Quantcast

Thursday, July 24, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 71 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Group pushes for repeal of PLDC

On a website the Sierra Club points to candidates who agree or disagree

By Derrick DePledge

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 08:25 a.m. HST, Nov 01, 2012

2012 August 29 CTY - Some 25 or so members of hotel union Local 5 lined Beretania Street near Punchbowl on Wedesday afternoon to show their oppostion to the Public Land Development Corporation. Here, Local 5 member Amanda Ibanez shouted "Keep the Country Country". HSA PHOTO BY GEORGE F. LEE

The Sierra Club Hawaii Chapter has called for repeal of the Public Land Development Corp. and has begun a campaign to target state lawmakers who have supported the law.

Robert Harris, the Sierra Club's director, said Wednesday the group favors a repeal because the PLDC has not adopted suggestions to strengthen environmental protection in its administrative rules.

The group, among other things, wants the PLDC to stipulate that development projects that could cause adverse environmental problems would not move forward unless such effects are mitigated.

The Sierra Club has moved beyond a public policy debate about the PLDC and into political advocacy.

The group and other opponents have created a website, GrandTheftAina.com, that identifies where state House and Senate candidates in the general election Tuesday stand on repealing the law.

A red "X" appears next to the names of candidates who oppose a repeal, while a green checkmark appears next to those who favor a repeal.

The Hawaii and Kauai County Councils have also called for a repeal of the law, as have several lawmakers who voted to create the PLDC last year.

Harris said he believes opposition to the PLDC is growing and includes legislators who no longer want to be associated with the idea "because they're afraid that there may be a political consequence."

Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who has supported the PLDC for its potential to develop partnerships with private businesses for schools, housing, long-term care and early childhood education, described the Sierra Club's "grand theft aina" slogan as a "verbal assault."

"Excuse me, grand theft? Do they think that's cute? Do they think that helps enlighten anybody?" the governor asked. "It's clearly the kind of in-the-dirt politics that I guess some people think is a way to gain favorable public opinion."

Abercrombie said the motivation behind the PLDC is to help the state generate revenue. "What do they have mind?" he asked. "When is there going to be something coming from the Sierra Club other than saying ‘no' to whatever it is?"

The PLDC, which has broad exemptions from land use and county zoning laws and construction standards, has yet to develop a single project. The agency has scheduled a public hearing for Nov. 13 on new draft administrative rules.

The initial draft was criticized as inadequate at public hearings last summer that were dominated by calls from environmental, progressive and labor organizations to repeal the law.

Abercrombie has said previously that he would veto a repeal. But he gave himself more tactical leeway Wednesday.

"We'll have to see how all that plays out, in terms of vetoes or anything," he said. "I don't think we're anywhere near that."

The Sierra Club also announced that in addition to the website, it will finance direct mail about the PLDC to help at least three candidates: Nicole Lowen, a Sierra Club board member running as a Demo­crat for an open House seat in West Hawaii; Laura H. Thielen, a former DLNR director who has made opposition to the PLDC a theme of her Demo­cratic campaign for a Windward and East Hono­lulu Senate seat; and Keiko Bonk, a Green Party candidate who wants to topple House Speaker Calvin Say from his long-held Palolo-Kaimuki seat.

The mailer aimed at Say accuses the speaker of "pay-to-play politics" for accepting campaign contributions from developers, lobbyists, contractors, ironworkers and carpenters who could benefit from PLDC projects.

Harris acknowledged that "in some ways maybe we're sending a message" to House leadership. A dissident faction, including several lawmakers close to the Sierra Club, has for years sought to replace Say as speaker.

