O
Anne Punohu
4417 Maka Rd #3A
Kalaheo, HI 96741
Phone: (808)332-0341
email: coalitionkauai@yahoo.com
The bad news is that without testimony the bill in Sen. Roz Baker’s Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection could die, according to Anne Punohu of the Kaua`i Fair Housing Law Coalition
But the good news is that representative Mina Morita and four others have introduced a house companion bill HB 1274.
Anne’s testimony is an in depth look at the real problems HUD Section 8 recipients face and a good description of what the bill would do and what it wouldn’t do. It is presented here to give those who care about the issue and want to testify some ideas on what to say.
Testimony can be emailed for now to Committee Chair Roz Baker at senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov along with a request to schedule a hearing
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL SB456
HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME -
Anne Punohu, organizer Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition, HUD OK NOW
The coalition testifies today in support of SB456 which would prohibit landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on the source of their income.
Decent housing is a fundamental right. The protection of the human dignity of every person and the right to a decent home require both individual action and structural policies and practices. Our concern is not simply for houses or programs but for the people who inhabit these dwellings or are affected by these programs. The statistics we cite are not simply numbers or points on a graph; they are individual human tragedies.
Governor Linda Lingle has estimated that as many as 15,000 people may be homeless in our state. According to a recent national study, in regards to housing discrimination faced by Asians and Pacific Islanders, the discrimination rates held at 37% percent, the same rate as for African Americans. The statistics in large part came from the state of Hawaii. HUD Choice Voucher lists are currently closed on O`ahu, due to not enough people moving off the lists to make way for new people to sign up. Reports have been stated that up to 60% percent of individuals who obtained HUD Choice Vouchers were unable to use them. Not because they suddenly found a rental on their own, or came into a lot of money but because they simply could not find a rental that, in many cases would accept HUD Choice Vouchers.
Our coalition made over 250 calls to individuals who placed rental ads in our local newspaper on Kauai. At times, the rates of ads stating “No HUD” was at 40%, not including vacation rentals. Cold calls were made, sometimes 4 and 5 times to the same phone number, using different voices and personalities. 80% of the time, the caller would originally site one of three main options for their discrimination. They were: Ignorance of the HUD program, not liking HUD paperwork or inspections, or a previous bad renter.
(However, although we realize that a minute percentage of these reasons may be legitimate, we are of the opinion that these are superficial and unsubstantiated reasons for discrimination. HUD has paperwork, yes, but it is no more cumbersome than anyone else’s, and the inspections are based on current codes. As for bad renters they happen without someone being on HUD.)
After these initial responses were brought forth, we continued to engage the landlords in conversation, and were able to obtain numerous statements that were made verbally stating preferences, prejudices and opinions which violated the Federal Law, such as familial status, race, age and disability, the four most frequently mentioned categories.
(In addition, after we held a public meeting, we received calls from individuals that stated that they were discriminating, but may be willing to pull their ads which made the “No HUD, or No Section 8”, voluntarily, and we also heard of some success stories where individuals which had been adverse to renting to HUD were now willing to try it.)
Our coalition is of the strong opinion that even though these may be some improvements, this law is necessary to ensure a continuing “safety net” during these most difficult of economic times for these individuals and families.
The assumption that at this time some people may be more willing to rent to HUD clients does not erase the cold hard fact that during most of these phone calls we made, the majority of those who would consider it were more concerned with how to evict the tenants rather than how to keep them.
This is a red flag to all concerned, and accurately reflects what will happen to those who may have benefited in the short term, and may suffer in the long term.
(Our coalition does want to express our general opinion that there are many rental agents and rental companies that have an excellent working relationship both with HUD agencies and clients. This law is not aimed at rental agents and rental companies. We wish to make that case very clear. This law is in the name of equity, across the board, and would involve any rental regardless of whether it came from a rental agent, a rental company or a private sector landlord.)
To give you two examples of the types of answers we received over the phone, here follows two different quotes from landlords :
(Again we wish to clarify that these were private individuals, and not rental agents or rental companies).
CALL #1
“This is an upscale neighborhood.(Wailua house lots, typically an area full of local Hawaii residents of mixed ancestry).We are getting rid of these people here, and we are making our neighborhood nice now. You can park a car here and not get it broken into now. We don't have those people around here, so don't worry, you will like it.”*This was a woman who responded, for this call we were assuming the personality of someone who had recently moved here from California, had a job, and was inquiring about the rental.
Same woman, second time calling different personality:
“No, no, no, no, we don't accept HUD. No. You are from here? Anahola, oh I see. Yes, well, you know we don't have a lot of room, here its only a two bedroom, we are not set up for HUD people here. And you know, you people have big families, and they all come over here with their cars and things. Do you work or have a job? Then why do you need that HUD thing? Well, we don't accept HUD here, no so sorry. Goodbye.”*The caller was responding to a personality claiming to be from Anahola, an area populated heavily with Native Hawaiians, and using a heavy pigeon accent.
