West Hawaii Today - from archives > Local > Herkes: Why no water for Ocean View?
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, April 30, 2010
Parking Fee Meeting 4/28/10 a bitter disappointment!
Parking Fee Meeting 4/28/10
The special meeting with Boating Program Administrator, Ed Underwood, held at Honokohau on April 28, 2010, was a bitter disappointment.
Since the proposal to charge for parking at Honokohau Small Boat Harbor was first publicly explained on April 7, 2010, at the “Talk Story session at the harbor, scores of questions have been asked about this parking plan, and very few of them have been adequately and fully answered.
The most disappointing thing to me about yesterday’s meeting was that despite the lengthy protestations of the five boating community members that were invited to the meeting (Al Gustafson, Neal Isaaacs, Tina Prettyman, Fred Duerr and myself), as the long meeting was winding down, Underwood announced that he was already planning another meeting “in two weeks” to announce the implementation of the parking plan. In other words, nothing we said at the meeting mattered, he was moving ahead with his plan to charge for parking. Why then, did he even bother to waste our time?
Our major point of disagreement with Mr. Underwood, is whether or not parking fees are going to be a barrier to our clients and the general public. Many of us who work at Honokohau believe that parking fees will deter a percentage of those who currently come to Honokohau harbor. In these dire economic times, we cannot afford to prevent anyone from coming to the harbor, nor can we afford to pay for our own parking and that of our employees, crew and clients. What part of the word recession does Underwood not understand?
It is particularly hard to swallow this bitter pill because Honokohau Harbor is surrounded by unused State land, and many marine businesses and boat storage facilities have been created mauka of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, because this unused State land has never been made available to those who were willing to develop it.
Therefore, the Honokohau Harbor “financial deficit” that Underwood bemoans, is largely BECAUSE of the incompetence of the Boating Division in failing to lease its land to those willing to pay to develop it.
He also admitted in our meeting that a substantial part of that “deficit” is also because he opted to make an administrative change to how income from current land leases is characterized in his budget. For decades the land rent generated by Gentry’s Kona Marina, The Fuel Dock and other land leases at Honokohau, has always been included on the books, as part of the revenue stream the harbor generates. By simply changing the bookkeeping, is made to look like a much bigger loser than it really is.
Part of my disappointment is that his proposed fix—instituting parking fees at Honokohau—is highly unlikely to put much of a dent in the alleged deficit. It is a shortsighted, ill-conceived attempt to pick the low hanging fruit (our wallets), with zero consideration for the larger economic impact of those parking fees on the boating community and the busineses here that support it.
As Ed Underwood described his parking plan to us, it is actually a big experiment to see if charging for parking at Honokohau is attractive to a parking contractor, whether it is actually possible (how do you designate parking stalls in gravel?), whether it generates a reasonable return, and what the impacts are on the boating community. We answered the latter question, loud-and-clear, we think it will have a huge impact on the boating community, and we can’t afford an experiment, especially during this economic recession.
There are also larger questions about the process followed by the Boating Division, to get us where we are today. State law clearly requires that administrative rule changes follow a specified series of steps. Public hearings must be properly announced in a paper of public record, and held in a place that is reasonably accessible to those effected. The public hearing was announced once in the Honolulu Star Bulletin (which is not distributed or delivered on the Big Island), and the hearing was held in Waimea. That hardly seems to follow the intent of the Administrative Procedures Act that the community be informed and offered a reasonable opportunity to participate.
So what do we do now?
We raise the pressure, bring it to bear on Governor Linda Lingle and more importantly the Lieutenant Governor (Duke Aiona) who is running for Governor and needs all the votes he can generate. Get your clients, friends, business associates, attorneys, even your mother, to write to the Governor and ask that the DLNR delay or withdraw the implementation of parking fees at Honokohau Harbor.
Email addresses are provided below.
FYI, I met with Mayor Billy Kenoi, brought he and his staff (Wally Lau and Bobby Command) up to date on our concerns and fears, and the Mayor has committed to supporting our cause all he can, starting with a letter to Laura Thielen asking her to at least delay implementation of the parking fees.
Many of us have been in touch with Representatives Denny Coffman and Cindy Evans, and they are on our side and working on our behalf. Keep them informed of everything you do by copying them with your emails and letters.
Al, Neal and I are prepared to help the harbor users to form an organization to contnue to fight the parking fees,; fight for better utilization of the State land around the harbor; and fight for the improvements we need, have paid for and deserve in our harbor.
Al has already distributed his mana’o regarding the meeting yesterday, and I share his view that when the next public meeting is held at Honokohau, we need hundreds of people to attend and make their concerns heard.
We will keep you posted.
Aloha,
Rick Gaffney
Email protocol:
I would suggest that an effective way to proceed is to address your concerns to Governor Linda Lingle (gov@hawaii.gov) and Laura Thielen, Chair, BLNR (laura.thielen@hawaii.gov) then b.c.c. your email letter to the rest of the email addresses on this list.
The special meeting with Boating Program Administrator, Ed Underwood, held at Honokohau on April 28, 2010, was a bitter disappointment.
Since the proposal to charge for parking at Honokohau Small Boat Harbor was first publicly explained on April 7, 2010, at the “Talk Story session at the harbor, scores of questions have been asked about this parking plan, and very few of them have been adequately and fully answered.
The most disappointing thing to me about yesterday’s meeting was that despite the lengthy protestations of the five boating community members that were invited to the meeting (Al Gustafson, Neal Isaaacs, Tina Prettyman, Fred Duerr and myself), as the long meeting was winding down, Underwood announced that he was already planning another meeting “in two weeks” to announce the implementation of the parking plan. In other words, nothing we said at the meeting mattered, he was moving ahead with his plan to charge for parking. Why then, did he even bother to waste our time?
Our major point of disagreement with Mr. Underwood, is whether or not parking fees are going to be a barrier to our clients and the general public. Many of us who work at Honokohau believe that parking fees will deter a percentage of those who currently come to Honokohau harbor. In these dire economic times, we cannot afford to prevent anyone from coming to the harbor, nor can we afford to pay for our own parking and that of our employees, crew and clients. What part of the word recession does Underwood not understand?
It is particularly hard to swallow this bitter pill because Honokohau Harbor is surrounded by unused State land, and many marine businesses and boat storage facilities have been created mauka of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, because this unused State land has never been made available to those who were willing to develop it.
Therefore, the Honokohau Harbor “financial deficit” that Underwood bemoans, is largely BECAUSE of the incompetence of the Boating Division in failing to lease its land to those willing to pay to develop it.
He also admitted in our meeting that a substantial part of that “deficit” is also because he opted to make an administrative change to how income from current land leases is characterized in his budget. For decades the land rent generated by Gentry’s Kona Marina, The Fuel Dock and other land leases at Honokohau, has always been included on the books, as part of the revenue stream the harbor generates. By simply changing the bookkeeping, is made to look like a much bigger loser than it really is.
Part of my disappointment is that his proposed fix—instituting parking fees at Honokohau—is highly unlikely to put much of a dent in the alleged deficit. It is a shortsighted, ill-conceived attempt to pick the low hanging fruit (our wallets), with zero consideration for the larger economic impact of those parking fees on the boating community and the busineses here that support it.
As Ed Underwood described his parking plan to us, it is actually a big experiment to see if charging for parking at Honokohau is attractive to a parking contractor, whether it is actually possible (how do you designate parking stalls in gravel?), whether it generates a reasonable return, and what the impacts are on the boating community. We answered the latter question, loud-and-clear, we think it will have a huge impact on the boating community, and we can’t afford an experiment, especially during this economic recession.
There are also larger questions about the process followed by the Boating Division, to get us where we are today. State law clearly requires that administrative rule changes follow a specified series of steps. Public hearings must be properly announced in a paper of public record, and held in a place that is reasonably accessible to those effected. The public hearing was announced once in the Honolulu Star Bulletin (which is not distributed or delivered on the Big Island), and the hearing was held in Waimea. That hardly seems to follow the intent of the Administrative Procedures Act that the community be informed and offered a reasonable opportunity to participate.
So what do we do now?
We raise the pressure, bring it to bear on Governor Linda Lingle and more importantly the Lieutenant Governor (Duke Aiona) who is running for Governor and needs all the votes he can generate. Get your clients, friends, business associates, attorneys, even your mother, to write to the Governor and ask that the DLNR delay or withdraw the implementation of parking fees at Honokohau Harbor.
Email addresses are provided below.
FYI, I met with Mayor Billy Kenoi, brought he and his staff (Wally Lau and Bobby Command) up to date on our concerns and fears, and the Mayor has committed to supporting our cause all he can, starting with a letter to Laura Thielen asking her to at least delay implementation of the parking fees.
Many of us have been in touch with Representatives Denny Coffman and Cindy Evans, and they are on our side and working on our behalf. Keep them informed of everything you do by copying them with your emails and letters.
Al, Neal and I are prepared to help the harbor users to form an organization to contnue to fight the parking fees,; fight for better utilization of the State land around the harbor; and fight for the improvements we need, have paid for and deserve in our harbor.
Al has already distributed his mana’o regarding the meeting yesterday, and I share his view that when the next public meeting is held at Honokohau, we need hundreds of people to attend and make their concerns heard.
We will keep you posted.
Aloha,
Rick Gaffney
Email protocol:
I would suggest that an effective way to proceed is to address your concerns to Governor Linda Lingle (gov@hawaii.gov) and Laura Thielen, Chair, BLNR (laura.thielen@hawaii.gov) then b.c.c. your email letter to the rest of the email addresses on this list.
Honokohau Meeting Be There or pay the price
Subject: To All that are Concerned with Honokohau Parking Fees - meeting of April 29,2010
April 29, 2010
To all that are concerned with Parking Fees at Honokohau:
Please note – This letter that I am writing to all of you is just 24hours after a meeting that we had with Ed Underwood at the Harbors office. In attendance was Underwood, Nancy and her immediate staff. Also was Rick Gaffney, Tina Prettyman, Neal Isaacs, myself (all 4 representing the Harbor users), Rob Pacheco (DNLR board member owner of Hawaii Forest and Trails, friend of the Harbor users). We had gotten this meeting together so that we can get the real truth of what the Government wants to do about the operation of the harbor. I will try to give you the facts as I heard them yesterday and then at the end give you my thoughts. This was a 2 ½ hour meeting and probably could have gone on further.
According to Ed:
Fact – the Harbor is running a deficit for this next year at about $400,000. It would be at about $200,000 if Ed used the Commercial rents (Gentry and Deli Dock monthly rents) for revenues. Those rents go to another program
Fact- Legislator has told Ed for his Department to find Revenue Streams to take care of this deficit
Fact – All cuts that are to be made from labor costs and operating costs are included in the deficit amount – partial P/L posted slip D-8
Fact – Ed believes, very strongly, that Parking Fees can be implemented quickly to help solve much of their deficit at our Harbor. The Ali Wai brings to the state $45,000 per month ($540,000 per year). Once they saw this amount of money coming in they decided to take the Parking Fee program to all other Harbors. Honokohau happened to be next on the list. Kailua Pier is due for the same, soon.
Fact – Ed is open to all suggestions on how to make up the $200,000 to $400,000 deficit
FACT – this is a big one. Even after all our disagreement about how the Parking Fee program would affect Business’s and Harbor users Ed does not see where it would be obstacle to Harbor Use as in less people coming to the Harbor. He repeatedly brought this up and he would not back down from his stance. If we cannot change his mind on this the Parking Fee program will go through
Fact- Harbors will not have the Parking Vendor have to lay asphalt in order to get the contract. Ed said that they (Harbors) is considering doing that themselves. Has nothing to do with this Parking program and has no time line to do this
Fact – Security for the Harbor is part of the contract but no one could define what that really meant
Now to the actual Parking Plan (I have the DRAFT the Ed gave us of how they will have vendor operate)
1. There will something like the “slot boxes” that you put money into and get a receipt out and put out on your car dash. So there will be no gate or Kiosk. Low manpower for Vendor
2. Harbors will have a designated area for Crew ($1.00 per day not to exceed $25 per month). Right now they have 3 proposed areas to park and all are at least 1 block to 4 blocks away from boats. We have the proposed locations on a picture of the harbor. I will post this at my dock (D-8) for all to see today.
3. We asked about the how they would treat the Ocean Access issue – no answer
4. Parking would cost
- .40 per hour for general public no time limit
- $1.00 a day not to exceed $25 per month for crew (in designated location) If crew wanted to park by boat then pay by hour or $90 a month
- 2, $25 per month stickers per boat so that you can park anywhere in harbor
- If you are an employee or business owner within Gentry’s fence and if you cannot park within Gentry’s fence you would be treated as anyone else and have to go to designated area ($1.00 per day) or an area that Gentry’s will locate for you. Gentry will be trying to get more land for parking very soon. Or you can pay hourly or $90 per month for that sticker and park anywhere in harbor. It would be up to Gentry’s to police their limited parking stalls within the fence
- A slip owner can get a 24 hour pass for $10.00 for a guest
So that is it in a nutshell. I am sure I might be off in some of what I said but not too much.
What can we do about this?
Since Ed is asking for ideas to solve his deficit – we mentioned that there are 50 acres with the boundaries of Honokohau that are not being use (i.e. commercial use) and why can’t Harbors use that for rent to help pay for Honokohau. He seemed open to this but would take so long and his $400,000 deficit is now. Any ideas that you all can come up with email me back.
We believe strongly that our first reaction got their attention (all the letter and phone calls they got). But we have more to do. If you do not agree with what they want we must call and write more letters to the address that I will give you. The one ugly fact that kept coming up is that there will be no benefit for Harbor Users if the Parking plan is put in effect. The monies are being collected to pay down the deficit. Ed could not even give us a percentage of how much of Parking Fee that is collected is to be left in the Harbor for running of Honokohau. We asked this repeatedly. It was all about covering the deficit.
We all tried numerous times to try to convince Ed that the Parking TAX would be a real financial hardship to all Harbor businesses and he could not be convinced of that.
Ed was planning on having one last meeting in a couple of weeks (at the Harbor and hopefully at the Club House) to TELL us that the Parking plan is a done deal and what to expect. We suggested him to give us some more time – will let you know that status of this ASAP. Will be extremely important to have double amount of people to this meeting as what we had at Nancy’s meeting. Would love to see 500 plus.
I apologize for such a long letter but it was a long meeting – a good meeting as we got the real facts from the horse’s mouth. I hope each of you sends this letter out to anyone interested and if you know anyone with any kind of pull now is the time to get them involved. If you do not agree with what Ed wants to do we better get every Harbor user to respond either by phone call or letter. These letters do not have to be long just a couple of sentences. I really believe that if we can organize, each of you can make a difference. Consider this our TEA PARTY revolt because as you all know once they take here they will go other areas and take more if we do not stand up and say “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”.
One good thing that came out of all this is that we are forming a group that will represent all Harbor Users and Harbors said they will really listen to them – will keep you updated on that
THE BOTTOM LINE – Harbors does not believe that the Parking Fee will be a burden on us as Harbor Users, Business Owners, Tourists or anyone else that uses the Harbor. If we are to change their minds it has to be in this area.
Again, I will post the packet that Ed gave us at the meeting at my slip (splits Harbor House, look for my store flags on my riggers, boat name TOPSHAPE, D-8) – should be up by 12 noon today. Rick, Tina, Neal and myself apologize if you though that you needed to be at this meeting but we needed to keep it small. Even getting Ed Underwood to the Harbor for a meeting was big. We want to Thank Rob Pacheco for organizing this meeting – good job Rob
Please accept my apologize if I have stepped on anyone’s toes or misrepresented yesterday but what I wrote is what I believe happened and I felt I need to get this info out to all of you ASAP as the FINAL meeting could be 2 weeks way. Feel free to move this letter along to anyone that is interested in helping.
Now get up and get involved – the ball is in our court
Al
Submitted by Shirlee Shumway
April 29, 2010
To all that are concerned with Parking Fees at Honokohau:
Please note – This letter that I am writing to all of you is just 24hours after a meeting that we had with Ed Underwood at the Harbors office. In attendance was Underwood, Nancy and her immediate staff. Also was Rick Gaffney, Tina Prettyman, Neal Isaacs, myself (all 4 representing the Harbor users), Rob Pacheco (DNLR board member owner of Hawaii Forest and Trails, friend of the Harbor users). We had gotten this meeting together so that we can get the real truth of what the Government wants to do about the operation of the harbor. I will try to give you the facts as I heard them yesterday and then at the end give you my thoughts. This was a 2 ½ hour meeting and probably could have gone on further.
According to Ed:
Fact – the Harbor is running a deficit for this next year at about $400,000. It would be at about $200,000 if Ed used the Commercial rents (Gentry and Deli Dock monthly rents) for revenues. Those rents go to another program
Fact- Legislator has told Ed for his Department to find Revenue Streams to take care of this deficit
Fact – All cuts that are to be made from labor costs and operating costs are included in the deficit amount – partial P/L posted slip D-8
Fact – Ed believes, very strongly, that Parking Fees can be implemented quickly to help solve much of their deficit at our Harbor. The Ali Wai brings to the state $45,000 per month ($540,000 per year). Once they saw this amount of money coming in they decided to take the Parking Fee program to all other Harbors. Honokohau happened to be next on the list. Kailua Pier is due for the same, soon.
Fact – Ed is open to all suggestions on how to make up the $200,000 to $400,000 deficit
FACT – this is a big one. Even after all our disagreement about how the Parking Fee program would affect Business’s and Harbor users Ed does not see where it would be obstacle to Harbor Use as in less people coming to the Harbor. He repeatedly brought this up and he would not back down from his stance. If we cannot change his mind on this the Parking Fee program will go through
Fact- Harbors will not have the Parking Vendor have to lay asphalt in order to get the contract. Ed said that they (Harbors) is considering doing that themselves. Has nothing to do with this Parking program and has no time line to do this
Fact – Security for the Harbor is part of the contract but no one could define what that really meant
Now to the actual Parking Plan (I have the DRAFT the Ed gave us of how they will have vendor operate)
1. There will something like the “slot boxes” that you put money into and get a receipt out and put out on your car dash. So there will be no gate or Kiosk. Low manpower for Vendor
2. Harbors will have a designated area for Crew ($1.00 per day not to exceed $25 per month). Right now they have 3 proposed areas to park and all are at least 1 block to 4 blocks away from boats. We have the proposed locations on a picture of the harbor. I will post this at my dock (D-8) for all to see today.
3. We asked about the how they would treat the Ocean Access issue – no answer
4. Parking would cost
- .40 per hour for general public no time limit
- $1.00 a day not to exceed $25 per month for crew (in designated location) If crew wanted to park by boat then pay by hour or $90 a month
- 2, $25 per month stickers per boat so that you can park anywhere in harbor
- If you are an employee or business owner within Gentry’s fence and if you cannot park within Gentry’s fence you would be treated as anyone else and have to go to designated area ($1.00 per day) or an area that Gentry’s will locate for you. Gentry will be trying to get more land for parking very soon. Or you can pay hourly or $90 per month for that sticker and park anywhere in harbor. It would be up to Gentry’s to police their limited parking stalls within the fence
- A slip owner can get a 24 hour pass for $10.00 for a guest
So that is it in a nutshell. I am sure I might be off in some of what I said but not too much.
What can we do about this?
Since Ed is asking for ideas to solve his deficit – we mentioned that there are 50 acres with the boundaries of Honokohau that are not being use (i.e. commercial use) and why can’t Harbors use that for rent to help pay for Honokohau. He seemed open to this but would take so long and his $400,000 deficit is now. Any ideas that you all can come up with email me back.
We believe strongly that our first reaction got their attention (all the letter and phone calls they got). But we have more to do. If you do not agree with what they want we must call and write more letters to the address that I will give you. The one ugly fact that kept coming up is that there will be no benefit for Harbor Users if the Parking plan is put in effect. The monies are being collected to pay down the deficit. Ed could not even give us a percentage of how much of Parking Fee that is collected is to be left in the Harbor for running of Honokohau. We asked this repeatedly. It was all about covering the deficit.
We all tried numerous times to try to convince Ed that the Parking TAX would be a real financial hardship to all Harbor businesses and he could not be convinced of that.
Ed was planning on having one last meeting in a couple of weeks (at the Harbor and hopefully at the Club House) to TELL us that the Parking plan is a done deal and what to expect. We suggested him to give us some more time – will let you know that status of this ASAP. Will be extremely important to have double amount of people to this meeting as what we had at Nancy’s meeting. Would love to see 500 plus.
I apologize for such a long letter but it was a long meeting – a good meeting as we got the real facts from the horse’s mouth. I hope each of you sends this letter out to anyone interested and if you know anyone with any kind of pull now is the time to get them involved. If you do not agree with what Ed wants to do we better get every Harbor user to respond either by phone call or letter. These letters do not have to be long just a couple of sentences. I really believe that if we can organize, each of you can make a difference. Consider this our TEA PARTY revolt because as you all know once they take here they will go other areas and take more if we do not stand up and say “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”.
One good thing that came out of all this is that we are forming a group that will represent all Harbor Users and Harbors said they will really listen to them – will keep you updated on that
THE BOTTOM LINE – Harbors does not believe that the Parking Fee will be a burden on us as Harbor Users, Business Owners, Tourists or anyone else that uses the Harbor. If we are to change their minds it has to be in this area.
Again, I will post the packet that Ed gave us at the meeting at my slip (splits Harbor House, look for my store flags on my riggers, boat name TOPSHAPE, D-8) – should be up by 12 noon today. Rick, Tina, Neal and myself apologize if you though that you needed to be at this meeting but we needed to keep it small. Even getting Ed Underwood to the Harbor for a meeting was big. We want to Thank Rob Pacheco for organizing this meeting – good job Rob
Please accept my apologize if I have stepped on anyone’s toes or misrepresented yesterday but what I wrote is what I believe happened and I felt I need to get this info out to all of you ASAP as the FINAL meeting could be 2 weeks way. Feel free to move this letter along to anyone that is interested in helping.
Now get up and get involved – the ball is in our court
Al
Submitted by Shirlee Shumway
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Arizona Legalizes Racial Profiling
Arizona Legalizes Racial Profiling
By Marjorie Cohn
Jurist
April 26, 2010
The conservative “states’ rights” mantra sweeping our country has led
to one of the most egregious wrongs in recent U.S. history. New
legislation in Arizona requires law enforcement officers to stop
everyone whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is an
undocumented immigrant and arrest them if they fail to produce their
papers. What constitutes “reasonable suspicion”? When asked what an
undocumented person looks like, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who
signed SB 1070 into law last week, said, “I don’t know what an
undocumented person looks like.” The bill does not prohibit police
from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to stop. It is
unlikely that officers will detain Irish or German immigrants to check
their documents. This law unconstitutionally criminalizes “walking
while brown” in Arizona.
Former Arizona attorney general Grant Woods explained to Brewer that
SB 1070 would vest too much discretion in the state police and lead to
racial profiling and expensive legal fees for the state. But the
governor evidently succumbed to racist pressure as she faces a
reelection campaign. Woods said, “[Brewer] really felt that the
majority of Arizonans fall on the side of, ‘Let’s solve the problem
and not worry about the Constitution.’” The polls Brewer apparently
relied on, however, employed questionable methodology and were
conducted before heavy media coverage of the controversial
legislation. No Democrats and all but one Republican Arizona
legislator voted for SB 1070.
Undocumented immigrants in Arizona now face six months in jail and a
$500 fine for the first offense – misdemeanor trespass – and an
additional $1,000 fine for the second offense, which becomes a felony.
By establishing a separate state crime for anyone who violates federal
immigration law, the new Arizona law contravenes the Supremacy Clause
of the Constitution, which grants the federal government exclusive
power to regulate U.S. borders.
SB 1070 creates a cause of action for any person to sue a city, town
or county if he or she feels the police are not stopping enough
undocumented immigrants. Even if a municipality is innocent, it will
still be forced to rack up exorbitant legal fees to defend itself
against frivolous lawsuits.
The bill also makes it a misdemeanor to attempt to hire or pick up day
laborers to work at a different location if the driver impedes the
normal flow of traffic, albeit briefly. How many New York taxi drivers
impede the flow of traffic when they pick up fares? The law also
criminalizes the solicitation of work by an undocumented immigrant in
a public place, who gestures or nods to a would-be employer passing
by. This part of the legislation is also unconstitutional as courts
have held that the solicitation of work is protected speech under the
First Amendment.
The new law effectively compels Arizona police to make immigration
enforcement their top priority. Indeed several law enforcement groups
oppose SB 1070. The Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, an
organization of police officials who favor federal immigration reform,
condemned the law, saying it would probably result in racial profiling
and threaten public safety because undocumented people would hesitate
to come forward and report crimes or cooperate with police for fear of
being deported. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police also
criticized the legislation, saying it will “negatively affect the
ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their
many responsibilities in a timely manner;” the group believes the
immigration issue is best addressed at the federal level.
Many civil rights and faith-based organizations also oppose SB 1070.
The Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF) called
the law “tantamount to a declaration of secession.” The National
Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders Legal Defense Fund -
which represents 30,000 evangelical churches nationwide - as well as
MALDEF, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are preparing federal lawsuits
challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070.
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles called the ability of
officials to demand documents akin to “Nazism.” Former Arizona Senate
majority leader Alfredo Gutierrez said, “This is the most oppressive
piece of legislation since the Japanese internment camp act” during
World War II. Representative Raul M. Grijalva (Dem.-AZ) called for a
convention boycott of Arizona. The American Immigration Lawyers
Association (AILA) complied. AILA is moving its fall 2010 conference,
scheduled for Arizona, to another state.
Even though SB 1070 will not take effect for at least 90 days,
undocumented immigrants in Arizona are terrorized by the new law. A
man in Mesa, Arizona looked around nervously as he stood on a street
corner waiting for work. “We shop in their stores, we clean their
yards, but they want us out and the police will be on us,” Eric
Ramirez told the New York Times.
Ironically, expelling unauthorized immigrants from Arizona would be
costly. The Perryman Group calculated that Arizona would lose $26.4
billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product,
and approximately 140,324 jobs if all undocumented people were removed
from the state.
“This bill does nothing to address human smuggling, the drug cartels,
the arms smuggling,” according to Democratic Senator Rebecca Rios.
“And, yes, I believe it will create somewhat of a police state,” she
added. “Police in Arizona already treat migrants worse than animals,”
said Francisco Loureiro, an immigration activist who runs a shelter in
Nogales, Mexico. “There is already a hunt for migrants, and now it
will be open season under the cover of a law.”
SB 1070 is the latest, albeit one of the worst, racist attacks on
undocumented immigrants. The federal program called 287(g) allows
certain state and local law enforcement agencies to engage in federal
immigration enforcement activities. But a report released earlier this
month by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector
General found a lack of oversight and training without adequate
safeguards against racial profiling.
We can expect SB 1070 to be replicated around the country as the ugly
wave of immigrant-bashing continues. Lawmakers from four other states
have sought advice from Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the
Immigration Reform Law Institute, who helped draft the Arizona law.
“SB 1070 is tearing our state into two,” said Phoenix Mayor Phil
Gordon, who called the bill “bitter, small-minded and full of hate.”
He thinks “it humiliates us in the eyes of America and threatens our
economic recovery.” More than 50,000 people signed petitions opposing
SB 1070 and 2,500 students from high schools across Phoenix walked out
of school and marched to the state Capitol to protest the bill before
it passed. On Sunday, about 3,500 people gathered at the Capitol,
chanting, “Yes we can,” “We have rights,” and “We are human.”
President Obama criticized SB 1070 as “misguided,” saying it will
“undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as
well as the trust between police and our communities that is so
crucial to keeping us safe.” He called on Congress to enact federal
immigration reform.
But Isabel Garcia, co-chair of the Coalition of Human Rights in
Tucson, told Democracy Now! that there have been more deportations
under the Obama administration than in any other administration. “This
administration continues to follow the flawed concept that migration
is somehow a law enforcement or national security issue,” she noted.
“And it is not. It is an economic, social, political phenomenon.” She
mentioned that NAFTA has displaced millions of workers in Mexico who
flood into the United States.
Instead of expressing gratitude for the back-breaking work migrant
laborers contribute to our society, there is an increasingly virulent
strain of racism that targets non-citizens. Republican lawmakers are
joining together to oppose federal immigration reform, opting instead
for a “states rights” approach where each state is free to enact its
own racist law.
Let us join the voices of compassion and oppose the mean-spirited
actions that aim to scapegoat immigrants. Laws like SB 1070 demean us
all.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law
and immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild. See
http://www.marjoriecohn.com/.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/04/arizona-legalizes-racial-profiling.php
As well as my oldest sister.
By Marjorie Cohn
Jurist
April 26, 2010
The conservative “states’ rights” mantra sweeping our country has led
to one of the most egregious wrongs in recent U.S. history. New
legislation in Arizona requires law enforcement officers to stop
everyone whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is an
undocumented immigrant and arrest them if they fail to produce their
papers. What constitutes “reasonable suspicion”? When asked what an
undocumented person looks like, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who
signed SB 1070 into law last week, said, “I don’t know what an
undocumented person looks like.” The bill does not prohibit police
from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to stop. It is
unlikely that officers will detain Irish or German immigrants to check
their documents. This law unconstitutionally criminalizes “walking
while brown” in Arizona.
Former Arizona attorney general Grant Woods explained to Brewer that
SB 1070 would vest too much discretion in the state police and lead to
racial profiling and expensive legal fees for the state. But the
governor evidently succumbed to racist pressure as she faces a
reelection campaign. Woods said, “[Brewer] really felt that the
majority of Arizonans fall on the side of, ‘Let’s solve the problem
and not worry about the Constitution.’” The polls Brewer apparently
relied on, however, employed questionable methodology and were
conducted before heavy media coverage of the controversial
legislation. No Democrats and all but one Republican Arizona
legislator voted for SB 1070.
Undocumented immigrants in Arizona now face six months in jail and a
$500 fine for the first offense – misdemeanor trespass – and an
additional $1,000 fine for the second offense, which becomes a felony.
By establishing a separate state crime for anyone who violates federal
immigration law, the new Arizona law contravenes the Supremacy Clause
of the Constitution, which grants the federal government exclusive
power to regulate U.S. borders.
SB 1070 creates a cause of action for any person to sue a city, town
or county if he or she feels the police are not stopping enough
undocumented immigrants. Even if a municipality is innocent, it will
still be forced to rack up exorbitant legal fees to defend itself
against frivolous lawsuits.
The bill also makes it a misdemeanor to attempt to hire or pick up day
laborers to work at a different location if the driver impedes the
normal flow of traffic, albeit briefly. How many New York taxi drivers
impede the flow of traffic when they pick up fares? The law also
criminalizes the solicitation of work by an undocumented immigrant in
a public place, who gestures or nods to a would-be employer passing
by. This part of the legislation is also unconstitutional as courts
have held that the solicitation of work is protected speech under the
First Amendment.
The new law effectively compels Arizona police to make immigration
enforcement their top priority. Indeed several law enforcement groups
oppose SB 1070. The Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, an
organization of police officials who favor federal immigration reform,
condemned the law, saying it would probably result in racial profiling
and threaten public safety because undocumented people would hesitate
to come forward and report crimes or cooperate with police for fear of
being deported. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police also
criticized the legislation, saying it will “negatively affect the
ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their
many responsibilities in a timely manner;” the group believes the
immigration issue is best addressed at the federal level.
Many civil rights and faith-based organizations also oppose SB 1070.
The Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF) called
the law “tantamount to a declaration of secession.” The National
Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders Legal Defense Fund -
which represents 30,000 evangelical churches nationwide - as well as
MALDEF, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are preparing federal lawsuits
challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070.
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles called the ability of
officials to demand documents akin to “Nazism.” Former Arizona Senate
majority leader Alfredo Gutierrez said, “This is the most oppressive
piece of legislation since the Japanese internment camp act” during
World War II. Representative Raul M. Grijalva (Dem.-AZ) called for a
convention boycott of Arizona. The American Immigration Lawyers
Association (AILA) complied. AILA is moving its fall 2010 conference,
scheduled for Arizona, to another state.
Even though SB 1070 will not take effect for at least 90 days,
undocumented immigrants in Arizona are terrorized by the new law. A
man in Mesa, Arizona looked around nervously as he stood on a street
corner waiting for work. “We shop in their stores, we clean their
yards, but they want us out and the police will be on us,” Eric
Ramirez told the New York Times.
Ironically, expelling unauthorized immigrants from Arizona would be
costly. The Perryman Group calculated that Arizona would lose $26.4
billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product,
and approximately 140,324 jobs if all undocumented people were removed
from the state.
“This bill does nothing to address human smuggling, the drug cartels,
the arms smuggling,” according to Democratic Senator Rebecca Rios.
“And, yes, I believe it will create somewhat of a police state,” she
added. “Police in Arizona already treat migrants worse than animals,”
said Francisco Loureiro, an immigration activist who runs a shelter in
Nogales, Mexico. “There is already a hunt for migrants, and now it
will be open season under the cover of a law.”
SB 1070 is the latest, albeit one of the worst, racist attacks on
undocumented immigrants. The federal program called 287(g) allows
certain state and local law enforcement agencies to engage in federal
immigration enforcement activities. But a report released earlier this
month by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector
General found a lack of oversight and training without adequate
safeguards against racial profiling.
We can expect SB 1070 to be replicated around the country as the ugly
wave of immigrant-bashing continues. Lawmakers from four other states
have sought advice from Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the
Immigration Reform Law Institute, who helped draft the Arizona law.
“SB 1070 is tearing our state into two,” said Phoenix Mayor Phil
Gordon, who called the bill “bitter, small-minded and full of hate.”
He thinks “it humiliates us in the eyes of America and threatens our
economic recovery.” More than 50,000 people signed petitions opposing
SB 1070 and 2,500 students from high schools across Phoenix walked out
of school and marched to the state Capitol to protest the bill before
it passed. On Sunday, about 3,500 people gathered at the Capitol,
chanting, “Yes we can,” “We have rights,” and “We are human.”
President Obama criticized SB 1070 as “misguided,” saying it will
“undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as
well as the trust between police and our communities that is so
crucial to keeping us safe.” He called on Congress to enact federal
immigration reform.
But Isabel Garcia, co-chair of the Coalition of Human Rights in
Tucson, told Democracy Now! that there have been more deportations
under the Obama administration than in any other administration. “This
administration continues to follow the flawed concept that migration
is somehow a law enforcement or national security issue,” she noted.
“And it is not. It is an economic, social, political phenomenon.” She
mentioned that NAFTA has displaced millions of workers in Mexico who
flood into the United States.
Instead of expressing gratitude for the back-breaking work migrant
laborers contribute to our society, there is an increasingly virulent
strain of racism that targets non-citizens. Republican lawmakers are
joining together to oppose federal immigration reform, opting instead
for a “states rights” approach where each state is free to enact its
own racist law.
Let us join the voices of compassion and oppose the mean-spirited
actions that aim to scapegoat immigrants. Laws like SB 1070 demean us
all.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law
and immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild. See
http://www.marjoriecohn.com/.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/04/arizona-legalizes-racial-profiling.php
As well as my oldest sister.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Harbor parking fees! Continued.
Representatives Coffman and Evans met with Ed and Laura Thielen last Friday in an effort to halt the plan for parking fees. The meeting was more productive than the meeting the week prior which was with just Ed. Although we did not receive a definitive answer, they have agreed to reassess the plan and meet with the public again before possible implementation.
David A. Fanelli
Committee Clerk for Representative Denny Coffman
David A. Fanelli
Committee Clerk for Representative Denny Coffman
Monday, April 19, 2010
Harbor Charges: Letter from R Gaffney
Representative Ken Ito, Chair WLO, Representative James K. Tokioka, Chair LGM, and members of the Committees,
Comments in SUPPORT of SCR77 SD1
Dear Representative Ken Ito, Chair WLO, Representative James K. Tokioka, Chair LGM, and members of the Committees,
Aloha. As you will soon be evaluating SCR77 SD1 to determine your position on concurrence, we would like to provide you with our evaluation and recommendation.
In FY 2009 DLNR-DBOR changed its book keeping by segregating its Revenue and Expense ledgers from a single consolidated presentation into four separate categories i.e. Harbors, Ocean Recreation, Boat Ramps and Non-Harbor Administration. In doing so, the Harbors account was stripped of revenue from several large sources that, prior to 2009, provided sufficient revenue to keep “Harbors” (as well as DBOR as a whole), in the black. Some of the accounts that were removed, and their 2009 totals are:
Liquid Fuel Tax $1.6 million
Rental of DBOR Land and Wharf 1.6 million
Parking Fees .124 million
CG Boating Safety Grant .678 million
Ramp Fees (comm..and rec.) 1.79 million
Cruiseship Revenue .453 million
________
TOTAL $6.245 million
Note: In addition, revenue from the $ 2.9 million Hawaii allocation of the 2009 federal grant from the Sportfish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund also does not appear in the accounting sheets provided in Exhibit B of the DBOR FY 2009 amendments to its Administrative Rules from which the foregoing data was extracted. More than half of this $710 million Trust Fund comes from Motorboat fuel taxes, and the purpose of this Grant is to return these funds to the motorboaters who are inadvertently taxed by the federal Highway Fund for fuel that was not used on our highways. Hawaii has already been allocated $2.5 million from this Trust Fund for 2010. The circumstances surrounding how this Fund is being used should be a key item in the Audit being proposed. The same goes for the “Liquid Fuel Tax” account because it is just applying the federal Trust Fund scenario to the State fuel taxes paid by our motorboaters. Also, I noted that there are no OHA entries in these accounts.
We contend that the primary purpose of the foregoing establishment of “Harbors” as a separate account in 2009 and effectively stripping it of the substantial revenues itemized above, was done to portray “Harbors” as “operating in the red” and thereby justifying the need for the 60% to 90% mooring fee increases proposed by DBOR (implemented by HAR on Apr. 1, 2010). Had this “cooking of the books” not occurred, and the long standing accounting methods that were used prior to 2009 continued, DBOR (the “Harbors” sub-account) would still be operating in the black. I sincerely believe that this book keeping skullduggery clearly illustrates the dark depths that Laura Thielen will go to in her quest to have her way and shape DBOR in her image; even though nearly all of the boaters oppose it. This is the heart of the problem facing the boating community. And, that is a primary reason why we need the audit proposed in SCR77. I have documents that support these and related issues and would be happy to brief you on them.
Please concur on SCR77. This is perhaps the most important action we can take to help correct the highly unpopular course that DLNR-DBOR is on, and bring back management that is fair, equitable and acceptable to the boaters.
Sincerely,
William E. Mossman
Hawaii Boaters Political Action Association
2542267
From: rgaffney@pacificboatsales.com
To: hbpaa@aol.com
Sent: 4/16/2010 4:37:04 P.M. Hawaiian Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Something is wrong.......
Mahalo,
Rick
Comments in SUPPORT of SCR77 SD1
Dear Representative Ken Ito, Chair WLO, Representative James K. Tokioka, Chair LGM, and members of the Committees,
Aloha. As you will soon be evaluating SCR77 SD1 to determine your position on concurrence, we would like to provide you with our evaluation and recommendation.
In FY 2009 DLNR-DBOR changed its book keeping by segregating its Revenue and Expense ledgers from a single consolidated presentation into four separate categories i.e. Harbors, Ocean Recreation, Boat Ramps and Non-Harbor Administration. In doing so, the Harbors account was stripped of revenue from several large sources that, prior to 2009, provided sufficient revenue to keep “Harbors” (as well as DBOR as a whole), in the black. Some of the accounts that were removed, and their 2009 totals are:
Liquid Fuel Tax $1.6 million
Rental of DBOR Land and Wharf 1.6 million
Parking Fees .124 million
CG Boating Safety Grant .678 million
Ramp Fees (comm..and rec.) 1.79 million
Cruiseship Revenue .453 million
________
TOTAL $6.245 million
Note: In addition, revenue from the $ 2.9 million Hawaii allocation of the 2009 federal grant from the Sportfish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund also does not appear in the accounting sheets provided in Exhibit B of the DBOR FY 2009 amendments to its Administrative Rules from which the foregoing data was extracted. More than half of this $710 million Trust Fund comes from Motorboat fuel taxes, and the purpose of this Grant is to return these funds to the motorboaters who are inadvertently taxed by the federal Highway Fund for fuel that was not used on our highways. Hawaii has already been allocated $2.5 million from this Trust Fund for 2010. The circumstances surrounding how this Fund is being used should be a key item in the Audit being proposed. The same goes for the “Liquid Fuel Tax” account because it is just applying the federal Trust Fund scenario to the State fuel taxes paid by our motorboaters. Also, I noted that there are no OHA entries in these accounts.
We contend that the primary purpose of the foregoing establishment of “Harbors” as a separate account in 2009 and effectively stripping it of the substantial revenues itemized above, was done to portray “Harbors” as “operating in the red” and thereby justifying the need for the 60% to 90% mooring fee increases proposed by DBOR (implemented by HAR on Apr. 1, 2010). Had this “cooking of the books” not occurred, and the long standing accounting methods that were used prior to 2009 continued, DBOR (the “Harbors” sub-account) would still be operating in the black. I sincerely believe that this book keeping skullduggery clearly illustrates the dark depths that Laura Thielen will go to in her quest to have her way and shape DBOR in her image; even though nearly all of the boaters oppose it. This is the heart of the problem facing the boating community. And, that is a primary reason why we need the audit proposed in SCR77. I have documents that support these and related issues and would be happy to brief you on them.
Please concur on SCR77. This is perhaps the most important action we can take to help correct the highly unpopular course that DLNR-DBOR is on, and bring back management that is fair, equitable and acceptable to the boaters.
Sincerely,
William E. Mossman
Hawaii Boaters Political Action Association
2542267
From: rgaffney@pacificboatsales.com
To: hbpaa@aol.com
Sent: 4/16/2010 4:37:04 P.M. Hawaiian Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Something is wrong.......
Mahalo,
Rick
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Do we need pay parking at Honokohau Harbor? The State thinks we do!
Does anyone realize that the State of Hawaii is planning on charging us to park at the harbor? It's not like there are clean restrooms with tp or a shower or anything! It isn't like they paved the roads down there or filled the pot holes! Gee you would think they have done a dollar or two of improvements or maintainance at this harbor over the years. The only thing that has been done is the new finger slips for MORE REVENUE!
I remember when they removed the parking meters in Hilo so people would use the downtown area. All of downtown Kona is paid parking lots now.
If you were upgrading or providing us with good service that would be different.
Maybe some in the State didn't hear from us in Kona that actually use this Harbor. Here are a list to contact.
Ed.R.Underwood@hawaii.gov
laurathielen@hawaii.gov
suganuma@capital.hawaii.gov
Signed, Harbor user since 1988
Susan McGeachy
I remember when they removed the parking meters in Hilo so people would use the downtown area. All of downtown Kona is paid parking lots now.
If you were upgrading or providing us with good service that would be different.
Maybe some in the State didn't hear from us in Kona that actually use this Harbor. Here are a list to contact.
Ed.R.Underwood@hawaii.gov
laurathielen@hawaii.gov
suganuma@capital.hawaii.gov
Signed, Harbor user since 1988
Susan McGeachy
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
What has happened to America??? What have we lost?
Just a generation or two ago we were a producing Nation. We had traditions. We learned our parent's trade and continued with the family business. If my father was a shoe maker then I learned the craft and followed in his foot steps. Now we are a Nation of consumers! We are not producing much anymore. We don't know any survial skills like planting a garden to eat. Where did we lose our way?
Our Government (on the Big Island) is all about GREED. taking a 23% raise when we are all hurting and unemployed is crazy. The Mayor can't balance his budget with his extensive travels. The rest of the Nation is shrinking down employees and laying off and cutting hours. Not the Big Island. Mayor Billy is all about spending, spending, spending.... The county council can be using the Old Airport for meetings and saving about $7,000-00+ per meeting. But NO the Sheraton is much classer and more EXPENSIVE.
Why can't we buckle down and down size like everyone else is doing?
The number ONE employer in the State of Hawaii is in fact the "State of Hawaii it's self" and the number TWO employer in the the State is the "County of Hawaii".
We need to look at our County Budget with a new light. Do we need it or Do we want it??? Travel is a luxury and not a necessity. Emily Naole going to Washington for what on my tax dollar?? What did is accomplish, What was the purpose of her trip. Surely it wasn't to show off her Minne Pearl hats!
How much money in water, maintainance, man power and cost is the Queen K grass consuming?? Replant with drought resistant plants and get rid of the water system.
It's time to rethink the $100.00 minimum property tax that so many on the East side are enjoying. We need to be fair to ALL. and charge according to property value. Raising everyone's tax is not going to work when the short sales have cut the property values and I would think everyone will be hounding the tax office for a new valuation of their property and the County could end up shooting it's self if the foot.
Another area that can be changed is the millions of tax payer dollars going to towing dead cars left on the road. We need to pass a bill that goes back to the VIN number of the vehicle and charges the last known owner for the towing and storage fees. This information should go on the Police records so they can make some money writing tickets for irresponsible dumping. If you sell a vehicle GO to the DMV and report the new owners name and address.
Let's buckle down and go line by line on our County Budget and pull it together.
I thought about runing for County Council but making a 4 hour drive to and from work is not in my budget.
Working over 100 miles from my home is not responsible.
Let's be responsible and start thinking in terms of HOW CAN WE SAVE MONEY?
Our Government (on the Big Island) is all about GREED. taking a 23% raise when we are all hurting and unemployed is crazy. The Mayor can't balance his budget with his extensive travels. The rest of the Nation is shrinking down employees and laying off and cutting hours. Not the Big Island. Mayor Billy is all about spending, spending, spending.... The county council can be using the Old Airport for meetings and saving about $7,000-00+ per meeting. But NO the Sheraton is much classer and more EXPENSIVE.
Why can't we buckle down and down size like everyone else is doing?
The number ONE employer in the State of Hawaii is in fact the "State of Hawaii it's self" and the number TWO employer in the the State is the "County of Hawaii".
We need to look at our County Budget with a new light. Do we need it or Do we want it??? Travel is a luxury and not a necessity. Emily Naole going to Washington for what on my tax dollar?? What did is accomplish, What was the purpose of her trip. Surely it wasn't to show off her Minne Pearl hats!
How much money in water, maintainance, man power and cost is the Queen K grass consuming?? Replant with drought resistant plants and get rid of the water system.
It's time to rethink the $100.00 minimum property tax that so many on the East side are enjoying. We need to be fair to ALL. and charge according to property value. Raising everyone's tax is not going to work when the short sales have cut the property values and I would think everyone will be hounding the tax office for a new valuation of their property and the County could end up shooting it's self if the foot.
Another area that can be changed is the millions of tax payer dollars going to towing dead cars left on the road. We need to pass a bill that goes back to the VIN number of the vehicle and charges the last known owner for the towing and storage fees. This information should go on the Police records so they can make some money writing tickets for irresponsible dumping. If you sell a vehicle GO to the DMV and report the new owners name and address.
Let's buckle down and go line by line on our County Budget and pull it together.
I thought about runing for County Council but making a 4 hour drive to and from work is not in my budget.
Working over 100 miles from my home is not responsible.
Let's be responsible and start thinking in terms of HOW CAN WE SAVE MONEY?
Monday, April 05, 2010
Kealakehe Green Waste- Testify Wed. 9:00am
County residents will have a chance to testify before the County Council on Wednesday at 9 a.m. concerning the request for funding to issue an R.F.P. for a multi-year contract (Res. 312-10) to move the Kealakehe green waste processing site up north to Puuanahulu. We have been told that although the Kealakehe site will not be closed, that the days of operation to drop off green waste will be reduced and that no specific commitment as to how often it will be open can be made without knowing what funding will be available in the future-- Catch 22.
This is not just a Kona issue. The laudable objective of eliminating green waste in the landfills and providing a more adequate facility than Kealakehe will require trucking green waste from all the transfer sites to Hilo or Puuanahulu. All transfer station green waste drop off points, like Kealakehe, will have services reduced unless funding is found or fees charged to keep them open on a more frequent basis. Services could be reduced to as little as once every two weeks.
Although the meeting will be in Hilo, Kona and Waimea area residents can provide testimony at their local council offices through video conferencing. I hope some of you will show up to testify or to learn more about what is going on. If you can't, you can send in testimony to the council regarding resolution 312-10 to: counciltestimony-at-co.hawaii.hi.us
submitted by Cheryl King
This is not just a Kona issue. The laudable objective of eliminating green waste in the landfills and providing a more adequate facility than Kealakehe will require trucking green waste from all the transfer sites to Hilo or Puuanahulu. All transfer station green waste drop off points, like Kealakehe, will have services reduced unless funding is found or fees charged to keep them open on a more frequent basis. Services could be reduced to as little as once every two weeks.
Although the meeting will be in Hilo, Kona and Waimea area residents can provide testimony at their local council offices through video conferencing. I hope some of you will show up to testify or to learn more about what is going on. If you can't, you can send in testimony to the council regarding resolution 312-10 to: counciltestimony-at-co.hawaii.hi.us
submitted by Cheryl King
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)