"We hope that whoever the next speaker is would be somebody who would be willing to meet with us and work with us, which is something that did not happen last year," Harris said.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 71 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(71)
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.
mellishi wrote:
...good-bye and aloha Neil ---your colors are now showing!
on November 1,2012 | 02:40AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
I find Harris' stance similar to PRP - let's pull down Calvin Say, he's never worked with us (like this is going to help the Sierra Club if he wins)(or even if he loses)(which begs the question: if I was heading that organization, and I had to work with the legislature next year and the year after that, I'd be afraid that Harris just started a fight that won't end soon). I find his comments similarly outrageous, tailored to bring media attention to the max, to put down his opposition, to use hyperbolic, OUTRAGEOUS statements that prevent discourse or cut off discussion. Is this the organization dedicated to perserving the peace and harmony that living in a beautiful place brings? I'd say not. I'd say he and John White have a lot in common: salt the earth, dance on the graves of thy enemies, and spend a lot of other people's money. Sorry, if I had 2 cents, I'd give it to an organization with better leadership. Unless starting fights is good leadership.
on November 1,2012 | 12:31PM
johndoe wrote:
agree
on November 1,2012 | 02:02PM
false wrote:
What I don't get is that the "environmentalists" keep voting Democrat, and the one party Democrat tyrants do what they want anyway. Might as well just vote for Caldwell too.
on November 1,2012 | 03:10AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
It probably is just me, but I find that this article is news, but also advocacy. It is politically favorable to the Sierra Club in a HUGE way. Gives their website. Copies the prose from it telling voters how to vote. The colors. The 'x's. Pretty neat, if you want to get out your vote. But what about if you're opposing these guys? No mention of you or your website. Is that evidence of a bias in favor of the Sierra Club, as an institution? Looks like it. Is there any balance to the article - by getting an offsetting quote from Calvin Say? Is it also evidence that the reporter ran the article long in order to tell us how to vote, and where to get that info from? I'd say so. Or say he was happy to copy and paste, aka LAZY. IMHO this article reeks. If I was the editor, I'd be ashamed, as this is totally unbalanced.It is a total puff piece for Nicole Lowen, a Sierra Club board member. And if I was running against her, I'd say the paper is unfair. And I'd protest. This is unacceptable, for a paper purporting to be fair, and asking for protection under the Constitution of free speech. So, please SA, don't talk to me about corruption in others. If I was your publisher, I'd be so stoked, because look at the big blog below. Gets him your eyeballs and then sells it to his advertisers. Linda Lingle and her big banners. Yuck
on November 1,2012 | 01:37PM
bender wrote:
Abercrombie may be right about the Sierra Club saying no quite often. But he absolutely wrong to continue to support PLDC. I guess he forgets his roots because he would have been one of the nay sayers in his salad days.
on November 1,2012 | 05:44AM
bender wrote:
What is ironic about this whole situationi is that Cynthia Thielen wanted to do something very simillar but not to the same extent as PLDC allows when she headed DLNR. The legislature rightfully shot it down. But when one of their own (Donovan Dela Cruz and Gov Abercrombie) come up with the same idea but with even more development, then it's full speed ahead. Kind of makes the legislature a bunch of hypocrites on the subject.
on November 1,2012 | 06:57AM
nonpolitic wrote:
I think you mean Laura Thielen.
on November 1,2012 | 08:03AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
Funny. Maybe there is somethign good about the idea. And maybe this is the silly season of election, when anyone will say anything to get elected/re-elected
on November 1,2012 | 10:23AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
Good point. Question: would you support the idea if it was done right? Then, to beg the question, who would be the right one to do it right? Or not at all?
on November 1,2012 | 12:03PM
leeakui wrote:
Abercrombie has forgotten where his political roots are. He has morphed into another political hack who believes he can get his way by bullying, and his remark regarding enlightenment; when was the last time any politician enlightened the constituency. The Sierra Club as well as the Outdoor Circle have indeed opposed many projects but thanks to their advocacy Hawai'i doesn't look like the mainland, marred by billboards everywhere. At least not yet! As the late Russell Means had said, "Never sell off the land." Consequently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Lakota and returned the Black Hills to the American Indian.
on November 1,2012 | 06:12AM
allie wrote:
yup...he is Mufi II. You know, the phony "man of the people" who bullied and threatened his way into infamy with his terrible rail plan and shibai
on November 1,2012 | 09:53AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
Actually, I disagree. The gov is truely trying to help the less fortunate. You should listen to him, rather than read the paper and take at face value the oposiiton. It's them that's cstering to the white wine liberals - where they get their contributions
on November 1,2012 | 10:21AM
holumuahawaii wrote:
The Sierra Club threatens people, bullies them, tells outrageous lies about them, and wonders, "Whre's the love?" it attempts to destroy those who it cannot bully and then complains that it cannot get it's message through to to those that survive the political onslaught. If it really wanted to be successful, and not just loud, it would smarten up and start working with legislators rather than attacking, belittling, disparaging, and criticizing them. But then maybe the Governor is right. Maybe all they want is attention for opposing everything.
on November 1,2012 | 06:41AM
LL808 wrote:
Maybe it is the Gov that is the Bully this time around!!!! Don't you think?
on November 1,2012 | 07:14AM
allie wrote:
yes, we do
on November 1,2012 | 09:54AM
sccoutt wrote:
No, we don't.
on November 1,2012 | 10:04AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
Nope. Harris did the threatening. And got an article in the press for free. And made this a good vs evil thing, when it's not. But it's a great way for him to make a big pitch to the white wine liberals for money. To pay his salary.
on November 1,2012 | 10:35AM
sccoutt wrote:
Right on, holumuahawaii. I'm not an Abercrombie supporter, nor am I pro-Sierra Club. But I have to say, I'm glad the Governor is saying it like it is.
on November 1,2012 | 10:06AM
LanaUlulani wrote:


While their website is great... they do not even mention Hawaiians. This is NOT public lands. MY kupuna never ceded any of their land to ANYONE, to any entity, or to any American government.

Too bad the Sierra Club do not even mention Hawaiians!!!


on November 1,2012 | 07:02AM
allie wrote:
sorry hon. You are wrong. The lands art public and belong to all citizens. Hawaiians are part of that but not all.
on November 1,2012 | 09:54AM
Leinanij wrote:
It was recognized almost immediately after annexation that the "ceded lands" which the illegal Republic of Hawai'i granted to the United States should not be merged with the other public lands of the United States and that they should not be freely disposed of. So those lands are "in trust" for the Hawaiian people and while all of Hawai'i benefits from the revenue off those lands now, when the the sovereign government of Hawai'i is reinstated, those lands will be returned to them.
on November 1,2012 | 12:20PM
saveparadise wrote:
Wow! If what you say is true the US government will never reinstate the sovereign government of Hawai'i nor recognize a claimed existence of it. The lands would be returned to who? How would anyone be able to determine ownership? Not looking for debate but information on the subject. Thanks.
on November 1,2012 | 12:39PM
DiverDave wrote:
That's funny Lana! The majority of the elected members of the Republic of Hawaii were Polynesians and voted unanimously for annexation. The first act of the 1903 Polynesian dominated Territorial Congress was to unanimously ask the U.S.Congress for full Statehood. This was presented to the U.S. Congress by Hawaii's Representative, Prince Kuhio Kalaniana'ole a Polynesian-Hawaiian. There were many races that were part of Hawaii not just Polynesians. Stop telling people that lived at the time what they wanted, when obviously their actions say they wanted something else.
on November 1,2012 | 12:53PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
The Governor persists in pushing the PLDC when the people of Hawaii don't want it and don't like it. The PLDC makes for too cozy relationships between the developers (who seem to get everything they ever ask for) and public properties. There are no adequate protections built in....they want to start on projects before there is a set of rules!

The PLDC is a bad, bad thing for Hawaii. Governor Abercrombie...listen to the people! Repeal Act 55! Get rid of this terrible plan and save Hawaii public lands.


