HTA chief should apologize to public

While it is a great relief to hear that the censored Hans Ladislaus mural at the Hawaii Convention Center has been uncloaked and will not be removed from the site, it is still very troubling that Hawaii Tourism Authority President Mike McCartney has not publicly stepped forward to acknowledge that it was solely his poor judgment to unilaterally decide to allow the censorship cloaking in the first place that caused the bigger dispute.

McCartney did not have any right to make this decision, since all of the art in the convention center belongs to the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, which was not consulted on this matter.

In a previous interview with KITV reporter Catherine Cruz, McCartney boldly defended his decision, but in the wake of the fallout of that decision he has not made any attempt to respond to the media, or others of us from the community, on this matter.

McCartney owes us an apology for aiding and abetting the censorship of publicly owned art work.

Nanette Napoleon
Kailua

Prevalence of PV actually helps HECO

The issue of fairness to those who don’t own photovoltaic solar energy systems was again raised in recent letters.

The non-PV customers do not have heavy capital outlays, pay insurance costs or have other maintenance concerns, so it’s unlikely they are being disadvantaged.

Commonly overlooked is the positive revenue Hawaiian Electric Co. receives from the excess electrical power we generate that is confiscated without recompense.

The power we do not use is then resold to other HECO customers. HECO has no capital outlays, fuel costs or other major expenses to generate this excess electricity, and except for minor accounting and system expenses, its net profit is close to the gross revenue received.

Perhaps this free income HECO acquires could be accumulated to fund additional equipment costs for neighborhoods where PV saturation is taxing the existing facilities.

If such funds are sufficient to cover the costs of this new equipment, balance is maintained for all HECO customers.

Dick Morris
Hawaii Kai

Proposed tower needed by many

After reading the letter from Grace Ishihara, which opposed the application for the second tower at 801 South St. (a workforce housing project), I felt I had to respond, as this project would help me in buying an affordable condominium ("HCDA ignoring its own rules," Star-Advertiser, Letters, Sept. 21).

I have been saving for years, but still cannot afford the high prices of condominiums in Kakaako.But 801 South St. is affordably priced for people like me, and I was fortunate to qualify for the affordable housing units for the first tower.

Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain a unit and I am now waiting for the second tower.

I truly hope this second tower is approved and built, as this will give me an opportunity to own my first home.

There are thousands like me. Please give us a chance.

Robert Loo
Niu Valley

Voters were misled on ’98 amendment

Richard Borreca reported that 70 percent of Hawaii voters said "yes" to the 1998 amendment: "Shall the Legislature have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples?" ("Constitutional amendment on marriages stirs questions," Star-Advertiser, On Politics, Sept. 15).

Retired Justice Steven Levinson discussed the reasons the Legislature proposed the amendment ("’98 amendment was very clear," Star-Advertiser, Letters, Sept. 18).

In reading both the wording of the amendment and the intent of the Legislature, I believe the public was deceived. If, indeed, the intent of the amendment was to give the Legislature the power to decide the question of marriage equality, then the amendment should have said so.

Unless sensible clarification is provided, I believe the Constitution must be revisited once more before gay marriages are considered by the Legislature because if given a vote, I believe the public would vote "no" to gay marriages.

Richard Chang
Salt Lake

Church weddings should be private

The current ongoing debate about same-sex marriage made me wonder how things would have turned out if the nation accepted the notion put forth by a couple of the Founding Fathers that there should be a separation of church and state.

Marriages would be limited to churches as a religious rite, whereas government unions would be classified as civil unions. Churches would set the requirements for participation in their activities but would not be able to interfere with the rights of individuals regarding government matters.

Religion is a matter between the individual and his God. While it’s allowable to try to convert an individual to one’s ownfaith, no one should interfere with anyone of differing beliefs.

Melvyn Masuda
Waialae

Pope’s comments on gays welcomed

It was with a profound sense of hope and gladness that I read the recent news reports of Pope Francis’s recent comments on gay marriage and abortion.

His belief that the Catholic Church should not interfere with the spiritual lives of gay men and women may well be regarded as a turning point in the church’s efforts to marginalize gay men and women.

Marriage, as the church has been fond of saying, is, first and foremost, a spiritual union. Why then does the Hawaii Catholic Diocese continue on its track of demonizing gay men and women who wish to solemnize their commitment to each other, both civilly and spiritually?

Lyle Roe
Ewa Beach