Tuesday, September 22, 2009
State of Hawaii Teachers - 17 days off!
My question is why can't they work the 17 days on a rotating basis? Every school has at least 2 or more classes for the same grade. Why can't they hui together two classes and do PE days or independant study/ help days? Why do the kids have to have 17 less days of school?When I was a kid we didn't always have subsutitues, we combined classes for the day.Sadly Hawaii can't think outside the box and wants to just cut the days from the students. Who is suffering here? Our children, but then is this really about education and our children? Or is it a money thing only?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Bill 132 Hamakua Lands for Sale!
Thanks Chuck for this you tube link. What happens when we are out of money and out of land to sell? Who controls who buys and what they do with it?
Help the Big Island's future. Testify and make a difference.
Susan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrBKxTkCyk
Help the Big Island's future. Testify and make a difference.
Susan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrBKxTkCyk
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Blogging East and West Hawaii! Opinions
I just got through reading a Punablog about how some people should not express their opinions. The person complaining is hidden behind a sudo name "Menehune". Isn't this America? Isn't this a Free county where you can express yourself?
Today's day and age brings all forms of communication. If some are affraid to stand up and speak there mind then they will have to spend their life in the shaddows, hidden beind the truth.
Take it or leave it. You are free to change the channel or turn off the TV any time you want.
It is not an East or West thing; it is just one idiot.
Today's day and age brings all forms of communication. If some are affraid to stand up and speak there mind then they will have to spend their life in the shaddows, hidden beind the truth.
Take it or leave it. You are free to change the channel or turn off the TV any time you want.
It is not an East or West thing; it is just one idiot.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Bill 137 removed promised 6 acre University from Project? Testify TODAY!
Aloha e Chairman Yoshimoto and members of the Hawai’i County Council,
I oppose Bill 137 because it has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.
In 2003, Palamanui was able to obtain redistricting from the state Land Use Commission by promising a “University Village Center” within the project that would include six acres of university space (see http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/12/09/news/story7.html ).
In 2006, Palamanui removed the promised six-acre university space from its project, but obtained rezoning from the county by promising to provide $5,000,000 toward a 20,000 square-foot university building on the state land parcel to the south of Palamanui with access to the project’s water/sewer/electric infrastructure (see http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2006/06/22/local/local02.txt and http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2006/07/08/local/local02.txt ). It is important to note that Palamanui obtained this rezoning only one month before the county council placed a moratorium on new rezonings in Kona until the KCDP was completed and adopted..
Then, Palamanui submitted Bill 137 less than one month before the first meeting of the KCDP Action Committee this past June 4th. Personally, I do see how these “just in time to avoid” publicly-supported government regulation scenarios were coincidental.
Regardless, Bill 137 allows Palamanui to issue a construction bond instead of actually providing funds to construct the building prior to commercial, industrial, and/or residential occupancy on the project site. This is the same regressive strategy used by 1250 Oceanside Partners ten years ago from 1993 through 1999. This strategy, not litigation, is the first and foremost reason the Mamalahoa Highway has not been completed.
There is no clear language in Bill 137 that requires Palamanui to complete University Drive and provide infrastructure (water/power/wastewater treatment) to the 20,000 square foot building prior to occupancy within the Palamanui project. The university building will require infrastructure (water, power, wastewater, road, parking, etc), but Bill 137 only requires access to Palamanui’s infrastructure.
Therefore, Palamanui could build University Drive only to provide infrastructure to the mixed commercial/industrial area being proposed by Bill 136 and not beyond, while still allowing occupancy of the MCX area by only providing a bond for infrastructure to complete University Drive and associated infrastructure to the university building.
Palamanui and its supporters are using the argument of job creation and the promise of a site for a West Hawai’i Community College campus as reasons to grant the developer the concessions contained within Bill 137. However, Bill 137 does not contain language which provides reasonable assurance that either of these goals will be accomplished in the near future. Instead, it creates a situation where any disagreement between the university and/or Planning Director could be used as a reason for non-compliance.
Therefore, I strongly urge this council to defeat Bill 137 and advise Palamanui to submit a TND master floating zone plan to the KCDP Action Committee that encompasses the vision, guiding principles, goals, objectives, policies, and actions of the KCDP.
Mahalo,
Charles Flaherty.
I oppose Bill 137 because it has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.
In 2003, Palamanui was able to obtain redistricting from the state Land Use Commission by promising a “University Village Center” within the project that would include six acres of university space (see http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/12/09/news/story7.html ).
In 2006, Palamanui removed the promised six-acre university space from its project, but obtained rezoning from the county by promising to provide $5,000,000 toward a 20,000 square-foot university building on the state land parcel to the south of Palamanui with access to the project’s water/sewer/electric infrastructure (see http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2006/06/22/local/local02.txt and http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2006/07/08/local/local02.txt ). It is important to note that Palamanui obtained this rezoning only one month before the county council placed a moratorium on new rezonings in Kona until the KCDP was completed and adopted..
Then, Palamanui submitted Bill 137 less than one month before the first meeting of the KCDP Action Committee this past June 4th. Personally, I do see how these “just in time to avoid” publicly-supported government regulation scenarios were coincidental.
Regardless, Bill 137 allows Palamanui to issue a construction bond instead of actually providing funds to construct the building prior to commercial, industrial, and/or residential occupancy on the project site. This is the same regressive strategy used by 1250 Oceanside Partners ten years ago from 1993 through 1999. This strategy, not litigation, is the first and foremost reason the Mamalahoa Highway has not been completed.
There is no clear language in Bill 137 that requires Palamanui to complete University Drive and provide infrastructure (water/power/wastewater treatment) to the 20,000 square foot building prior to occupancy within the Palamanui project. The university building will require infrastructure (water, power, wastewater, road, parking, etc), but Bill 137 only requires access to Palamanui’s infrastructure.
Therefore, Palamanui could build University Drive only to provide infrastructure to the mixed commercial/industrial area being proposed by Bill 136 and not beyond, while still allowing occupancy of the MCX area by only providing a bond for infrastructure to complete University Drive and associated infrastructure to the university building.