on November 1,2012 | 07:17AM
saveparadise wrote:
You are soooo right on this one Neko. PRP and the rail groups are also very dangerous because of the evil money they throw around to buy politicians.
on November 1,2012 | 08:30AM
allie wrote:
agreed
on November 1,2012 | 09:55AM
yhls wrote:
Right on, Sierra Club. While were at it, we'll get rid of Abercrombie too. Thanks for the great Web site. Are you reading this legislators? Those few of us who actually read and vote are voting you out of office.
on November 1,2012 | 07:25AM
saveparadise wrote:
Right on yhls! Abercrombie also "Grand Thefted" the State Emergency Fund and the Hurricane Relief Funds. Next!! Let's keep getting new politicians in until we get good ones that do not cater to their special interest backers!
on November 1,2012 | 08:26AM
saveparadise wrote:
"Grand Theft Aina" is exactly correct Mr. Abercrombie. Do you find the public so ignorant? Maybe since you somehow got elected. Hopefully that will not happen a second time. I admire and support the politicians that are willing to abolish these committees designed to be bought and catered to by developers. It is obvious PLDC was created to skirt laws that protect the aina.
on November 1,2012 | 08:19AM
MakaniKai wrote:
Abs please take the PLDC, Dela Cruz with his (kukae eating grin) and others who support it to your homeland of New York State where you can develop and make money to your heart’s content. Leave us and the aina alone. And…..IMO Neil hasn’t forgotten his political roots, smart dis buggah! he knew he could continue at the public trough as long as he get one D aftah his name. Haven’t voted for him in years! Mahalo and Aaaaaloha!
on November 1,2012 | 08:50AM
allie wrote:
yup
on November 1,2012 | 09:55AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
The simple truth is that we, the people of Hawaii, have been through worst economic downturn in recent memory, And it shows : Reduce services, increased wear and tear of public facilities, staffing overload at all levels of government. Even before this, there was a lot of land owned by the public that was not cared for, nor was it use to benefit the public. so the idea of upgrading the land, through development, and reaping some of the value that was created in this upgrade, Came about. So, the state, which is the biggest landowner and Hawaii, acted responsibly - and this governor, went a step further: you pass the legislature for permission. And they gave it to him. Unique obligations to the general public, by getting money for selling the land. there is no grand theft. There are public watchdogs all over the place. And the people who stand to make the most money are us. all of us. Even those not on welfare. We get to see nicer land, buildings that are taken care of, homeless off the street. With those words, I find Mr. Harris to be a self serving hypocrite, another missionary trying to sell us snake oil, and gain from it. this words help his fundraising, no end. But his words tear away at what is truthful in the public discourse, and good in the public domain. I encourage him to go back to being a lawyer, and stay out of being a missionary, or TV evangelist.
on November 1,2012 | 09:16AM
allie wrote:
True,,,but we can do this with proper concern for the environment and guarantees that ALL the public will benefit. Not just hacks, unions, and insiders.
on November 1,2012 | 09:56AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
The enabling legislation of Act 55 provides developers a vast range of exemptions to the protections of our environment. Exemptions...these are the things we see given away with regularity by State agencies, witness the HCDA which kisses every developer 'elemu at the earliest opportunity despite public outrage.

The PLDC is sort of like the rail scheme: make projects inevitable by moving fast and loose. Hope that by the time folks catch on you will have spent so much money that the projects cannot be reversed. Provide a simple way for big money to get in on the ground floor with access to our most valuable public properties. And do the rape legally.

700 people have come out in the few public hearings to protest PLDC - when was the last time that many folks demonstrated they are disgusted with a specific piece of legislation? Except for those with obvious insider connections, the banks and some unions who supports this rip off of public lands?

Stop Grand Theft Aina.


on November 1,2012 | 10:13AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
The exemptions provides the state with a vast range of exemptions. So that they can get this underway, as the needs of our people, particularly the disadvantaged, are clear, present and acute. If you keep that in mind, then you understand PLDC. As for everyone being against developers and development, that's understandable. But in this case, these guys are hurting us, the people. Cuttng off your nose to spite your face.
on November 1,2012 | 10:31AM
saveparadise wrote:
I would like people to keep their noses so please enlighten us exactly how PLDC is helping the disadvantaged. Please keep in mind the economics involved. Any development profits the more fortunate due to the land value increases. Government wants this because their greatest revenue is property tax. As the rich get richer in the demographic so goes increased cost of living making it difficult for low and middle income to ever own property or adjust to skyrocketing rent. Poverty and possibly homelessness is suddenly more present.
on November 1,2012 | 11:22AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
Simple: who owns the land? The state. So they get the money in the land sale. They=we. They=we take care of the disadvantaged, so there's more money for that. More than there was before the land was sold.Second: and thanks for the tax base concept: the land the state owned, say the old school up in Palolo is vacant, there's no tax revenue. But there's tax money being spent on security, insurance, groundskeeping, etc. So there's money out. Say you put up workforce housing on that parcel. Then the tax base goes WAY up. The expenditure of our tax money for insurance, etc., goes away - goes to other needy uses. So win-win. Economically.
on November 1,2012 | 12:10PM
saveparadise wrote:
Sorry, we live on an island with finite land ownership. Tax and revenue money is allocated only by approved legislative budgets. No guarantees of where it goes. I already stated that increase in land values due to development impoverishes the low and middle income. INCREASED property taxes and in turn INCREASED rents do not benefit the lower classes by any twisted logic. Purchases and development for profitable resale benefit only the developers and those financially fortunate enough to be able to invest in. The temporary facade is that there are jobs. But the process must be repeated to sustain itself. Land is finite on an island. Simple fix? I don't think so.
on November 1,2012 | 12:32PM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
Anything wrong with us having flat tax rate, but more homes? Then you get a bigger pie. That's how housing helps. And if these homes are workforce homes that house more of our kids, or more akamai transplants, then maybe we grow the whole pie. Land is finite doesn't mean don't let anymore people on the island, lest it sink. Finite land also should mean we care for what we have, and not just let it fall apart or don't do anything productive for it.
on November 1,2012 | 01:16PM
saveparadise wrote:
mr./ms. cheapseats, your intentions seem good. Hold your chin up high and vote for the candidates for who you feel will look to sustain a good quality of life for all. Don't be fooled and don't take things for face value. Read all the information you can get and don't argue for the sake of conversation and to pass time. Thank you for your opinion.
on November 1,2012 | 01:30PM
Imagen wrote:
@from_da_cheapseats: Your position is a noble one but in "thought" only. The State (and City) government have no intentions of taking care of the very people for which it serves; doing what is best for the whole, and NOT the few. I'd much prefer the government actually taking the time to study what impact the development would have on the environment for which is sits on. "Impact" is not something to take lightly. Simply put; PLANNING is everything. Oh, and my nose is still on my face...
on November 1,2012 | 11:26AM
saveparadise wrote:
Imagen is correct. We are more interested in the whole, NOT the few and long term sustainance.
on November 1,2012 | 12:09PM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
Imagen - nothing here for us to discuss about government. Just don't walk by public housing and tell those there the gov doesn't do anything for them. Or people using public parks. You're nose is on your face, yes. But need to use what's between your ears. BTW, planning is what brought us those huge public housing projects on the mainland that citys are now changing into mixed uses.
on November 1,2012 | 12:14PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
The notion that PLDC is for the little guy ranks right up there with "trust me, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

