Quantcast
  

Monday, April 21, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 52 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Letters to the Editor

For Sunday, November 13, 2011


POSTED:



Trade agreements need to benefit all

The interfaith community on Oahu has this thought for the APEC conferees: We think the agreements proposed in the name of free trade benefit only a few while most of the world's people suffer from their policies; we favor fair trade.

We are certainly not against capitalism. However, we believe capitalism needs to be guided by moral principles that will direct our market system in a way that all people will benefit -- not just a few.

Trade agreements lacking morality can lead to abuse by corporations. When greed and profit are the primary motivation, individual lives are caught within the need to make money and people suffer.

It seems that the bureaucracy of decision-making allows corporate leaders a way of avoiding responsibility; moral principles are required in all decisions.

As people of faith, we are making this plea for trade agreements based on fairness, responsibility, respect and integrity.

John Heidel
President, The Interfaith Alliance Hawaii

APEC conferees overlooked Jones Act

With Hawaii hosting APEC, talk about the value of free trade among Pacific nations has hit our local media. There is, however, no mention of the restrictive trade laws, like the Jones Act, that severely limit international shipping.

Foreign-flagged vessels cannot freely engage in international commerce in Hawaii, and our ability to export and the exorbitant costs of our imports are controlled by a tightly held local company.

If Horizon fails, there will be only Matson and its parent company, Alexander & Baldwin, holding a nearly total monopoly. Pasha will still be operating on its limited basis.

The cost of living in Hawaii is much higher than anywhere else in the United States. Because of our isolation and unique dependency on shipping that is controlled by a monopoly, the cost of living will only get worse.

Hawaii's political elite can talk all they want about free trade, but as long as they take campaign contributions from those that control it now, there won't be any competition any time soon.

John S. Carroll
Honolulu

Haseko lived up to its promise about school

The commentary by Tim Tucker about Haseko's change of plans regarding its proposed marina was quite a contrast to the experience of my organization, Seagull Schools ("Hold Haseko accountable for promises ... ," Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, Nov. 10).

Among the unilateral agreements made by Haseko for rezoning was its commitment to develop a child care center. This resulted in the selection of Seagull Schools to design and construct its community's beautiful childcare center that opened in 2007. Haseko's generous support of money, land and design overview were the prime factors in its successful development.

In speaking with the many families that used our school's services, I have found no one who moved there because of the proposed marina. They seem to be there because of the high quality of their homes and neighborhood.

I'm curious about how the proposed lagoon will turn out because it is so unlike anything else in Hawaii. I'm also confident that however it turns out, because of Haseko's commitment to quality, it will be an asset to the area's residents.

Chuck Larson
Director, Seagull Schools

Make list of promises that developers make

The Nov. 10 commentary by Tim Tucker on the failure of developer Haseko to live up to its promises in Ewa Beach was excellent journalism.

I wish the Star-Advertiser would compile a list of promises various developers make and see if these are kept. That, too, would be excellent journalism.

Charles E. Frankel
Kaimuki

Kakaako developers given too much leeway

It is gratifying that the governor and Hawaii Community Development Authority are finally recognizing the need for more reasonably priced apartments to be developed in Kakaako.

What is incomprehensible is that they feel the best way to achieve it is to allow the developers to go up to 650 feet with "marketpriced" apartments so that they will build the "affordable" ones.

No one is challenging developers' claims that the only way they can make money is to build these overly tall high-end towers with units that are not affordable by the working people who need access to housing in urban Honolulu. What they are really saying is that they can make a lot more money with the fancy high-end units, so forget the people who need housing near their work.

The powers-that-be need to stop catering to the developers and concentrate on coming up with a development model for Kakaako that will put the interests of the community and the environment first.

Let's do it right for a change.

Jack Arnest
Kaimuki

Marines no longer need to use live pigs

As a former U.S. military officer and a physician, I agree with Dr. Marie Crandall that there are much better ways of teaching military personnel life-saving skills than by using and killing animals ("Marine Corps in Hawaii should find alternatives to animal testing," Star-Advertiser, Commentary, Nov. 5).