CALL #2
“Hello? What? HUD? No, no, no, no, no, we don't accept those people here. No no, you have to be working to rent over here. No we don't want any lazy people here, and all those local guys they have too many cars and kids running all around, no, no way. Why are you calling me? I said no HUD in the ad. Is it legal for you to call me? Yea, I know that’s against the Federal law, that’s why I put that in there. That way I don't get calls from those bums.”*This in response to a call using our coalition name, and inquiring as to why the landlord stated no HUD.
Same man, second time calling different personality:
“What? Oh, yes, OK do you work? Oh, you have a kid? What is it boy or girl? Girl? That’s good, girls are quieter. Yes, that’s the rent. Do You work? That’s good. You have HUD? Oh we don't accept that here. Oh, you cant find a place huh. Where are you from.? California? Oh you just moved here? Oh well you sound nice. Do you do drugs? Well, I might consider it. Do you have parents? What do they do? Did you get a divorce or something? Well, I cant have any guys running around here, you know this is a respectable neighborhood. Well, I'm not sure, I don’t usually accept HUD. Well, Ill let you know. Give me your number.”*The man is responding to a different personality claiming to be a single mother, recently moved here from California and employed, on HUD.
The case for “source of income” legislation
These households are more than a figure in a table. They are real families experiencing the tragedies of homelessness or inadequate housing. The households are made up of parents and children, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews. Each is affected by their family’s difficulty in affording an adequate place to live. Adults worry about how to pay utility, clothing, and food bills when the great majority of their income goes toward rent. When they can’t pay their rent, they strategize on moving between hotels, friends’ sofas, and shelters. Children suffer from exposure to unsafe and unstable living conditions.
The coalition holds that one of government’s primary responsibilities is to ensure that the most basic needs of its people are met. In the United States, our federal government does this, in part, through the Section 8 Rental Choice Voucher Program. Hawaii serves the housing needs of its lowest-income residents through the State’s Rental Allowance Program . However, though a family may be successful in accessing assistance through Section 8, or some other program, in most parts of Hawaii, they face yet another hurdle in their search for housing. Hawaii residents receiving housing assistance are often discriminated against in their search for housing.
It is common to see newspaper or internet ads that contain the words, “No Section 8.” It is more common for low-income Hawaii residents to hear this refrain when they inquire into available housing. Such discrimination is also faced by people who base their income, in part or in total, on disability assistance, cash assistance, child support, or alimony. To anyone who encounters it, the discrimination is frustrating and demoralizing.
Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent or buy housing should not be denied that housing based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit-worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent or buy – the single mom depending on child-support payments, the low-income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability assistance, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent or buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.
Recognizing housing as a fundamental human right, and also the severe hardships – including discrimination – low-income Hawaii residents face in finding housing they can afford, we respectfully ask that you give SB456 a favorable report. Thank you for your consideration.
SB456- HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME; Sponsor: Senator Gary Hooser
What does SB 456 do?
SB456 prohibits “source of income” discrimination against those seeking housing. That is, the bill prohibits landlords/sellers from discriminating against potential renters/buyers based on the source of their income.
What does “source of income” mean?
“Source of income” means any lawful source of money to be used in the rental or purchase of housing. It includes money from: (1) any lawful profession or occupation; (2) any government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including Section 8 vouchers; (3) any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration; (4) and any sale of property.
What does SB456 NOT do?
SB 4561 does NOT prohibit a landlord/seller from determining the ability of a potential renter/buyer to pay a rent/purchase price, by: (1) verifying the source and amount of income of the renter/buyer; and (2) evaluating the stability, security, and credit‐worthiness of the renter/buyer or their source of income. SB 456 does NOT prevent a landlord/seller from refusing to consider income derived from any criminal activity.
Who would benefit from the passage of SB 456?
Individuals and families planning to rent/buy housing, in part or in full, with income from Section 8 vouchers, Rental Allowance Program subsidies, disability payments, Temporary Cash Assistance grants, pensions, alimony, child support, and other lawful sources of income.
Why should SB456 be passed?
Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent/buy housing should not be denied that housing, based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent/buy – the single mom depending on child support payments, the low‐income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability payments, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent/buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.
Does source of income discrimination happen?
Yes. It is common for landlords to refuse to consider applicants who will use a Section 8 voucher as part of their rental payment. This makes it difficult for Section 8 recipients – who may have spent years on waiting lists before receiving the vouchers – to find places where they can be used. It may also have the effect of clustering voucher users in the poorest sections of a community, where landlords receive few rental applicants.
Is source of income discrimination already prohibited in other places?
Yes. In Maryland, Howard and Montgomery Counties have laws prohibiting source of income discrimination, as does the city of Frederick. Nationwide, twelve states (CA, CT, ME, MA, MN, NJ, ND, OK, OR, UT, VT, WI) and the District of Columbia have housing laws that prohibit source of income discrimination. Several cities and counties – including, as of last month, New York City , and now the State of New York– also have such laws.
Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition
C/O
Anne Punohu
4417 Maka Rd #3A
Kalaheo, HI 96741
Phone: (808)332-0341
email: coalitionkauai@yahoo.com
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
A BITE AT A TIME
A BITE AT A TIME: There’s a move afoot in the legislature to put regulation of communication under a brand new “Communications Commission” set up as a sort of Public Utilities Commission for high speed internet “broadband” connections.
And while on the face of it it might sound like a good idea Honolulu activist extraordinaire Scott Foster sent out a warning today that all might not be what it seems and that leaving the details to legislators who don’t “get it” the way the broadband corporations like Time Warner and Hawaiian TelCom do may not be in the public interest.
As many know when dealing with these behemoths it’s a good idea to count your fingers every time you move them on and off your keyboard and remote. And with the “only in Hawai`i” combo Department of Commerce AND Consumer Affairs (DCCA)- and the well known revloving door of employment of the regulators- we can be pretty sure the bills were written with the former’s interests rather than the latter’s in mind
Writing as “Communications Director” for the non-profit “Advocates For Consumer Rights” Forster cites just one of the devilish details that have been implanted in the bills by the corporate lobbyists- one that could strip almost 98% of the bandwidth from future public access channels.
Foster writes:
(T)he term "video streams" is misused as an alternative to the term "analog channel" already mandated for Public, Education or Government (PEG) cable television access use. One analog channel can accommodate three high definition (HD) digital channels, and 30 or more "video streams."
Up until 1999, in Decision & Order (D&O) 154, 10% of Oceanic Time Warner's channel capacity was mandated for "Public, Education and Government" (PEG) access, which amounted to 8 channels. D&O 261 (2000) reduced that to 5 channels. In SB895, the channels have been reduced to "3 or more", but what's most troubling is that the channels can be defined as "video streams" -- with no text-book definition regarding the bandwidth. 8 channels x 30 streams = 240 streams, minus the 3 PEG streams = 237 streams lost. Sound complicated? Yes, very -- unless you’re our monopoly cable provider Oceanic-Time-Warner or the bankrupt Hawaiian Tel. They understand all of this very well. Also troubling is the fact that the state has never required Oceanic-Time-Warner to provide a "Public Access Channel " as defined by Hawai`i Law...
"This is indeed about the future, not the present and in our opinion, there is not one single event that is as important to Hawaii's economic future as this pending franchise agreement now before the DCCA." <http://belammc.com/afcr/AFCR_TW-AOL_PR.pdf> Well the chickens have finally come home to roost and as we predicted, somebody’s made off with most of our eggs.
If "video streams" are what we think they are -- or are not -- in this pending legislation, then the public will have gone from being owed 240 video streams to only 3. What happens to the other (potential) 237 "video streams "? Another gift to the monopoly cable provider Time-Warner and the bankrupt Hawaiian Tel? Buyer (legislature) beware! Broadband = money and lots of it.
But even more alarming may be the recent announcement from Time Warner giving the finger to the “net neutrality” movement by setting in place plans to “upgrade” their service- the second worst in the country in terms of speed - .but not for everyone, just those who want to pay an exorbitant rate, leaving the rest of us with low grade “turtle service” and so, for all intents and purposes, blocked service to certain on-line services
Foster pulls no punches in pointing out how the bills before the legislature are subject to corporate lobbying of the all powerful cable and phone companies.
(C)an it be only a coincidence that our monopoly Time-Warner Cable ("AOL" was quietly dropped some time back) today announced that they "will begin offering subscribers of its popular Road Runner service higher download speeds later this year as part of $140 million of upgrades it is making to its system"? The company also said it will "boost its top Internet connection speed to up to 20 megabits per second from the 15 megabits currently. The company wants to address customer needs of businesses, online gamers and people who watch video on their computers at faster speeds."
The announcement included this astounding statement by Oceanic President Nate Smith: "There seems to be a mania now about getting faster and faster and faster." A mania? Smith also said, "We think we can get more customers [victims?] at every level." Oceanic's current prices range from $25 a month for their turtle speed "Road Runner Lite" (1.5-megabit-per-second download) to a whopping $70 a month for their 15 megabits download speed. Smith also said, "The rollout would be completed in stages, with completion by the middle of next year." Too little too late and for too much we say.
Seems like the subject of “‘net neutrality” is one that no one at DDCA- or the legislature for that matter- has ever heard of although it’s one that the U.S. congress has been tackling for quite some time, trying to make sure that “classes” of internet users don’t develop and that all content is equally available to all users.
Wikipedia describes the ‘net neutrility concerpt this way
Internet neutrality is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.
As to where it national legislation now stands an article from Google says
The U.S. House of Representatives passed its telecommunications bill, H.R. 5252, in May, without adequate net neutrality protections. Now the fight has moved to U.S. Senate. On June 28, the Senate Commerce Committee passed its own telecom bill, S. 2686. While an amendment to the bill that would have added meaningful net neutrality safeguards failed 11-11, this tie vote marks a significant political victory and gives the effort new momentum. The debate now shifts to the full Senate, where advocates will be working to get strong net neutrality language is any bill that the Senate considers.
SB895 and SB1680 was heard today Feb. 4 at 1:15 pm in Senate conference room 016.
HB492, HB1077 and HB984 will be heard on Thursday, 02-05-09 8:00 am in House conference room 312.
And while on the face of it it might sound like a good idea Honolulu activist extraordinaire Scott Foster sent out a warning today that all might not be what it seems and that leaving the details to legislators who don’t “get it” the way the broadband corporations like Time Warner and Hawaiian TelCom do may not be in the public interest.
As many know when dealing with these behemoths it’s a good idea to count your fingers every time you move them on and off your keyboard and remote. And with the “only in Hawai`i” combo Department of Commerce AND Consumer Affairs (DCCA)- and the well known revloving door of employment of the regulators- we can be pretty sure the bills were written with the former’s interests rather than the latter’s in mind
Writing as “Communications Director” for the non-profit “Advocates For Consumer Rights” Forster cites just one of the devilish details that have been implanted in the bills by the corporate lobbyists- one that could strip almost 98% of the bandwidth from future public access channels.
Foster writes:
(T)he term "video streams" is misused as an alternative to the term "analog channel" already mandated for Public, Education or Government (PEG) cable television access use. One analog channel can accommodate three high definition (HD) digital channels, and 30 or more "video streams."
Up until 1999, in Decision & Order (D&O) 154, 10% of Oceanic Time Warner's channel capacity was mandated for "Public, Education and Government" (PEG) access, which amounted to 8 channels. D&O 261 (2000) reduced that to 5 channels. In SB895, the channels have been reduced to "3 or more", but what's most troubling is that the channels can be defined as "video streams" -- with no text-book definition regarding the bandwidth. 8 channels x 30 streams = 240 streams, minus the 3 PEG streams = 237 streams lost. Sound complicated? Yes, very -- unless you’re our monopoly cable provider Oceanic-Time-Warner or the bankrupt Hawaiian Tel. They understand all of this very well. Also troubling is the fact that the state has never required Oceanic-Time-Warner to provide a "Public Access Channel " as defined by Hawai`i Law...
"This is indeed about the future, not the present and in our opinion, there is not one single event that is as important to Hawaii's economic future as this pending franchise agreement now before the DCCA." <http://belammc.com/afcr/AFCR_TW-AOL_PR.pdf> Well the chickens have finally come home to roost and as we predicted, somebody’s made off with most of our eggs.
If "video streams" are what we think they are -- or are not -- in this pending legislation, then the public will have gone from being owed 240 video streams to only 3. What happens to the other (potential) 237 "video streams "? Another gift to the monopoly cable provider Time-Warner and the bankrupt Hawaiian Tel? Buyer (legislature) beware! Broadband = money and lots of it.
But even more alarming may be the recent announcement from Time Warner giving the finger to the “net neutrality” movement by setting in place plans to “upgrade” their service- the second worst in the country in terms of speed - .but not for everyone, just those who want to pay an exorbitant rate, leaving the rest of us with low grade “turtle service” and so, for all intents and purposes, blocked service to certain on-line services
Foster pulls no punches in pointing out how the bills before the legislature are subject to corporate lobbying of the all powerful cable and phone companies.
(C)an it be only a coincidence that our monopoly Time-Warner Cable ("AOL" was quietly dropped some time back) today announced that they "will begin offering subscribers of its popular Road Runner service higher download speeds later this year as part of $140 million of upgrades it is making to its system"? The company also said it will "boost its top Internet connection speed to up to 20 megabits per second from the 15 megabits currently. The company wants to address customer needs of businesses, online gamers and people who watch video on their computers at faster speeds."
The announcement included this astounding statement by Oceanic President Nate Smith: "There seems to be a mania now about getting faster and faster and faster." A mania? Smith also said, "We think we can get more customers [victims?] at every level." Oceanic's current prices range from $25 a month for their turtle speed "Road Runner Lite" (1.5-megabit-per-second download) to a whopping $70 a month for their 15 megabits download speed. Smith also said, "The rollout would be completed in stages, with completion by the middle of next year." Too little too late and for too much we say.
Seems like the subject of “‘net neutrality” is one that no one at DDCA- or the legislature for that matter- has ever heard of although it’s one that the U.S. congress has been tackling for quite some time, trying to make sure that “classes” of internet users don’t develop and that all content is equally available to all users.
Wikipedia describes the ‘net neutrility concerpt this way
Internet neutrality is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.
As to where it national legislation now stands an article from Google says
The U.S. House of Representatives passed its telecommunications bill, H.R. 5252, in May, without adequate net neutrality protections. Now the fight has moved to U.S. Senate. On June 28, the Senate Commerce Committee passed its own telecom bill, S. 2686. While an amendment to the bill that would have added meaningful net neutrality safeguards failed 11-11, this tie vote marks a significant political victory and gives the effort new momentum. The debate now shifts to the full Senate, where advocates will be working to get strong net neutrality language is any bill that the Senate considers.
SB895 and SB1680 was heard today Feb. 4 at 1:15 pm in Senate conference room 016.
HB492, HB1077 and HB984 will be heard on Thursday, 02-05-09 8:00 am in House conference room 312.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
MONKEY’S AND WEASELS VS. JOKERS AND THIEVES
MONKEY’S AND WEASELS VS. JOKERS AND THIEVES: It’s anything but lonely under the big top.
The winners’ butts are barely parked after the 2008 game of musical chairs and already the players are throwing elbows for position and the music is playing for the 2010 political sweepstakes.
Only this time there’s going to be way more candidates circling the seats, with not just one but many less chairs to be fought over than suitors to fill them.
Senator Gary Hooser’s announcement that he’ll run for Lt Governor comes with instant opposition like Democratic Party Chair Bryan Schatz and Honolulu Councilmembers Rod Tam and Donovan Dela Cruz.
But with the announcement that he is seeking to play second banana to one of the Abercrombie Hanabusa or Hannemann triumvirate comes an opening for a top political plum for Kaua`i politicians- and one sure to cause all manner of the upwardly mobile to vacate their once coveted incumbencies.
While Honolulu-centric bloggers like Ian Lind and the long fingered Dave Shapiro (whose chair may be in Hilo but whose keyboard is on O`ahu) have quite a bit to say as to who will be flitting around the fifth floor in 2011, here on Kaua`i the speculation has already begun as to who will try to fill Hooser’s shoes.
Today former councilman, former mayoral candidate Mel Rapozo - who for the next two years at least is reduced to nitpicking at council and planning commission meetings and blogging like the rest of us poor schlubs- speculates on the game of marbles to come saying
Who will run for (Hooser’s) seat? It is way to early to tell, but the names that come to mind are JoAnn Yukimura, Ron Kouchi, and James Tokioka. If Tokioka decides to run for the Senate seat, we will have a vacancy in his State House seat as well. The next few months will be very interesting, and maybe even surprising. I have some tough decisions to make as well. I will be considering all of my options.
What Rapozo doesn’t mention in naming only those out of office is how this will effect the ambitious who are already in one seat or another.
And by “the ambitious” we mean every single one of them.
There is also a mayoral election in 2010 along with one for the seven members of the county council and a trio in the legislature. And you can bet all of the sitting have their eyes on greener grass of someone else’s seat.
But we have no doubt that there will be the same belly aching come the July 2010 filing deadline- that “there are no good candidates” once again despite this advance warning that it’s going to be a wide open field.
Every election year it’s the same thing- people who have the fire-in-the-belly if not the name recognition and even a good resume but won’t run or, when summer comes just suddenly discover there is going to be an election in a few months but haven’t done anything for the past two years to prepare for the opportunity.
Even worse will be another group will whine and snivel at their lack of choice and try to promote the joke of a “none of the above” option on the ballot while they refuse to run for office themselves.
But for anyone really serious about public service, today is your lucky day.
We’re here to remind you that with a little hard work over the next two years you too can have everyone in town calling you a hack, a crook and a dunderhead for the two years following your election.
Yes it’s time to get started and all you need is a running car a few good pair of shoes and a few boxes full of something to give away.
It’s time to visit every single one of your neighbors- it’s time to “walk the island”, going door to door talking to each person and letting them know who you are, what you’re running for and why they should vote for you.
Oh and bring ho`okipa. It should be something that they will not just throw away like a pen or key chain or something else with your name on it that you haphazardly ordered a bunch of. It’s got to be something people will either use or see every day that reminds them of you.- preferably something that is unique to you and your campaign.
Now get a map- a good, up to date one.. And then get movin'- there are almost 100 weekends between now and the election- plenty of time to knock on every door.
Now there are a select few people for whom this might not work- this mean-mouthed, higher-taxes and bigger-government advocate comes to mind. But for those of you who will come to us the summer after this one and ask us to support you and haven’t been doing this for two years, don’t wonder why you come in in 22nd place in a 21 candidate council race.
There very well could be almost all “vacant” seats- those without incumbents- on the council and in state house races to go along with state senator slot because, as we know from experience, having competition never stopped a politician from seeking higher office and there will be at least two or three current or former office holders in every race.
This is your year. find a gimmick- er, gift- put some gas in the jalopy and get out there.
Otherwise shut up next year. We’re tired of hearing “oh woe is us we have no good candidates again” every two years or if you do run having to see you stand there at the debates with your thumb up your butt because you don’t know the issues, you don’t know the voters and have no chance because you got a late start but we had to support you because at least you aren’t “them”.
Oh and it wouldn’t hurt to start following the actions of the person in the seat you’re seeking so you just might be able to do something once you get into office. But that’s a thought for another day.
The winners’ butts are barely parked after the 2008 game of musical chairs and already the players are throwing elbows for position and the music is playing for the 2010 political sweepstakes.
Only this time there’s going to be way more candidates circling the seats, with not just one but many less chairs to be fought over than suitors to fill them.
Senator Gary Hooser’s announcement that he’ll run for Lt Governor comes with instant opposition like Democratic Party Chair Bryan Schatz and Honolulu Councilmembers Rod Tam and Donovan Dela Cruz.
But with the announcement that he is seeking to play second banana to one of the Abercrombie Hanabusa or Hannemann triumvirate comes an opening for a top political plum for Kaua`i politicians- and one sure to cause all manner of the upwardly mobile to vacate their once coveted incumbencies.
While Honolulu-centric bloggers like Ian Lind and the long fingered Dave Shapiro (whose chair may be in Hilo but whose keyboard is on O`ahu) have quite a bit to say as to who will be flitting around the fifth floor in 2011, here on Kaua`i the speculation has already begun as to who will try to fill Hooser’s shoes.
Today former councilman, former mayoral candidate Mel Rapozo - who for the next two years at least is reduced to nitpicking at council and planning commission meetings and blogging like the rest of us poor schlubs- speculates on the game of marbles to come saying
Who will run for (Hooser’s) seat? It is way to early to tell, but the names that come to mind are JoAnn Yukimura, Ron Kouchi, and James Tokioka. If Tokioka decides to run for the Senate seat, we will have a vacancy in his State House seat as well. The next few months will be very interesting, and maybe even surprising. I have some tough decisions to make as well. I will be considering all of my options.
What Rapozo doesn’t mention in naming only those out of office is how this will effect the ambitious who are already in one seat or another.
And by “the ambitious” we mean every single one of them.
There is also a mayoral election in 2010 along with one for the seven members of the county council and a trio in the legislature. And you can bet all of the sitting have their eyes on greener grass of someone else’s seat.
But we have no doubt that there will be the same belly aching come the July 2010 filing deadline- that “there are no good candidates” once again despite this advance warning that it’s going to be a wide open field.
Every election year it’s the same thing- people who have the fire-in-the-belly if not the name recognition and even a good resume but won’t run or, when summer comes just suddenly discover there is going to be an election in a few months but haven’t done anything for the past two years to prepare for the opportunity.
Even worse will be another group will whine and snivel at their lack of choice and try to promote the joke of a “none of the above” option on the ballot while they refuse to run for office themselves.
But for anyone really serious about public service, today is your lucky day.
We’re here to remind you that with a little hard work over the next two years you too can have everyone in town calling you a hack, a crook and a dunderhead for the two years following your election.
Yes it’s time to get started and all you need is a running car a few good pair of shoes and a few boxes full of something to give away.
It’s time to visit every single one of your neighbors- it’s time to “walk the island”, going door to door talking to each person and letting them know who you are, what you’re running for and why they should vote for you.
Oh and bring ho`okipa. It should be something that they will not just throw away like a pen or key chain or something else with your name on it that you haphazardly ordered a bunch of. It’s got to be something people will either use or see every day that reminds them of you.- preferably something that is unique to you and your campaign.
Now get a map- a good, up to date one.. And then get movin'- there are almost 100 weekends between now and the election- plenty of time to knock on every door.
Now there are a select few people for whom this might not work- this mean-mouthed, higher-taxes and bigger-government advocate comes to mind. But for those of you who will come to us the summer after this one and ask us to support you and haven’t been doing this for two years, don’t wonder why you come in in 22nd place in a 21 candidate council race.
There very well could be almost all “vacant” seats- those without incumbents- on the council and in state house races to go along with state senator slot because, as we know from experience, having competition never stopped a politician from seeking higher office and there will be at least two or three current or former office holders in every race.
This is your year. find a gimmick- er, gift- put some gas in the jalopy and get out there.
Otherwise shut up next year. We’re tired of hearing “oh woe is us we have no good candidates again” every two years or if you do run having to see you stand there at the debates with your thumb up your butt because you don’t know the issues, you don’t know the voters and have no chance because you got a late start but we had to support you because at least you aren’t “them”.
Oh and it wouldn’t hurt to start following the actions of the person in the seat you’re seeking so you just might be able to do something once you get into office. But that’s a thought for another day.
Monday, February 2, 2009
I GOT YA ‘QUALIFICATIONS’ RIGHT HEA
I GOT YA ‘QUALIFICATIONS’ RIGHT HEA: Despite a valiant challenge from rookie Councilperson Lani Kawahara the man who allegedly and arguably was one of those most responsible for facilitating and allowing the inaction and cover-up leading to the Ka Loko dam disaster has received council approval to fill an “environmental” slot on the planning commission.
Hartwell Blake, who served as Mayor Maryanne Kusaka’s County Attorney during the “grubbing and grading” scandal and hearings in the late 90’s and early ‘00’s, was unanimously approved by the council last Wednesday despite Blake’s complicity in Kusaka’s squelching of complaints against Jimmy Pflueger and Blake’s legal support of the Department of Pubic Works’ (DPW) contention that they couldn’t gain access to inspect Pflueger’s properties.
As County Attorney Blake testified before the council numerous times in support of Kusaka’s and the DPW’s positions at the time that there was nothing they could do and had no right to go in and inspect without permission from Pflueger.
Kusaka recently testified before a grand jury that returned a murder indictment against Pflueger and it is believed – and has been reported- that she most likely received some form of immunity in doing so.
That followed many reports of her attempts to obstruct justice and ban DPW’s inspectors from looking into complaints against Pflueger and against developer Tom McCloskey who was also being investigated for grubbing and grading violations on his north shore properties at the time.
Kaua`i has a system unique in the islands for selecting planning commissioners, with two each coming from the environmental, labor and business communities as well as one “at-large”. according to the county charter.
Blake’s nomination to fill an “environmental” slot was a real head scratcher for Kawahara who questioned not his integrity or ability to do a good job as a commissioner but his environmental credentials.
“Hartwell is a very good man- no one can argue with that” said Kawahara saying she had no doubt that he sees himself as an environmentalist after he cited his Hawaiian upbringing and values
But Kawahara questioned Blake’s credentials .”by education, training occupation or experience” as the charter requires, since he had never worked with or been a member of any of the organized environmental groups or even worked for any environmental causes in the community.
She also said she was concerned that neither Blake nor Mayor Bernard Carvalho who nominated Blake had apparently reached out to any environmental groups or individual environmentalists on the island in seeking someone for the open environmental slot.
“I think it’s important to represent or at least be aware of what others in the environmental community are concerned about” she said “If you go by the component of ‘participation with environmental groups’ there’s not a strong connection there.”
Kawahara urged Blake and the mayor to “reach out” to those in the environmental community on the island.
Others on the council seemed to have a lot less concern saying basically that they were satisfied that because Blake is a “native Hawaiian” his “values” as such make him an environmentalist.
Councilperson Tim Bynum excused any complicity in the Ka Loko matter by saying that as an attorney “you have to do what your client wants you to do”..
Councilperson Darryl Kaneshiro said he was a rancher and farmer and said he considers himself an environmentalist although he is not a member of any group.
Councilperson Jay Furfaro pointed to Blake’s participation in Pohaku Nishimitzu’s hula halau saying that Blake surely learned about stewardship of the land, the Konohiki system and Hawaiian values regarding fishing from Nishimitzu.
Chair Kaipo Asing said that though others are free to disagree, the way he interprets the charter Blake qualifies to fill the environmental opening.
During the discussion no councilmember offered any example of who exactly wouldn’t be an environmentalist or what they would have to do to not qualify.
The matter of Blake’s involvement in giving Kusaka legal basis’s for suppressing investigations of Pflueger and McCloskey was actually raised at the meeting by council watchdog and now-retired DPW employee Joe Rosa who directly accused Blake of complicity in the events leading to Ka Loko dam failure.
“All this could have been stopped by Mr. Hartwell Blake” said Rosa. “The inspector (who was looking into the matter) quit because (Blake) wouldn’t back him up.
“If he were an environmentalist he could have stopped all that illegal grubbing and grading” Rosa alleged pointing at the council and saying “I don’t want you to forget, because I remember”.
Reached by phone this weekend Kawahara said she wasn’t aware of Blake’s alleged involvement in the grubbing and grading matters that dominated headlines for years before the Ka Loko dam failure took seven lives.
In explaining why in the end she voted to confirm Blake, Kawahara said she had been willing to “go to bat” for the organized environmental groups on the island if they had thought perhaps there might have been people who would better represent them than Blake.
But she said, to her surprise, after calling many of them across the island none would step forward to oppose Blake’s nomination or offer to serve themselves.
Blake previously served on the commission in the 90’s before the “slotting” system was passed into law. He will be officially sworn in at the next planning commission meeting a week from tomorrow.
Hartwell Blake, who served as Mayor Maryanne Kusaka’s County Attorney during the “grubbing and grading” scandal and hearings in the late 90’s and early ‘00’s, was unanimously approved by the council last Wednesday despite Blake’s complicity in Kusaka’s squelching of complaints against Jimmy Pflueger and Blake’s legal support of the Department of Pubic Works’ (DPW) contention that they couldn’t gain access to inspect Pflueger’s properties.
As County Attorney Blake testified before the council numerous times in support of Kusaka’s and the DPW’s positions at the time that there was nothing they could do and had no right to go in and inspect without permission from Pflueger.
Kusaka recently testified before a grand jury that returned a murder indictment against Pflueger and it is believed – and has been reported- that she most likely received some form of immunity in doing so.
That followed many reports of her attempts to obstruct justice and ban DPW’s inspectors from looking into complaints against Pflueger and against developer Tom McCloskey who was also being investigated for grubbing and grading violations on his north shore properties at the time.
Kaua`i has a system unique in the islands for selecting planning commissioners, with two each coming from the environmental, labor and business communities as well as one “at-large”. according to the county charter.
Blake’s nomination to fill an “environmental” slot was a real head scratcher for Kawahara who questioned not his integrity or ability to do a good job as a commissioner but his environmental credentials.
“Hartwell is a very good man- no one can argue with that” said Kawahara saying she had no doubt that he sees himself as an environmentalist after he cited his Hawaiian upbringing and values
But Kawahara questioned Blake’s credentials .”by education, training occupation or experience” as the charter requires, since he had never worked with or been a member of any of the organized environmental groups or even worked for any environmental causes in the community.
She also said she was concerned that neither Blake nor Mayor Bernard Carvalho who nominated Blake had apparently reached out to any environmental groups or individual environmentalists on the island in seeking someone for the open environmental slot.
“I think it’s important to represent or at least be aware of what others in the environmental community are concerned about” she said “If you go by the component of ‘participation with environmental groups’ there’s not a strong connection there.”
Kawahara urged Blake and the mayor to “reach out” to those in the environmental community on the island.
Others on the council seemed to have a lot less concern saying basically that they were satisfied that because Blake is a “native Hawaiian” his “values” as such make him an environmentalist.
Councilperson Tim Bynum excused any complicity in the Ka Loko matter by saying that as an attorney “you have to do what your client wants you to do”..
Councilperson Darryl Kaneshiro said he was a rancher and farmer and said he considers himself an environmentalist although he is not a member of any group.
Councilperson Jay Furfaro pointed to Blake’s participation in Pohaku Nishimitzu’s hula halau saying that Blake surely learned about stewardship of the land, the Konohiki system and Hawaiian values regarding fishing from Nishimitzu.
Chair Kaipo Asing said that though others are free to disagree, the way he interprets the charter Blake qualifies to fill the environmental opening.
During the discussion no councilmember offered any example of who exactly wouldn’t be an environmentalist or what they would have to do to not qualify.
The matter of Blake’s involvement in giving Kusaka legal basis’s for suppressing investigations of Pflueger and McCloskey was actually raised at the meeting by council watchdog and now-retired DPW employee Joe Rosa who directly accused Blake of complicity in the events leading to Ka Loko dam failure.
“All this could have been stopped by Mr. Hartwell Blake” said Rosa. “The inspector (who was looking into the matter) quit because (Blake) wouldn’t back him up.
“If he were an environmentalist he could have stopped all that illegal grubbing and grading” Rosa alleged pointing at the council and saying “I don’t want you to forget, because I remember”.
Reached by phone this weekend Kawahara said she wasn’t aware of Blake’s alleged involvement in the grubbing and grading matters that dominated headlines for years before the Ka Loko dam failure took seven lives.
In explaining why in the end she voted to confirm Blake, Kawahara said she had been willing to “go to bat” for the organized environmental groups on the island if they had thought perhaps there might have been people who would better represent them than Blake.
But she said, to her surprise, after calling many of them across the island none would step forward to oppose Blake’s nomination or offer to serve themselves.
Blake previously served on the commission in the 90’s before the “slotting” system was passed into law. He will be officially sworn in at the next planning commission meeting a week from tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