It is all about development. The ones who benefit are developers. That is a long standing but sad tradition in our island home.

Act 55 was slipped through into law without benefit of public discussion. It is an agency that has not even drafted its rules and regulations but has identified projects and touts exemptions that would make a greedy man weep for joy.


on November 1,2012 | 11:59AM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
The state is the developer here. Of parks, harbors, public housing, etc. The state is us. So, why can't WE reuse land that has nothing good going on now for better uses. That's good stewardship. If you don't like the law, that's one thing. If you don't like development, that's another.
on November 1,2012 | 12:17PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
No, no, no....the point of the PLDC is to facilitate public/private development whereby the State leases to private firms the rights to develop certain properties. We need strong protections when this kind of arrangement is contemplated otherwise the little guy gets sacrificed to the fat cat. Public/private projects can work - if the details are thought through, plenty of sunshine and tons of public participation....and no backroom deals. Thing is, the PLDC does not provide this, it is a license for inside deals.
on November 1,2012 | 04:52PM
nonpolitic wrote:
Regarding your statement, "[t]he enabling legislation of Act 55 provides developers a vast range of exemptions to the protections of our environment," I disagree with your assessment that the enabling legislation exempts developers from environmental protection laws. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 171C-19 (the PLDC law), nowhere explicitly states an exemption from environmental protection laws while at the same time explicitly exempting the PLDC from others such as land use, zoning, etc. Absent a specific exemption, the PLDC is legally bound to comply with state environmental laws. Furthermore, the PLDC is still constitutionally bound by the restrictions placed on state agencies to comply with the conservation, control and development of resources requirements of Hawaii Constitution article XI, since state law is subordinate to the State Constitution. Mind you, I'm not saying I'm in favor of the PLDC, I'm just saying that they do still have to play by some "rules".
on November 1,2012 | 11:25AM
saveparadise wrote:
nonpolitic, then why would we need such a committee to reallocate lands? Just what are they over riding or bypassing? Sorry, I am not as informed of what the rest of the "rules" are. Thank you for the information. It is all about knowing what government is actually doing. It seems PLDC is but a shady tool for the developers.
on November 1,2012 | 12:05PM
nonpolitic wrote:
@saveparadise - you raise a very important and critical question . . . just what does that section (171C-19) allow? I think everyone has an opinion on what it does and does not allow, but no one actually knows for certain; and that is what is so disconcerting for the public. To me, what is clear is that, as written, any "grey area" development question will certainly be litigated. Additionally, based on the Hawaii Supreme Court's Superferry decision from a few years ago, I would think that any developer should be very cautious when proceeding on such an endeavor. To not do so would be at their own economic peril. Bottom line, a lot of attorneys will get a lot of work out of this law.
on November 1,2012 | 12:17PM
saveparadise wrote:
I think the bottom line is that we would be empowering more people that have less accountability to make huge decisions that would affect our future existence and the economic stability of the lower class. The cost of living is going too high and the only way we can slow it down is to slow down progress. Politicians are too easily swayed by lucrative offers behind closed doors. Every man for himself!? We must consider everyone and the environment. Thank you for sharing.
on November 1,2012 | 12:48PM
nonpolitic wrote:
What you say has merit. However, "slowing down progress" may have a negative impact on the cost of living for Hawaii residents. Take for example our housing market. Given our severe shortage of affordable housing due to the state's low housing inventory, how will citizens be able to afford housing unless more housing is built? Every economist I've come in contact with believes that the major contributor to high housing costs is the lack of housing inventory, particularly on the affordable end of the spectrum. The only other alternative if we don't build more affordable housing is to wait until more expensive housing depreciates or falls into disrepair (think Genshiro Kawamoto properties), the result of which necessitates a lower asking price for the residence. Even then, the price may not fall if surrounding property values stay high. Bottom line, a citizen's vigilance deters a politician's dalliance.
on November 1,2012 | 01:24PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
There are many problems; here are a few:

1- Projects can ignore state and county land use designations, zoning ordinances, building codes; community development plans; and other legal requirements.

2- Decisions by the PLDC require only 2 members be present and that meetings need not be open to the public in all cases.

3- The PLDC has powers to take land, terminate leases and actually place itself in an ownership control of a public/private entity; in other words, the State can go into business using public lands.

Fundamentally, the PLDC is restrained only by a "strategic plan" without any teeth and can do darn near anything it wants with little involvement of the public. It's a diseased concept. Bad for Hawaii.


on November 1,2012 | 12:09PM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
Gee, the state can go into business? Like harbors and airports? Park permitting? User fees? Or the city of Kapolei? Lots of instances - some good, some bad. Then these projects can ignore state and county ordinances. Maybe they are bad ordinances? Or all of those good ones? I'd not think the state would circumvent good ordinances. But you will now say I'm too polyanish. But talk to a public servant and they generally do a good job.
on November 1,2012 | 12:23PM
false wrote:
THis is for the Rail.
on November 1,2012 | 11:52AM
Tonia3h wrote:
This legislation somehow flew under the radar when passed. It's extremely suspect & sadly may just be all about money. Good intentions - bad implementation? Empowering an entity like the DLNR with this kind of potential money grab is wrong & dangerous. DLNR misses opportunities YESTERDAY & TODAY to work with the private commercial operations. Constantly pressing increased regulate, burdensome paperwork and a "feel" lucky we let you operate - it's completely dysfunctional. They address protection by bullying law abiding, properly permitted, use fee paying, custodians to the environment. Just check out their spending in enforcement - completely miss out on establishing a win-win-win for the DLNR- commercial users & the public - really a shame. The organization I work for spoke out on several Bills last legislative session that were all about money grabs & never heard a peep or had ACT 55 come up in searches on Bills - strange how this passed without any prior discussion .
on November 1,2012 | 09:39AM
nonpolitic wrote:
Act 55 actually passed in 2011, not 2012, so that's probably why your organization didn't speak about it and why it didn't come up in bill searches . . . it was already law.
on November 1,2012 | 11:29AM
AKULEMAN wrote:
Caldwell is a supporter of PLDC. Caldwell favors development without regards to keeping country country.
on November 1,2012 | 09:57AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Together, Kirk and his wife pull down around $1 million/year. Documented on Civil Beat right now if you care to check. Of course they are pro-PLDC! Darn near everyone with million dollar annual incomes are in favor of legislation that provides for inside deals.
on November 1,2012 | 10:16AM
Kaleo744 wrote:
Sorry Ambby you wont see another term...Il be more then happy to sing "aloha oe" to you....
on November 1,2012 | 11:16AM
false wrote:
They favor the rail and now are against PDLC. What's up?
on November 1,2012 | 11:43AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
This may be the first time unions and environmentalists have joined together to fight a plan that has development at its centerpiece. "Public Law - Public Input" was the original the battle cry. "Grand Theft Aina" is the current version. But the howls of protest are the same.
on November 1,2012 | 12:16PM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
I find Harris' stance similar to PRP - let's pull down Calvin Say, he's never worked with us (like this is going to help the Sierra Club if he wins)(or even if he loses)(which begs the question: if I was heading that organization, and I had to work with the legislature next year and the year after that, I'd be afraid that Harris just started a fight that won't end soon). I find his comments similarly outrageous, tailored to bring media attention to the max, to put down his opposition, to use hyperbolic, OUTRAGEOUS statements that prevent discourse or cut off discussion. Is this the organization dedicated to perserving the peace and harmony that living in a beautiful place brings? I'd say not. I'd say he and John White have a lot in common: salt the earth, dance on the graves of thy enemies, and spend a lot of other people's money. Sorry, if I had 2 cents, I'd give it to an organization with better leadership. Unless starting fights is good leadership.
on November 1,2012 | 12:30PM