Human-based methods can effectively teach soldiers how to manage hemorrhage and other combat injuries, and, unlike animals, they accurately replicate human anatomy.

Alternative teaching methods, including high-fidelity simulators and immersive virtual environments that replicate the hectic nature of the battlefield, are widely available. The development of many of these simulators has even been funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.

The vast majority of civilian trauma training courses, as well as many military trauma training courses, exclusively use non-animal methods. The Marine Corps Base Hawaii even lets unit members opt out of the animal-based training, making it clear that this training is not necessary.

It's time for the base to let go of this outdated method to ensure that our troops receive the best education available.

Douglas Bell, M.D.
U.S. Army Medical Corps (Ret.), Honolulu

Training alternatives lack good evidence

Ample evidence exists to support the obvious conclusion that soldier trauma training improves the likelihood of combat wound survival.

Yet regarding Marine Corps' use of anesthetized pigs for trauma training at K-Bay, Dr. Marie Crandall's commentary argues against this practice, stating, "There is no evidence that" using pigs "saves lives on the battlefield."

Crandall misleads. Lack of evidence means only that it is unclear if a specific approach is better or worse than alternatives. Crandall tellingly failed to mention that the commercial alternative she recommends also lacks good evidence.

Training pigs feel nothing and are euthanized before waking up from general anesthesia. These pigs die in a more humane way than those killed in slaughterhouses or than feral pigs run to exhaustion by dogs before being slain by hunters.

Dr. Michael Rethma
Kaneohe

Watershed initiative deserves support

I hope everyone is as excited as I am about Gov. Neil Abercrombie's watershed initiative.

How many politicians get it, that our lives literally depend on the land and water around us? That invasive animals and plants, even the beloved ones, are resource-hungry, and if not contained will take everything there is to take?

It can be surprisingly hard to "sell" public investment in natural resources, yet everyone expects water to flow from the tap. We expect beautiful views from the lanai and sparkling water over the reefs. We expect Hawaiian plants and birds to thrive in the Hawaiian forest.

We are relearning lessons from a century ago, when the forests were damaged and mud smothered the reefs. Let's turn it around again, put some young people to work out under the sky and save the natural wealth that everyone gets a slice of.

Mary Ikagawa
Kailua

How to write us

The Star-Advertiser welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point (~150 words). The Star-Advertiser reserves the right to edit letters for clarity and length. Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published. Letters must be signed and include a daytime telephone number.

Letter form: Online form, click here
E-mail: letters@staradvertiser.com
Fax: (808) 529-4750
Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210, Honolulu, HI 96813






 Print   Email   Comment | View 52 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(52)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
nitestalker3 wrote:
"We think the agreements proposed in the name of free trade benefit only a few while most of the world's people suffer from their policies; we favor fair trade." i gather fm the article this is an opinion that a very small group of people are putting forth. there is no evidence provided, no study or research pointed to, no statistics given. the agreement with south korea alone is estimated to provide 70,000 u.s. jobs, mostly union. (isn't it a wonder obama waited almost nine months to sign this...it was ready in feb 11 for his signature). free trade agreements are made between nations, not corporations. in some countries, the nations own the corporations and the benefits flow to a very few in gov't or business. in the u.s. benefits the corporation achieves is spread to the workers who gain or maintain employment and to the stock and bond holders who, by the way, are primarily retired pension funds for those who work in the corporations, other businesses or public workers for states and the fed gov't. what happens in other countries is really beyond our control. that is up to their national gov't and way of marketing and providing. in some countries like greece, italy, france, ireland, spain, portugal there are big promises of pensions and retired benefits. that's what's destroying the european economic machine. while espousing morality in business is fine, and there are examples in the u.s. where morality was absent, for the most part u.s. companies do work fm the ethical model. but, again, we simply cannot control what goes on in other countries.
on November 13,2011 | 03:24AM
wiliki wrote:
You miss the message of the writer. The interfaith council is saying that "FAIR" and not "FREE" trade is more moral. We cannot control the private sector directly in each country because of the limits of jurisdiction in the laws. but having the same ground rules will insure that economic competition is "FAIR" for all businesses both big and small. In many countries trade within the country is unfair with the biggies getting most of the action. It's through foreign trade that a middle class can arise and succeed DESPITE the unfairness of govt in such countries. Inevitably, it leads to more democracy. The interfaith council is right.
on November 13,2011 | 07:12AM
Kuniarr wrote:
It is true that a trade agreement could bring new business to local or mainland businesses. But there is a very serious and detrimenta sidel effect to a FREE trade agreement instead of a FAIR trade agreement - the influx of goods and services that cost a lot less than goods and services provided by local and mainland businesses. A trade agreement could result in the layoffs of many workers because a business to be competitive would be compelled to use foreign services or trade with foreign goods that are a lot cheaper. The US had the same expectation of finding a new market for our exports when the US entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement and the US-China trade agreement. But the serious and detrimental side effect was that these two trade agreements opened the door for the flight to foreign shores not only of US dollars but also US jobs. Thus, the gargantuan trade deficit with China alone could be the reason for the economic mess the US is in - high unemployment and high national deficit.
on November 13,2011 | 09:31AM
OldDiver wrote:
Well said Kuniarr.
on November 13,2011 | 09:57AM
nitestalker3 wrote:
would somebody plz define for me what a "FAIR" trade agreement is. so far there are only opinions about what it is. what is the official definition of the concept. once again, we CANNOT control what happens in other countries. has it ever occurred to you folks that the big companies get most of the action because they have the capability and resources to do the heavy lifting vs the smaller companies who simply cannot compete. why was the apec dinner held at the hale koa instead of the like like drive in. it's simple...like like does not have the capability or resources. what you folks are arguing for is essentially making everybody equal in resources and capabilities so that everybody has the same share of the pie. that will never, ever happen unless you want global mediocrity which will take away most of the comforts you enjoy. if you want every business in the u.s. to have the same capability and resources of all the companies in yemen, think of what your standard of living would be. if you're saying that big companies should only get 50% of the contracts and small companies the other 50%, that will never work. how do you do fair either internally or externally to a country with everybody playing by the same rules. while a utopian concept, it's humanly impossible. as far as the shift of jobs out of country, man, if you folks didn't see that coming when clinton pushed for and signed nafta, somebody was asleep reading the book. same thing, tho to a greater extent for the u.s.-china pact. what did you think would happen when you sign such an agreement with a country that has wages maybe only 5% of what you do...companies go to the lowest wage to make profits for their shareholders which, by the way, are the retirement programs u.s. workers depend on. think about it.
on November 13,2011 | 01:55PM
OldDiver wrote:
Very simple example is dangerous chemicals. If in the United States manufacturers are required to bare the costs of safetly disposing of life threating poisons then Chinese manufacturers must bare those same costs. If the Chinese are able to manufacturer goods cheaper because are able to dump the poisons in the neighborhood stream (which they are) then their goods will be subject to a tax to make sure manfacturers in the U.S. are playing on a level playing field. Remember this is only one of many examples the Chinese are able to use to get an unfair advantage over US manufacturers.
on November 13,2011 | 03:01PM
wiliki wrote:
In many countries even ours, the big companies do have the advantage. They are able to use corrupt public officials for example to keep out the competition. Here we have passed monopoly laws to stop this, but the practices flourish in many countries. The arab spring began with a poor merchant stall owner who could not pay a bribe to the local official to stay in business. Cheap labor is a competitive advantage. It isn't UNFAIR. We need to realize that as long as it helps the bottom line, business here will offshore their operations. Foreign vendors are able to compete with our business without corrupt officials to keep them from selling. As part of fairness, we only ask that foreign workers not be treated as slaves. So foreign business has a chance to grow and offer their workers better wages. The Interfaith council is looking at both foreign and US working conditions.
on November 13,2011 | 03:29PM
DonGa-me wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade
on November 14,2011 | 09:04AM
Anonymous wrote:
Regarding John Carroll's letter, it should be noted that the Jones Act only affects HI and AK. The argument has been made that it is needed to protect the Merchant Marine. If that's so, then why are the other 48 states not helping to protect it?
on November 13,2011 | 05:43AM
bender wrote:
Repeal is long overdue. It has as much effect on our daily lives as the price of oil does, and both of them are ill effects. Just imagine how much more money would be available in the family budgets of local residents if they didn't have to pay the outrageous shipping fees imposed by Matson and Horizon. But it seems our Congressional delegation has no interest in removing this albatross from our necks. Instead they kowtow to special interests.
on November 13,2011 | 05:49AM
wiliki wrote:
I think that the point is that as long as we have had and will continue to have an unfair and uncompetitive labor condition on the docks, we might was well protect the industry by raising prices high enough so that workers through their unions can benefit as well. We forget that while labor union workers enjoy good salaries on the docks, the company executives are doing much much better than their workers. They've always done so even when it was slave labor and sweat shop as before when my grandfather worked there. With the Jones Act, workers can benefit as well. They get to pick up the crumbs. This kind of economy is similar to the plantation economies. When it no longer exists in Hawaii, then we'll no longer need legislators like Senator Inouye to protect it.
on November 13,2011 | 07:19AM
tiki886 wrote:
In 2005, Pres Bush temporarily suspended the Jones Act for 20 days so foreign ships could help transport food and supplies between ports in the Gulf and the Eastern Seaboard. After the BP oil spill, Obama refused to suspend the Jones Act while European allies, longtime opponents of the Jones Act, have asserted they were turned away when making offers of assistance. The State Department acknowledges it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries. If these are some of the negative consequences of the Jones Act then it should be repealed.
on November 13,2011 | 09:46AM
OldDiver wrote:
This lie was promoted by Republican TV (Fox News) and Charles Djou. The Jones Act did not apply to the BP oil disaster. The Jones Act only applies to goods transported between U.S. ports. Oil skimmers are not moving goods between U.S. ports.
on November 13,2011 | 10:03AM
tiki886 wrote:
If you are going to make accusations of 'lies' don't you think you should also provide the reason why our European allies were prevented from helping out in the oil spill?
on November 13,2011 | 10:19AM
OldDiver wrote:
They were not prevented from helping with the oil spill because of the Jones Act. That is a fact. Repeating what you heard on Republican TV (Fox News) does not change that fact.
on November 13,2011 | 10:23AM
tiki886 wrote:
First of all,The Jones Act was written to help injured seamen. Additionally, the Jones Act ensures that the U.S. keeps and maintains fleet of ships staffed by U.S. crews and owned by U.S. companies. What does this law have to do transportation of goods between ports whether it is transported by foreign or domestic ships? So what is the reason that Obama refused the help of our allies? "Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico." - Financial Post of Canada / Oh, I see the reason you didn't want to provide a reason whether it was the Jones Act or the EPA, it still puts a stain on the incompetant Obama Regime.
on November 13,2011 | 10:46AM
OldDiver wrote:
Heh, changing the subject is an admission you are wrong.
on November 13,2011 | 03:02PM
tiki886 wrote:
First of all,The Jones Act was written to help injured seamen. Additionally, the Jones Act ensures that the U.S. keeps and maintains fleet of ships staffed by U.S. crews and owned by U.S. companies. What does this law have to do transportation of goods between ports whether it is transported by foreign or domestic ships? So what is the reason that Obama refused the help of our allies? - "Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico." - Financial Post of Canada / Oh, I see the reason you didn't want to provide a reason whether it was the Jones Act or the EPA, it still puts a stain on the incompetant Obama Regime.
on November 13,2011 | 10:47AM
Pacej001 wrote:
OD doesn't trouble himself with research. Here's the product of 15 minutes. After plowing through hundreds of posts defending Obama's failure to issue a blanket waiver of the Jones act for the BP spill, I found an interesting nugget. A US company called Allegiance Capital, representing foreign shipping companies with up to 25 oil skimmers, filed a Jones Act waiver request during the spill. This was at a time when the muddled cleanup effort desperately needed skimmers. As far as I can tell, this waiver request was never acted upon by the US government. There's some indication that BP might have been part of the problem, but no excuse for not opening that door. Congressional testimony: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg68023/html/CHRG-111shrg68023.htm. Search for Allegiance Capital in the text.
on November 13,2011 | 12:57PM
OldDiver wrote:
All you have to do is google what the head of the Coast Guard was saying at the time. In fact the Advertiser also ran a story with time lines an facts to show Charles Djou was making up his story on Republican TV (Fox News) about the Jones Act an the BP oil disaster. I know this won't stop the right wingers from making up stories about the Jones Act.
on November 13,2011 | 03:08PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Read the testimony at the link. There was an acute shortage of skimmers. This proposal offered to address that shortage, but the Obama administration slow rolled the Jones Act waiver and never acted on it.
on November 13,2011 | 03:33PM
tiki886 wrote:
Look, telling lies will not keep you in business for very long. Ask the owners and producers of the defunct "Air America". No one thought that communism and raising taxes was very entertaining.
on November 13,2011 | 04:11PM
Pacej001 wrote:
As usual, your FNDS (Fox News Derangement Syndrome) goes before fact and rational thought, but thanks for the reminder of the leadership disaster that was Mr. Obgama's management of the BP oil spill. Feckless, disorganized, painfully slow, politicized. Any mid-grade military officer would have been better equipped to organize and lead an interagency response than our president. Jones Act? A blanket waiver should have been issued IMMEDIATELY after the BP spill with discretion to use it delegated to the on scene commander. This is a fundamental principle of crisis management, delegate the authority and resources as far down the chain when an emergency arises. But no, Mr. Obama's keystone cops to include the Secy of Energy fuddled around with a urgent environmental matter like two professors discussing Greek history. Disgusting and unsettling when you consider that one of those two is commander-in-chief of the military with thousands of nukes at his disposal.
on November 13,2011 | 12:08PM
tiki886 wrote:
(The 20 days in 2005 was in response to hurricane Katrina's devastation)
on November 13,2011 | 10:16AM
wiliki wrote:
Jack Arnest is being inconsistent in opposing the Kakaako high rise and saying that people need housing near work. Downtown Honolulu is the center of business and govt in Hawaii as well as being close to the tourism industry. Most of the people who buy the affordable housing in the building will be working in any of those three sectors. We can only preserve our ag areas by building up and not spreading outward from Honolulu. Let's keep the country country.
on November 13,2011 | 07:07AM
false wrote:
And where does the water come from to support this high rise expansion? And how is it that commercial, condo and townhouse communities pay less per unit of water than single family dwellings? Where is the equity of resource management for the future? Like my tutu man said, "Cha!".
on November 13,2011 | 07:33AM
Peacenik wrote:
They pay less for water because of the lack of necessity of readers to read multiple meters and multiple bills to be sent out. Labor costs is high in Hawaii, so less employees equals more savings. Water going to these highrise will also be needed if it goes to single family dwellings, in fact, more, needed to keep lawns green.
on November 13,2011 | 07:51AM
tiki886 wrote:
You make the mistake of assuming that 800 new units would increase the demand on our water supply. The people who will occupy these units are currently living somewhere on this island aren't they? If a small percentage are foreignors or investors from the mainland, they will have to rent it out to locals if they are not going to live in Honolulu fulltime. And if they use the unit as a "2nd home", they will use even less water and resources.
on November 13,2011 | 08:49AM
tiki886 wrote:
You make the mistake of assuming that 800 new units would increase the demand on our water supply. The people who will occupy these units are currently living somewhere on this island aren't they? If a small percentage are foreignors or investors from the mainland, they will have to rent it out to locals if they are not going to live in Honolulu fulltime. And if they use the unit as a "2nd home", they will use even less water and resources.
on November 13,2011 | 08:50AM
tiki886 wrote:
You make the mistake of assuming that 800 new units would increase the demand on our water supply. The people who will occupy these units are currently living somewhere on this island aren't they? If a small percentage are foreignors or investors from the mainland, they will have to rent it out to locals if they are not going to live in Honolulu fulltime. And if they use the unit as a "2nd home", they will use even less water and resources.
on November 13,2011 | 08:50AM
false wrote:
It's more like "Build It" and they will come. Hawai`i sells internationally and that's why property values are so high that our children cannot afford to stay, to buy to live on the sands of their birth.
on November 13,2011 | 02:21PM
tiki886 wrote:
"Build it and who will come"? Developers do not gamble on foreignors and investors from the mainalnd. They already know who's going to buy before they spend $1 dollar of their own money unlike government bureaucrats who will spend without any responsibility or knowledge of the consequnces of their actions. You make it sound like building a school will only fill up with more children. So not building any more schools a good form of birth control?
on November 13,2011 | 02:44PM
wiliki wrote:
Yes Hawaiian real estate is a hot investment. Why is that? Because they like the weather. So we have a choice of building up or using up valuable ag land is spreading outwards. Our kids can afford to stay here if we had the jobs that they could take. But that wont keep people from moving here. So we need to keep building for providing affordable housing for locals.
on November 13,2011 | 03:40PM
pakeheat wrote:
So wiliki, what is affordable housing? Give us your price range?
on November 13,2011 | 06:13PM
polekasta wrote:
I find your comment funny wiliki, You talk about keep the country, country, and preserving our Ag lands, yet you're a rail advocate who promotes rail from Kapolei along the Ewa plains, which will do nothing about traffic and only promote building homes on the most productive Ag lands Oahu has.
on November 13,2011 | 08:57PM
Kuniarr wrote:
The comment of Jack Arnest is about the "need for more reasonably priced apartments to be developed in Kakaako". In conjunction with this logic, Arnest criticizes is the concept of the developers "to build these overly tall high-end towers with units that are not affordable by the working people who need access to housing in urban Honolulu." In other words Arnest has no objection to your "Let's keep the country country" by building up. His objection is that working people who need access to housing in urban Honolulu need more reasonably priced apartments that working people can afford when developers "build up" as per your philosophy. Arnest in my view is consistent in opposing the Kakaako high rise, i.e, the building of units that are not affordable by the working people who need access to housing in urban Honolulu. In other words, what Arnest is saying is that if we build up as in the Kakaako high rise, let it be made affordable by working people.
on November 13,2011 | 01:51PM
Kuniarr wrote:
The thing about the concept that because corporations are mostly the ones involved in activities in a Trade Agreement - "the agreements proposed in the name of free trade benefit only a few" as vocalized by John Heidel - overlooks the fact that what benefits a single corporation may benefit thousands upon thousands and not "only a few". For a corporation is owned by hundreds or thousands of small investores (such as corporation shares in 401K of workers). Not only is a corporation owned by many shareholders but also has many workers or employees.
on November 13,2011 | 09:16AM
islandsun wrote:
Developers cannot be trusted, never could. They have to be scrutinized all the way and held accountable. Mr. Train Jr. is not a capable mayor and wont look out for anyone but himself.
on November 13,2011 | 09:37AM
Peacenik wrote:
Mr. Train Jr. is looking out for the Leeward residents who get stuck in traffick 1-2 hours each way. It was figured into the 2nd City Kapolei project which will eventually benefit those in Mililani stimulate growth there, opening up more affordable housing for more small or medium size businesses. In the overall picture all Oahu will benefit by the "Train", especially the future generations.
on November 13,2011 | 01:22PM
pakeheat wrote:
Leeward residents will still be in congestion and not "STUCK" in traffic when rail is built. The benefits will not help all residents on Oahu as you say, you cannot predict behavior patterns on human beings.
on November 13,2011 | 06:19PM
Peacenik wrote:
Those who refuse to change will. They will have an option. You continuously gripe about proposed housing being unaffordable. Rail will allow low-rise homes in Kapolei, Mililani to be built on a larger scale and affordable, now that the residents who move there will have an option to use the rail or get stuck in traffic using their cars. Are you thinking of the future?
on November 13,2011 | 06:35PM
pakeheat wrote:
Yes, I do think about the future and how rail will impact us financially. Can you say 5 billion dollars a drop in the bucket when we have many other problems not yet being addressed? An option, so what? does this mean people will get out of their comfort of their cars and use rail? You cannot predict behavior of every person out there. You talk boldly about low-rise homes being affordable, what is a affordable price Peacenik? $350.000.00? Many options are out there Peacenik, but unfortunately was never ever given the chance to be heard. Slow down on growth on the West Side, have them work and live out there without commuting into town, that is the best way to start, instead of ramming this rail as the answer.
on November 13,2011 | 07:58PM
Peacenik wrote:
PH, where do you propose the affordable houses you want to be built and by whom? Do you propose affordable single family dwellings to be built in Honolulu, where? What are your proposals? You oppose the Kakaako hi-rise as unaffordable. Those who have condos can sell their's at an affordable price and use it to upgrade to newer condos, but you have to have somewhere to upgrade to. Not everyone wants to move to the Westside but for those who do, provide them with options.
on November 13,2011 | 09:53PM
pakeheat wrote:
Peacenik, you didn't answer my questions, what is affordable price for housing? There is no such thing as affordable anymore, let's look at the development of the homes proposed at Kapolei, what are the prices? Yes, I oppose the Kakaako hi rise as unaffordable, give me your reasons why it is affordable and to whom? Let's get real Peacenik, you know for a fact with high cost of land, high labor costs, materials being shipped from the mainland, and greed is major reasons why homes are so expensive. If you are going to build affordable homes, then do it. You talk about those who have condos can sell their condos at an affordable price, who are you kidding? Those that sell will try to get their units sold at market price, where in the hell you coming from? For example: If you bought a two-bedroom condo in town for $250,000.00 and made improvements since living there, and when you sell it would you sell it for the same price? Yes, I don't disagree with your statement that you can use this to upgrade, but you didn't make your unit that you sold affordable anymore. You say not everyone wants to move to the West Side, if you do and work into town, then expect your commute to be a long one, and don't grumble. Rail will not be for everyone, so therefore, it will not reduce congestion to make an impact on traffic.
on November 14,2011 | 07:07AM
Kuniarr wrote:
The problem here is that those who keep talking about being stuck in traffic 1-2 hours do not realize that spending $5.1 billion for infrastructure projects to eliminate traffic congestion would be much better than spending that $5.1 billion for Train which by the way will not bring traffic relief.
on November 13,2011 | 06:29PM
Kalli wrote:
Too bad Chuck Larsen can't read. Tim Tuckers article said that Haseko had not kept it's promises to the community. The fact that Seagull schools made a deal with Haseko has nothing to do with the broken promises Haseko made to the community. It sounds more like Chuck Larsen is still kissing up to Haseko at the expense of the community, what a sad civic lesson to provide to his students.
on November 13,2011 | 12:19PM
tiki886 wrote:
Ha, ha, ha...nice try Kalli. Are you now for the 1% who want a Marina to park their yachts?
on November 13,2011 | 12:59PM
nitestalker3 wrote:
no, but a marina to provide the jobs and homes that were promised by haseko. in their early briefings to get the community on their side they stated that ocean point and the marina would increase the population in ewa beach by 100%, an additional 18,000 people with sustainable jobs at the marina, markets, shopping centers, etc and that they would be responsible for aleveating any and all traffic problems by fixing the road infrastructure up to h-1. actually all they've done is increase the population without providing the marina or jobs and our taxes upgraded ft weaver road, not haseko's promised money.
on November 13,2011 | 02:05PM
tiki886 wrote:
Fair enough. Where is it in the sales disclosure documents that the developer was obligated to provide such amenities? It should be an violation that could and should be enforcable by law. In which case, I am on your side. I know Royal Kunia (Castle & Cooke) had a planned golf course for many years but it is still a dirt patch. How did they get away with that?
on November 13,2011 | 02:34PM
wiliki wrote:
But of course, they tried. With significant opposition in the community, it cannot be done. Just look at Turtlebay expansion and the Marriott hotel in Laie. Unless there is significant support for a marina for boats, it wont get done.
on November 13,2011 | 03:47PM
cctt wrote:
Now you know what it was all about. It wasn't about rail at all, it was about development. Now they can justify so-called "Transit Oriented Development." Fool you.
on November 13,2011 | 05:14PM
pakeheat wrote:
Right on cctt!
on November 14,2011 | 07:09AM
IN OTHER NEWS