Palamanui and its supporters are using the argument of job creation and the promise of a site for a West Hawai’i Community College campus as reasons to grant the developer the concessions contained within Bill 137. However, Bill 137 does not contain language which provides reasonable assurance that either of these goals will be accomplished in the near future. Instead, it creates a situation where any disagreement between the university and/or Planning Director could be used as a reason for non-compliance.
Therefore, I strongly urge this council to defeat Bill 137 and advise Palamanui to submit a TND master floating zone plan to the KCDP Action Committee that encompasses the vision, guiding principles, goals, objectives, policies, and actions of the KCDP.
Mahalo,
Charles Flaherty.
Bill 136 Palamanui's Special redistricting??
Aloha e Chairman Yoshimoto and members of the Hawai’i County Council,
Bill 136 violates both the letter and the spirit of the Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) ordinance.
Bill 136 would remove 29 acres from Palamanui’s special Project District zoning district and into the MCX, commercial/industrial, zoning district.
This proposed rezoning is located outside of the University Village regional TOD and proposes to replace the Greenbelt surrounding the University Village with mixed commercial/industrial land uses.
Bill 136 violates Policy LU-2.8.2.b, “Development Outside Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs), but within the Kona Urban Area” which states “Development outside the TODs, but within the Kona UA, may occur as follows:
Conventional Rezoning. Rezoning to other than TND [Project District special zoning], is subject to the following guidelines:
i. Consistency with LUPAG. Refer to Policy LU-1.3.
ii. Infill. Rezonings that promote infill are encouraged. The concept of infill is to connect two or more pre-existing developments. Infill is usually associated with small scale developments of 20 acres or less that have been leapfrogged by the surrounding or adjacent developments. Infill rezonings should be conditioned to ensure connectivity to the surrounding developments and, where applicable, to provide mixed-use opportunities to make the area more walkable.
iii. “Greenfields” Rezoning. Rezoning anywhere within the Kona UA, whether within or outside a TOD area designated on Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map, that is not a TOD, TND [Traditional Neighborhood Development], or infill shall require an amendment to the Kona CDP that triggers HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Review Process.
Bill 136 is a conventional rezoning which complies with the General Plan’s Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide.
However, this rezoning does not constitute infill and is in fact being proposed in an area that is now completely open.
In addition, because Bill 136 is not a TOD, TND, or infill, it requires an amendment to the KCDP and triggers an environmental review process.
Bill 136 proposes to reduce the “greenbelt” that the existing zoning currently protects. The KCDP defines “greenbelt” as “an undeveloped area surrounding the Secondary Area. The Greenbelt is a strategic planning tool to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The purpose of the Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl of the TODs/TNDs, prevent neighboring towns from merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and the character of the TODs/TNDs. The Greenbelt may also serve multi-purpose uses, such as for drainage (e.g., flow ways or retention basins), sensitive resource preserves or wildfire protection buffers.” Bill 136 reduces the greenbelt that existing zoning has created between the University Village and development centered on the Keahole International Airport
The KCDP states that the goal of the “University Village (Regional Center) is “to use the university as a catalyst for complementary commercial opportunities surrounding the campus and to attract students, faculty, and staff to live on or near campus. The university would hopefully be a center for cultural and performing arts, life-long learning, innovation, and workforce development that would benefit the broader community.” The uses intended for the new MCX zoning district is not consistent with the vision and purposes of the University Village and represents the very unplanned growth that the KCDP was created to stop.
For these reasons and more, regardless of intention, Bill 136 violates the KCDP ordinance and approval of this bill is legally invalid.
Therefore, I hope that this council will defeat Bill 136 and advise Palamanui to make another application to the Planning Department which complies with the KCDP ordinance.
Mahalo,
Charles Flaherty
Bill 136 violates both the letter and the spirit of the Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) ordinance.
Bill 136 would remove 29 acres from Palamanui’s special Project District zoning district and into the MCX, commercial/industrial, zoning district.
This proposed rezoning is located outside of the University Village regional TOD and proposes to replace the Greenbelt surrounding the University Village with mixed commercial/industrial land uses.
Bill 136 violates Policy LU-2.8.2.b, “Development Outside Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs), but within the Kona Urban Area” which states “Development outside the TODs, but within the Kona UA, may occur as follows:
Conventional Rezoning. Rezoning to other than TND [Project District special zoning], is subject to the following guidelines:
i. Consistency with LUPAG. Refer to Policy LU-1.3.
ii. Infill. Rezonings that promote infill are encouraged. The concept of infill is to connect two or more pre-existing developments. Infill is usually associated with small scale developments of 20 acres or less that have been leapfrogged by the surrounding or adjacent developments. Infill rezonings should be conditioned to ensure connectivity to the surrounding developments and, where applicable, to provide mixed-use opportunities to make the area more walkable.
iii. “Greenfields” Rezoning. Rezoning anywhere within the Kona UA, whether within or outside a TOD area designated on Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map, that is not a TOD, TND [Traditional Neighborhood Development], or infill shall require an amendment to the Kona CDP that triggers HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Review Process.
Bill 136 is a conventional rezoning which complies with the General Plan’s Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide.
However, this rezoning does not constitute infill and is in fact being proposed in an area that is now completely open.
In addition, because Bill 136 is not a TOD, TND, or infill, it requires an amendment to the KCDP and triggers an environmental review process.
Bill 136 proposes to reduce the “greenbelt” that the existing zoning currently protects. The KCDP defines “greenbelt” as “an undeveloped area surrounding the Secondary Area. The Greenbelt is a strategic planning tool to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The purpose of the Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl of the TODs/TNDs, prevent neighboring towns from merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and the character of the TODs/TNDs. The Greenbelt may also serve multi-purpose uses, such as for drainage (e.g., flow ways or retention basins), sensitive resource preserves or wildfire protection buffers.” Bill 136 reduces the greenbelt that existing zoning has created between the University Village and development centered on the Keahole International Airport
The KCDP states that the goal of the “University Village (Regional Center) is “to use the university as a catalyst for complementary commercial opportunities surrounding the campus and to attract students, faculty, and staff to live on or near campus. The university would hopefully be a center for cultural and performing arts, life-long learning, innovation, and workforce development that would benefit the broader community.” The uses intended for the new MCX zoning district is not consistent with the vision and purposes of the University Village and represents the very unplanned growth that the KCDP was created to stop.
For these reasons and more, regardless of intention, Bill 136 violates the KCDP ordinance and approval of this bill is legally invalid.
Therefore, I hope that this council will defeat Bill 136 and advise Palamanui to make another application to the Planning Department which complies with the KCDP ordinance.
Mahalo,
Charles Flaherty
Friday, September 11, 2009
9/11 Remembered Forever
Today as we reflect back to 9/11, we remember those who lost their lives and the way it has changed all of our lives forever.
God Bless the families of those that were fallen and those that fight for our freedom everyday.
God Bless the families of those that were fallen and those that fight for our freedom everyday.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Road Meeting 9/8/9
I learned alot of things from this Kona Town Meeting at old A last night.
1. If you see any pot holes the County Needs your help to contact them and they will get filled according to Ron Thiel (Division Head, Hi Co. DPW Traffic) and Warren Lee (Director, Hi Co. Dept. of Public Works) call 961-8341 or email wlee@co.hawaii.hi.us
or rthiel@co.hawaii.hi.us
2. Phase 2 of Queen Kahaamunu highway is under litigation so they are starting the process again for a new set of bids. This is on hold. Jiro Sumada (Deputy Director, State Highway Division) admitted there were alot of errors on phase 1 and the County and State are learning from them.
3. Lako Street is dead in the water. No money and no connection.
4. The mid-level road is proposed to go from Kaiminani thru to Henry Street. This is designed for a 4 lane road but they are only going to build 2 lanes now! They are working on the permits and trying to meet the Oct. 1st deadline in order to get the $35 million in federal funds.
5. Complaints about the speed limits on Queen K's first phase can be directed to the traffic branch- Albert Takashita. If you are not satisfied with the limits you can contact him.
6. Complaint regarding the over weight vehicles seemed to stump the speakers. They looked like a deer in the head lights. They said it is a Police responsibility.
This Kona Town Meeting is a Great Group and very benefical for our community. It was refreshing to put faces with the responsiblities for our roads.
Susan
1. If you see any pot holes the County Needs your help to contact them and they will get filled according to Ron Thiel (Division Head, Hi Co. DPW Traffic) and Warren Lee (Director, Hi Co. Dept. of Public Works) call 961-8341 or email wlee@co.hawaii.hi.us
or rthiel@co.hawaii.hi.us
2. Phase 2 of Queen Kahaamunu highway is under litigation so they are starting the process again for a new set of bids. This is on hold. Jiro Sumada (Deputy Director, State Highway Division) admitted there were alot of errors on phase 1 and the County and State are learning from them.
3. Lako Street is dead in the water. No money and no connection.
4. The mid-level road is proposed to go from Kaiminani thru to Henry Street. This is designed for a 4 lane road but they are only going to build 2 lanes now! They are working on the permits and trying to meet the Oct. 1st deadline in order to get the $35 million in federal funds.
5. Complaints about the speed limits on Queen K's first phase can be directed to the traffic branch- Albert Takashita. If you are not satisfied with the limits you can contact him.
6. Complaint regarding the over weight vehicles seemed to stump the speakers. They looked like a deer in the head lights. They said it is a Police responsibility.
This Kona Town Meeting is a Great Group and very benefical for our community. It was refreshing to put faces with the responsiblities for our roads.
Susan
Road Meeting - Kona Town Meeting comments
Susan,
I felt obligated to respond to your incorrect Grace Church comments at the meeting tonight. For starters, the church does have the money for the project. The current required that they place the money into a escrow account. Secondly, the delays in completing the re-alignment were because HELCO was unable to obtain the needed land easements for their
utility poles until recently.
The project is going to take seven weeks to complete. The contractor (Bolton) is supposedly going to start work in the first week in October.
I know the Pastor at the church. He has been communicating with me and giving me updates for the past couple months.
Aaron
--------------------------------------------------
Aaron,
What was my incorrect comments re Grace Church? I asked if the County would repave or finish that section of the road? What is wrong with that? The Grace Church was supposely going to finish it a couple of years ago. The County should have completed it as proposed and not skip that section for what might or might not come to pass. What is the "current required" in you comments? So if the Church is going to finish that part of the road and they have the money in an escrow, then when is the church going to finish it?
The Helco poles on Palani we supposedly not moved because they needed that land for the temp. road during construction. The real question is the turn out to Kealakehaa is such a tight turn I wonder if that light pole will be flattened. I know from driving a horse trailer for years that I could not make that turn safely. Large trucks, horse trailers or boats will have a tough time trying to navigate that turn.
Thanks for the update. Susan
I felt obligated to respond to your incorrect Grace Church comments at the meeting tonight. For starters, the church does have the money for the project. The current required that they place the money into a escrow account. Secondly, the delays in completing the re-alignment were because HELCO was unable to obtain the needed land easements for their
utility poles until recently.
The project is going to take seven weeks to complete. The contractor (Bolton) is supposedly going to start work in the first week in October.
I know the Pastor at the church. He has been communicating with me and giving me updates for the past couple months.
Aaron
--------------------------------------------------
Aaron,
What was my incorrect comments re Grace Church? I asked if the County would repave or finish that section of the road? What is wrong with that? The Grace Church was supposely going to finish it a couple of years ago. The County should have completed it as proposed and not skip that section for what might or might not come to pass. What is the "current required" in you comments? So if the Church is going to finish that part of the road and they have the money in an escrow, then when is the church going to finish it?
The Helco poles on Palani we supposedly not moved because they needed that land for the temp. road during construction. The real question is the turn out to Kealakehaa is such a tight turn I wonder if that light pole will be flattened. I know from driving a horse trailer for years that I could not make that turn safely. Large trucks, horse trailers or boats will have a tough time trying to navigate that turn.
Thanks for the update. Susan
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Blood Bank needs your Help!
Did you know only 2% of Hawaii's population donates blood for the other 98%?
You ask what can I do to volunteer and make a difference in someone's life.
This is it. The LDS Church above hamburger hill will have the Blood Bank there tomorrow 9/9/09. Now is the time to participate. Give the gift of LIFE. It only takes about a half hour and you will be making a difference; maybe savings someone's life.
See you there tomorrow.
Susan
http://www.bbh.org/default.htm
You ask what can I do to volunteer and make a difference in someone's life.
This is it. The LDS Church above hamburger hill will have the Blood Bank there tomorrow 9/9/09. Now is the time to participate. Give the gift of LIFE. It only takes about a half hour and you will be making a difference; maybe savings someone's life.
See you there tomorrow.
Susan
http://www.bbh.org/default.htm
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Congratulations Warriors!
The Warriors won their first game of the season last night. Centeral Arkansas 20 to Warriors 25.
This is the way to start the season.
GREAT JOB!
This is the way to start the season.
GREAT JOB!
County Road Load limits on streets?
County roads letter to editor: WHT
Saturday, September 5, 2009 7:27 AM HST
Who enforces load limits on streets?
County roads are in deplorable condition. Overloading shortens pavement life. At least once a month, I see a huge tractor or excavator on a five- or six-axle truck. The truck would have a legal gross weight rating of 88,000 pounds, including the empty weight of the truck, about 30,000. Last week I saw a fully equipped D10, 146,000 pounds on such a truck. It was being escorted by a uniformed police officer.
I had the good fortune to interview the officer and he told me that he checked the paperwork -- and everything was in order.
advertisement
So I ask: Who is authorizing these gross overloads and what is the justification?
Ken Obenski
Opihihali
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have doubts that the police would even know what a load limit for a heavy vehicle is. The reality is only in Hawaii do they allow heavy equipment to be driven on the public roads. Most States require a low boy for hauling equipment and don't have torn up roads. Does Hawaii even have a scale to weight the trucks???
Susan
Saturday, September 5, 2009 7:27 AM HST
Who enforces load limits on streets?
County roads are in deplorable condition. Overloading shortens pavement life. At least once a month, I see a huge tractor or excavator on a five- or six-axle truck. The truck would have a legal gross weight rating of 88,000 pounds, including the empty weight of the truck, about 30,000. Last week I saw a fully equipped D10, 146,000 pounds on such a truck. It was being escorted by a uniformed police officer.
I had the good fortune to interview the officer and he told me that he checked the paperwork -- and everything was in order.
advertisement
So I ask: Who is authorizing these gross overloads and what is the justification?
Ken Obenski
Opihihali
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have doubts that the police would even know what a load limit for a heavy vehicle is. The reality is only in Hawaii do they allow heavy equipment to be driven on the public roads. Most States require a low boy for hauling equipment and don't have torn up roads. Does Hawaii even have a scale to weight the trucks???
Susan
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Steve responds to Palamanui
All, the below came to me too late to solicit any voice at the Council Planning Committee meeting of 9/1. However, you’ll notice in today’s WHT that they forwarded a positive recommendation on the petition by Palamanui to the County Council. This will be heard at their next meeting in 2 weeks. It will be a first reading and there is opportunity for public comment. Two weeks following that it will again be heard on 2nd reading and voted after hearing any additional testimony. Let your voice be heard on this issue if you can equally see through the veil of politics and favoritism.
Emergency Senate Hearing on Dept. of Agriculture layoffs.
From Jeffrey Parker and Masako Cordray Westcott of the Hawaii Agriculture & Conservation Coalition
Emergency Senate Hearing on the Dept of Agriculture layoffs – please testimony today!
Thursday, Sept 3rd, 5-9pm, Maui Waena School, 795 Onehee Ave, Kahului
governor.lingle@hawaii.gov
reps@capitol.hawaii.gov
sens@capitol.hawaii.gov
Sample Testimony
Subject: Do not cut Dept. of Ag Inspectors.
Aloha e,
The Lingle administration, is attempting to balance the State budget, by authorizing the layoff of 118 employees of the Department of Agriculture – half of its staff. DOA, with one of the smallest budgets, is getting the biggest cut.
Improvements to our inspection regime, hard won over the past twenty years will be lost with the dismantling of the DOA wall of protection. The Ag inspectors targeted for layoff have intercepted the Brown Tree Snake on eight occasions, the dangerous Red Imported Fire Ant on two occasions and the Little Fire Ant once. Almost daily, these highly trained inspectors find insects and diseases not previously known in Hawaii. Abandoning this essential infrastructure leaves us vulnerable to a flood of invasive species that threaten our economy, health and way of life.
The drastic cut in DOA inspectors means that most imported produce will be inspected in Honolulu before being shipped to Maui. O’ahu inspectors, cut from 51 to 24, are expected to carry this increased load. Delays, higher costs and lower quality are all expected as a result. This chaotic situation may even allow some produce and other goods to enter Hawai'i un-inspected.
Critical programs like Biological Control, Noxious Weed Control, Enforcement, Rapid Response and Commodity Grading will diminish or end. Hawaii’s 300 export nurseries will no longer be certified causing the collapse of our export agriculture industry, the closing of hundreds of small businesses and the loss of an untold number of jobs. Delays of imports and exports will threaten the livestock industry.
Interisland inspections will be abandoned, leaving Maui vulnerable to the Little Fire Ant, Varroa Mite, Coqui frog and the slug that carries the rat lung worm.
Cutting Ag Inspectors will save only $3.8 million annually, but the negative impacts will likely be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, should the Red Imported Fire Ant become established in Hawaii, control will cost $211 million a year.
This assault on the Dept of Agriculture is unacceptable.
We want all Department of Agriculture Inspectors to remain at their jobs.
Mahalo,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
---------------------------
Thanks Chuck
Emergency Senate Hearing on the Dept of Agriculture layoffs – please testimony today!
Thursday, Sept 3rd, 5-9pm, Maui Waena School, 795 Onehee Ave, Kahului
governor.lingle@hawaii.gov
reps@capitol.hawaii.gov
sens@capitol.hawaii.gov
Sample Testimony
Subject: Do not cut Dept. of Ag Inspectors.
Aloha e,
The Lingle administration, is attempting to balance the State budget, by authorizing the layoff of 118 employees of the Department of Agriculture – half of its staff. DOA, with one of the smallest budgets, is getting the biggest cut.
Improvements to our inspection regime, hard won over the past twenty years will be lost with the dismantling of the DOA wall of protection. The Ag inspectors targeted for layoff have intercepted the Brown Tree Snake on eight occasions, the dangerous Red Imported Fire Ant on two occasions and the Little Fire Ant once. Almost daily, these highly trained inspectors find insects and diseases not previously known in Hawaii. Abandoning this essential infrastructure leaves us vulnerable to a flood of invasive species that threaten our economy, health and way of life.
The drastic cut in DOA inspectors means that most imported produce will be inspected in Honolulu before being shipped to Maui. O’ahu inspectors, cut from 51 to 24, are expected to carry this increased load. Delays, higher costs and lower quality are all expected as a result. This chaotic situation may even allow some produce and other goods to enter Hawai'i un-inspected.
Critical programs like Biological Control, Noxious Weed Control, Enforcement, Rapid Response and Commodity Grading will diminish or end. Hawaii’s 300 export nurseries will no longer be certified causing the collapse of our export agriculture industry, the closing of hundreds of small businesses and the loss of an untold number of jobs. Delays of imports and exports will threaten the livestock industry.
Interisland inspections will be abandoned, leaving Maui vulnerable to the Little Fire Ant, Varroa Mite, Coqui frog and the slug that carries the rat lung worm.
Cutting Ag Inspectors will save only $3.8 million annually, but the negative impacts will likely be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, should the Red Imported Fire Ant become established in Hawaii, control will cost $211 million a year.
This assault on the Dept of Agriculture is unacceptable.
We want all Department of Agriculture Inspectors to remain at their jobs.
Mahalo,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
---------------------------
Thanks Chuck
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Live hearing Palamanui NOW!
Aloha e,
You may watch the Palamanui hearing on one of our island’s two new on-line news sites, Amaraka.
Go to http://www.amaraka.tv/home
This is a great new community service being provided by a group of visionary motivated young people seeking to make our island a better place through education, entertainment, and community networking.
Check out the schedules at Amaraka.TV and also http://www.bigislandlive.com/ from time to time. They have committed to showing public meetings and county council hearings when important issues come up. Please support these efforts.
Mahalo,
Chuck
You may watch the Palamanui hearing on one of our island’s two new on-line news sites, Amaraka.
Go to http://www.amaraka.tv/home
This is a great new community service being provided by a group of visionary motivated young people seeking to make our island a better place through education, entertainment, and community networking.
Check out the schedules at Amaraka.TV and also http://www.bigislandlive.com/ from time to time. They have committed to showing public meetings and county council hearings when important issues come up. Please support these efforts.
Mahalo,
Chuck
Palamanui Testify TODAY! Speak up and Testify
ALERT Council Hearing 3:30pm 9/1 Re: PALAMANUI: More Concerns: Testify OR watch broadcast on amaraka.tv
ViewWhat links here.Submitted by margaretwille on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 7:30am
The following info was sent to me by Charles Flaherty about the Palamanui Development : Please testify at 3:30 Kona, Waimea or Hiilo: (if you ask you can testify for 6 minutes -- because there are two bils #136 and 137) . If you can not attend, then watch this hearing on amaraka.tv. See also my comments in previous blog. Here are Charles Flaherty's comments:
Aloha e, With the new county council majority now in place, developers are back to their old bad habit of making promises of community benefits, getting approvals and “vested rights”, then going back to the county to remove the public’s vested rights while keeping their private vested rights to put more money in their pockets (and the pockets of their favorite consultants and politicians, of course).
This time it is the Palamanui project being developed by Charles Schwab and Hunt Development.
The developers are going before the county council’s Planning Committee tomorrow and 3:30PM at the Sheraton Keauhou with a proposal to back out of its community promises, including construction of a mauka-makai connector road required by the Kona Community Development Plan.
Note in the blog articles below that the Charles Schwab Corporation is facing a number of lawsuits, including a class-action, by investors who allege that they were deceived about the underlying risk of their investments. Schwab’s investments in toxic assets and associated losses, as well as the effect on Hunt Development of the collapsed real estate market are the most likely contributing factors to Palamanui’s request for a “bailout” from the county and our community.
E kala mai, but Palamanui needs to sink-or-swim like the taxpayers who have been forced to foot the bill for the toxic asset mess.
Please send an e-mail to the county council opposing Bill 136 and an e-mail opposing Bill 137: There may be two more hearings on these bills if they are not tabled.
genriques@co.hawaii.hi.us
bford@co.hawaii.hi.us
kgreenwell@co.hawaii.hi.us
phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us
dikeda@co.hawaii.hi.us
enaeole@co.hawaii.hi.us
donishi@co.hawaii.hi.us
dyagong@co.hawaii.hi.us
jyoshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us
countycounciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Sample testimony, Bill 136
Subject: Oppose Bill 136
Aloha Members of the Hawai’i County Council Planning Committee,
I am opposed to Bill 136 for the following reasons:
Palamanui was able to obtain its existing rezoning from the county council in 2007 after agreeing to well-reasoned conditions. The Kona Community Development Plan became law last year and incorporated both private and public vested rights.
Bill 136 involves a Project District Development and represents a new rezoning within the University Village Transit-Oriented Development Floating Zone. It is subject to the KCDP ordinance.
Bill 136 violates at least two of the Guiding Principles of the KCDP: Guiding Principle 6, “Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth” and Guiding Principle 8, “Promote effective governance”.
Despite these issues, the Planning Director did not submit this proposed rezoning for the KCDP Action Committee to review and evaluate compliance with the KCDP. Under the KCDP’s land use policies, does Bill 136 trigger the requirements of Hawai’i Revised Statutes 343 governing Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements?
The Planning Director has not provided any written evaluation as to whether this rezoning conforms with the KCDP ordinance. Therefore, this council cannot be reasonably assured that Bill 136 complies with the KCDP ordinance. Approval of Bill 136 by this council may be invalid.
Because of the legal questions surrounding Bill 136, it should be tabled until such time as this rezoning has been reviewed by the KCDP Action Committee and the Planning Director has provided this council with a formal evaluation and assurance of compliance with the KCDP ordinance.
The University of Hawai’i Board of Regents has contracted with Hawai’i Campus Developers to privately develop 420 acres of an adjacent 500-acre property in order to fund development of an 80-acre West Hawai’i campus. This agreement was made prior to the Palamanui project and without regard to the success or failure of Palamanui.
Mahalo,
[Your name]
[Your address]
Sample testimony, Bill 137:
Subject: Oppose Bill 137
Aloha Members of the Hawai’i County Council Planning Committee,
I am opposed to Bill 137 for the following reasons:
Palamanui was able to obtain its original rezoning from the county council in 2007 after agreeing to numerous community benefits that were protected by specific conditions. Bill 137 would remove and number of the protections to guarantee timely completion of these benefits.
Bill 137 represents a substantial change to Palamanui’s existing rezoning within the University Village Transit-Oriented Development Floating Zone and is therefore is subject to the Kona Community Development Plan ordinance. The KCDP became law last year and incorporated both private and public vested rights.
Bill 137 violates at least two of the Guiding Principles of the KCDP: Guiding Principle 6, “Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth” and Guiding Principle 8, “Promote effective governance”.
Despite these issues, the Planning Director did not submit this proposed rezoning for the KCDP Action Committee to consider and evaluate compliance with the KCDP.
The Planning Director has not provided any written formal evaluation as to whether this rezoning conforms with the KCDP ordinance. Therefore, this council cannot be reasonably assured that Bill 137 complies with the KCDP ordinance. Approval of Bill 137 by this council may be invalid.
Because of the legal questions surrounding Bill 137, it should be tabled until such time as this rezoning has been reviewed by the KCDP Action Committee and the Planning Director has provided this council with a formal evaluation and assurance of compliance with the KCDP ordinance.
The University of Hawai’i Board of Regents has contracted with Hawai’i Campus Developers to privately develop 420 acres of an adjacent 500-acre property in order to fund development of an 80-acre West Hawai’i campus. This agreement was made prior to the proposed Palamanui project and without regard to the success or failure of Palamanui..
Mahalo,
[Your name]
[Your address]
* * * * * *
Additional Information:
In October 2005, the University of Hawai'i Board of Regents announced that it had signed a deal with an Atlanta-based company, Hawai'i Campus Developers LLC, to develop an 80-acre campus in West Hawai'i on a 500-acre parcel owned by the state. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/10/21/news/story01.html
At that time, Palamanui (named Hiluhilu at that time) proposed to provide a temporary home for the Kona college, a “University Village” within its project site until a permanent facility was built by Hawai'i Campus Developers on the 500-acre state parcel.
The Legislature budgeted $18 million towards this plan.
Two years later, as part of a county zoning agreement for Palamanui, that developer committed to building a 20,000 square feet school facilities on the adjacent state property instead of within its project.
Palamanui's developer, a partnership among investment brokerage firm owner Charles Schwab, Kona contractor Guy Lam and Texas-based Hunt Development Group, also promised to provide utility infrastructure to the state's 500-acre campus parcel. The combined cost for the building and infrastructure was estimated to be $5 million and were supposed to be complete this year.
Lingle has refused to release the $18 million claiming that the money would be used on the HCC Hilo campus and not in Kona.
This has allowed Palamanui to use its promise to build the 20,000 square foot building and infrastructure on the state land as a political weapon.
This weapon was with the Leeward Planning Commission and the county administration to lessen the original public interest rezoning requirements imposed on Palamanui.
This is the same pattern-and-practice that has allowed developers in West Hawai'i to build without necessary infrastructure.
Schwab - YieldPlus Funds
Date Filed: March 18, 2008
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: Northern District of California
Ticker Symbol: SCHW
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed the first class-action lawsuit against Charles Schwab Corporation (NASDAQ:SCHW) on March 18, 2008, alleging that Schwab deceived investors about the underlying risk in its Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares (SWYPX) and Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select Shares (SWYSX).
The lawsuit claims Charles Schwab and the funds' underwriter deceived investors about the underlying risk in the funds, which were sold as cash alternatives, but were in fact highly speculative and risky mortgage-related structured debt, according to the complaint.
The complaint also states that the funds' registration statements failed to include required facts about the investments - specifically that the funds have a high vulnerability of suddenly becoming illiquid and that the net asset values were highly speculative and inflated.
Since HBSS filed the first suit, many other firms filed similar class actions, and these were consolidated by the Federal Court in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On July 3, 2008, the Honorable William H. Alsup appointed five members of the YieldPlus Investor Group to the position of lead plaintiff and instructed them to interview and choose lead counsel. On August 14, 2008, the YieldPlus Investor Group submitted their decision to the court to retain Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. On August 18, 2008, the Court approved that decision.
To participate in this lawsuit as a member of the class, investors do not need to take any action at this time. If the Court certifies the case as a class action, a notice will be sent to investors in these funds. In the meantime, we can continue to provide you with updates about this litigation if you provide us with your information by clicking here. If you have information that you would like to share that will help in the prosecution of this case, please e-mail Hagens Berman at info@hbsslaw.com.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
July 13, 2009 - UPDATE - Plaintiffs are due to file an expert report relating to their request for class certification on July 17, 2009. Fact Discovery will close on November 27, 2009 and Expert Discovery closes on January 4, 2010. Trial is currently set for May 10, 2010.
Reuters Blogs
Commentaries
Now raising intellectual capital
« Previous Post
Next Post »
12:14 June 12th, 2009
Et tu Schwab?
Post a comment (2)
Posted by: Matthew Goldstein
Tags: Commentaries, Charles Schwab, Derivatives, Lehman, Structured Notes, UBS
Discount brokerage Charles Schwab may be facing a Lehman-sized headache.
It appears some Schwab brokers were actively selling so-called structured notes–derivative-like investments–that were issued by the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers. The structured notes were pitched as principal protected, meaning investors might not make a lot of money if a strategy failed, but they wouldn’t lose their initial investment either.
The only problem with the sales is pitch that the Lehman issued structured notes were guaranteed by Lehman. The notion that an investors’ prinicipal investment was 100% protected went out the window when the Wall Street firm filed for bankrupty last fall.
Lehmans’ collapse is proof that unless an investment is backed by the federal government there really is no such thing as a “100% principal protected” note. In other words, there are no free lunches for investors on Wall Street.
Seth Lipner, a New York securities lawyer, says he’s on the verge of filing an arbitration claim against Schwab on behalf of a Florida couple who purchased Lehman structured notes through Schwab. He claims Schwab “misrepresented” the risks associated with these notes. Lipner’s clients invested $60,000 in these now all-but-worthless notes. But Lipner suspects Schwab peddled Lehman notes to many other customers.
Schwab wasn’t immediately available for comment. But if they call back, I’ll update with their response.
Up until now, UBS was the biggest known seller of Lehman structured notes in the US. In fact, New Hampshire securities regulators, earlier this month, filed a cease and desist notice against UBS over the sale of Lehman structured notes. Regulators claim UBS brokers “exaggerated” the safety and security of the notes.
Structured notes, which use a derivative to give investors exposure to a wide range of asset classes, long have been a big seller in Europe and Asia. In fact, a Lehman entity in Amsterdam issued some $30 billion of these notes to overseas investors. Regulators across Europe and Asia are investigating the sale of these notes and some are agitating for reforms.
Of course, it’s a wonder why anyone needs to buy a structured note in the first place. Buying an index fund or a basket of stocks or commodities will often get an investor the same kind of asset exposure as a structured note.
All structured notes do is just give banks another way to rake in fees and dupe investors into buying something they really don’t need.
Thank you Margaret Willie for your blog info. Hopefully people will testify.
ViewWhat links here.Submitted by margaretwille on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 7:30am
The following info was sent to me by Charles Flaherty about the Palamanui Development : Please testify at 3:30 Kona, Waimea or Hiilo: (if you ask you can testify for 6 minutes -- because there are two bils #136 and 137) . If you can not attend, then watch this hearing on amaraka.tv. See also my comments in previous blog. Here are Charles Flaherty's comments:
Aloha e, With the new county council majority now in place, developers are back to their old bad habit of making promises of community benefits, getting approvals and “vested rights”, then going back to the county to remove the public’s vested rights while keeping their private vested rights to put more money in their pockets (and the pockets of their favorite consultants and politicians, of course).
This time it is the Palamanui project being developed by Charles Schwab and Hunt Development.
The developers are going before the county council’s Planning Committee tomorrow and 3:30PM at the Sheraton Keauhou with a proposal to back out of its community promises, including construction of a mauka-makai connector road required by the Kona Community Development Plan.
Note in the blog articles below that the Charles Schwab Corporation is facing a number of lawsuits, including a class-action, by investors who allege that they were deceived about the underlying risk of their investments. Schwab’s investments in toxic assets and associated losses, as well as the effect on Hunt Development of the collapsed real estate market are the most likely contributing factors to Palamanui’s request for a “bailout” from the county and our community.
E kala mai, but Palamanui needs to sink-or-swim like the taxpayers who have been forced to foot the bill for the toxic asset mess.
Please send an e-mail to the county council opposing Bill 136 and an e-mail opposing Bill 137: There may be two more hearings on these bills if they are not tabled.
genriques@co.hawaii.hi.us
bford@co.hawaii.hi.us
kgreenwell@co.hawaii.hi.us
phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us
dikeda@co.hawaii.hi.us
enaeole@co.hawaii.hi.us
donishi@co.hawaii.hi.us
dyagong@co.hawaii.hi.us
jyoshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us
countycounciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Sample testimony, Bill 136
Subject: Oppose Bill 136
Aloha Members of the Hawai’i County Council Planning Committee,
I am opposed to Bill 136 for the following reasons:
Palamanui was able to obtain its existing rezoning from the county council in 2007 after agreeing to well-reasoned conditions. The Kona Community Development Plan became law last year and incorporated both private and public vested rights.
Bill 136 involves a Project District Development and represents a new rezoning within the University Village Transit-Oriented Development Floating Zone. It is subject to the KCDP ordinance.
Bill 136 violates at least two of the Guiding Principles of the KCDP: Guiding Principle 6, “Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth” and Guiding Principle 8, “Promote effective governance”.
Despite these issues, the Planning Director did not submit this proposed rezoning for the KCDP Action Committee to review and evaluate compliance with the KCDP. Under the KCDP’s land use policies, does Bill 136 trigger the requirements of Hawai’i Revised Statutes 343 governing Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements?
The Planning Director has not provided any written evaluation as to whether this rezoning conforms with the KCDP ordinance. Therefore, this council cannot be reasonably assured that Bill 136 complies with the KCDP ordinance. Approval of Bill 136 by this council may be invalid.
Because of the legal questions surrounding Bill 136, it should be tabled until such time as this rezoning has been reviewed by the KCDP Action Committee and the Planning Director has provided this council with a formal evaluation and assurance of compliance with the KCDP ordinance.
The University of Hawai’i Board of Regents has contracted with Hawai’i Campus Developers to privately develop 420 acres of an adjacent 500-acre property in order to fund development of an 80-acre West Hawai’i campus. This agreement was made prior to the Palamanui project and without regard to the success or failure of Palamanui.
Mahalo,
[Your name]
[Your address]
Sample testimony, Bill 137:
Subject: Oppose Bill 137
Aloha Members of the Hawai’i County Council Planning Committee,
I am opposed to Bill 137 for the following reasons:
Palamanui was able to obtain its original rezoning from the county council in 2007 after agreeing to numerous community benefits that were protected by specific conditions. Bill 137 would remove and number of the protections to guarantee timely completion of these benefits.
Bill 137 represents a substantial change to Palamanui’s existing rezoning within the University Village Transit-Oriented Development Floating Zone and is therefore is subject to the Kona Community Development Plan ordinance. The KCDP became law last year and incorporated both private and public vested rights.
Bill 137 violates at least two of the Guiding Principles of the KCDP: Guiding Principle 6, “Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth” and Guiding Principle 8, “Promote effective governance”.
Despite these issues, the Planning Director did not submit this proposed rezoning for the KCDP Action Committee to consider and evaluate compliance with the KCDP.
The Planning Director has not provided any written formal evaluation as to whether this rezoning conforms with the KCDP ordinance. Therefore, this council cannot be reasonably assured that Bill 137 complies with the KCDP ordinance. Approval of Bill 137 by this council may be invalid.
Because of the legal questions surrounding Bill 137, it should be tabled until such time as this rezoning has been reviewed by the KCDP Action Committee and the Planning Director has provided this council with a formal evaluation and assurance of compliance with the KCDP ordinance.
The University of Hawai’i Board of Regents has contracted with Hawai’i Campus Developers to privately develop 420 acres of an adjacent 500-acre property in order to fund development of an 80-acre West Hawai’i campus. This agreement was made prior to the proposed Palamanui project and without regard to the success or failure of Palamanui..
Mahalo,
[Your name]
[Your address]
* * * * * *
Additional Information:
In October 2005, the University of Hawai'i Board of Regents announced that it had signed a deal with an Atlanta-based company, Hawai'i Campus Developers LLC, to develop an 80-acre campus in West Hawai'i on a 500-acre parcel owned by the state. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/10/21/news/story01.html
At that time, Palamanui (named Hiluhilu at that time) proposed to provide a temporary home for the Kona college, a “University Village” within its project site until a permanent facility was built by Hawai'i Campus Developers on the 500-acre state parcel.
The Legislature budgeted $18 million towards this plan.
Two years later, as part of a county zoning agreement for Palamanui, that developer committed to building a 20,000 square feet school facilities on the adjacent state property instead of within its project.
Palamanui's developer, a partnership among investment brokerage firm owner Charles Schwab, Kona contractor Guy Lam and Texas-based Hunt Development Group, also promised to provide utility infrastructure to the state's 500-acre campus parcel. The combined cost for the building and infrastructure was estimated to be $5 million and were supposed to be complete this year.
Lingle has refused to release the $18 million claiming that the money would be used on the HCC Hilo campus and not in Kona.
This has allowed Palamanui to use its promise to build the 20,000 square foot building and infrastructure on the state land as a political weapon.
This weapon was with the Leeward Planning Commission and the county administration to lessen the original public interest rezoning requirements imposed on Palamanui.
This is the same pattern-and-practice that has allowed developers in West Hawai'i to build without necessary infrastructure.
Schwab - YieldPlus Funds
Date Filed: March 18, 2008
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: Northern District of California
Ticker Symbol: SCHW
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed the first class-action lawsuit against Charles Schwab Corporation (NASDAQ:SCHW) on March 18, 2008, alleging that Schwab deceived investors about the underlying risk in its Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares (SWYPX) and Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select Shares (SWYSX).
The lawsuit claims Charles Schwab and the funds' underwriter deceived investors about the underlying risk in the funds, which were sold as cash alternatives, but were in fact highly speculative and risky mortgage-related structured debt, according to the complaint.
The complaint also states that the funds' registration statements failed to include required facts about the investments - specifically that the funds have a high vulnerability of suddenly becoming illiquid and that the net asset values were highly speculative and inflated.
Since HBSS filed the first suit, many other firms filed similar class actions, and these were consolidated by the Federal Court in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On July 3, 2008, the Honorable William H. Alsup appointed five members of the YieldPlus Investor Group to the position of lead plaintiff and instructed them to interview and choose lead counsel. On August 14, 2008, the YieldPlus Investor Group submitted their decision to the court to retain Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. On August 18, 2008, the Court approved that decision.
To participate in this lawsuit as a member of the class, investors do not need to take any action at this time. If the Court certifies the case as a class action, a notice will be sent to investors in these funds. In the meantime, we can continue to provide you with updates about this litigation if you provide us with your information by clicking here. If you have information that you would like to share that will help in the prosecution of this case, please e-mail Hagens Berman at info@hbsslaw.com.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
July 13, 2009 - UPDATE - Plaintiffs are due to file an expert report relating to their request for class certification on July 17, 2009. Fact Discovery will close on November 27, 2009 and Expert Discovery closes on January 4, 2010. Trial is currently set for May 10, 2010.
Reuters Blogs
Commentaries
Now raising intellectual capital
« Previous Post
Next Post »
12:14 June 12th, 2009
Et tu Schwab?
Post a comment (2)
Posted by: Matthew Goldstein
Tags: Commentaries, Charles Schwab, Derivatives, Lehman, Structured Notes, UBS
Discount brokerage Charles Schwab may be facing a Lehman-sized headache.
It appears some Schwab brokers were actively selling so-called structured notes–derivative-like investments–that were issued by the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers. The structured notes were pitched as principal protected, meaning investors might not make a lot of money if a strategy failed, but they wouldn’t lose their initial investment either.
The only problem with the sales is pitch that the Lehman issued structured notes were guaranteed by Lehman. The notion that an investors’ prinicipal investment was 100% protected went out the window when the Wall Street firm filed for bankrupty last fall.
Lehmans’ collapse is proof that unless an investment is backed by the federal government there really is no such thing as a “100% principal protected” note. In other words, there are no free lunches for investors on Wall Street.
Seth Lipner, a New York securities lawyer, says he’s on the verge of filing an arbitration claim against Schwab on behalf of a Florida couple who purchased Lehman structured notes through Schwab. He claims Schwab “misrepresented” the risks associated with these notes. Lipner’s clients invested $60,000 in these now all-but-worthless notes. But Lipner suspects Schwab peddled Lehman notes to many other customers.
Schwab wasn’t immediately available for comment. But if they call back, I’ll update with their response.
Up until now, UBS was the biggest known seller of Lehman structured notes in the US. In fact, New Hampshire securities regulators, earlier this month, filed a cease and desist notice against UBS over the sale of Lehman structured notes. Regulators claim UBS brokers “exaggerated” the safety and security of the notes.
Structured notes, which use a derivative to give investors exposure to a wide range of asset classes, long have been a big seller in Europe and Asia. In fact, a Lehman entity in Amsterdam issued some $30 billion of these notes to overseas investors. Regulators across Europe and Asia are investigating the sale of these notes and some are agitating for reforms.
Of course, it’s a wonder why anyone needs to buy a structured note in the first place. Buying an index fund or a basket of stocks or commodities will often get an investor the same kind of asset exposure as a structured note.
All structured notes do is just give banks another way to rake in fees and dupe investors into buying something they really don’t need.
Thank you Margaret Willie for your blog info. Hopefully people will testify.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)