Wonderful_World wrote:
Very well said--I'm so sick & tired of these PAC's, special interest groups, and unions, bullying their way through. No wonder bullying is such a huge problem nowadays!
on November 1,2012 | 12:57PM
Mythman wrote:
Maybe we ought not to forget the origin of the state's lands involved. These are the ceded lands. The name for those lands taken from the crown lands and deemed "government lands" and not lands owned personally by the crown or the family of the crown. These add up to the lands the chiefs and the common people were tricked out of in the maheles, where the promise to divide all the land into thirds was a promise not kept. In 1959 in the Hawaii Admission Act, the US, going against standard policy involving public land derived from Native Americans, gave title to the state with the provision that revenues from the lands fund the development of native Hawaiian homesteads. Instead the state set up the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to shortstop the money in one direction and cover the state in the other direction. These are the last undeveloped lands and they cover a vast area and what happens to these lands is the single most important issue facing Hawaii. So it is outrageous that De La Cruz would sneak a law into being with all of Hawaii in advance having a say in this. The governor is wrong on this one and it could cost him his job if he is not careful.
on November 1,2012 | 12:36PM
Mythman wrote:
Oops, should read WITHOUT all of Hawaii not with all of Hawaii
on November 1,2012 | 12:37PM
dkk wrote:
Abercrombie tries to sell PLDC with a 'trust us" mantra. Even if we did trust those currently in power, which would be a hugely naive position, PLDC as created will live long after they're all gone. Will we trust all future unknown administrations with this power? Like Mitt, Don Horner's misplaced ego will drive him to run for governor, it's what he thinks the PATH and BOE positions set him up for. Should he fool the people into voting him in, as Neil did, you can bet the farm he'll lever off of the PLDC to further the interests of big money at all of our expense. Peas in a pod those 2, huge disdain for the "natives". Wasn't that long ago our leaders did the right thing regardless of the personal cost, never forget Larry Kuriyama. Now all we have left to look out for us: Ben, Ann, Berg, Slom, Donna K.
on November 1,2012 | 01:03PM
saveparadise wrote:
They already shot at Ben's campaign HQ. For all those that are too young to know. Senator Larry Kuriyama was shot and murdered in his own Aiea home driveway with his family at home in 1970. He was killed due to political indifferences. Thank you dkk for remembering.
on November 1,2012 | 01:20PM
dkk wrote:
Bad times, those, Marsland's boy, Judge Shintaku's LV "suicide", Roy Ryder's daughter. Huihui's guys used guns, his equivalent today, John White, uses TV ads. Star Advertiser takes the role of hitman Ching, taking shots at Berg for having passion and speaking his mind...
on November 1,2012 | 01:44PM
thos wrote:
" Do they think that helps enlighten anybody?" the governor asked. "It's clearly the kind of in-the-dirt politics that I guess some people think is a way to gain favorable public opinion." What a HOOT! Aberscumbie is the KING of in the dirt politics -- he LOVES it. Take a moment to recall the succinct two word letter he sent as a member of the state house to a member of the board of education and I quote " [obscene transitive verb redacted] you." using his official House stationery.
on November 1,2012 | 03:33PM
eleu808 wrote:
A fence is an individual who knowingly buys stolen property for later resale, sometimes in a legitimate market. The fence thus acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen. As a verb, the word describes the behavior of the thief in the transaction: The burglar fenced the stolen radio. This sense of the term came from thieves' slang, first attested c. 1700, from the notion of such transactions taking place under defence of secrecy.[1] The fence is able to make a profit with stolen merchandise because he is able to pay thieves a very low price for stolen goods. The fence then disguises the stolen nature of the goods, if possible, so that he or she can sell them closer to the usual wholesale price. In the 2000s, newer "fencing operations hide from sight in legitimate businesses and show discipline and precision in their dealings".[2] Fencing is illegal in the United States and in the United Kingdom, but the "legal requirements for demonstrating that fencing has occurred are complex".[3]
on November 2,2012 | 01:42AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates