Amendment favors corporate farming

On the surface, state Constitutional amendment No. 2, "relating to agricultural enterprises," seems sound, even progressive, and intended to grow the state’s agricultural output. Digging beneath the surface, however, it proves to be what the left calls "corporate welfare" and the right "crony capitalism."

The amendment would provide below-market-rate special purpose revenue bonds to any corporation engaged in agriculture in Hawaii.Well, no wonder corporate lobbies like the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii and the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation are drooling over the possibility.The net economic effectwould be small, with more sustainable farmers being elbowed out of competition by powerful export-driven industrial agriculture, which hasprime access to credit markets.

The Hawaii Legislature established Important Agricultural Lands to preserve the most fertile land in the hands of small family farmers.Amendment 2 applies unnecessary economic pressure that could harm theviability of IAL farms.Please support sustainable small-scale agriculture by voting "No" on 2.

Richard Weigel
Salt Lake

Public can fix mess by going to polls

"Our state is in a quagmire." This sentence started Frances Nakaoka’s letter (Star-Advertiser, Oct. 20), and her letter really summed up the quagmire beautifully.

She closed with, "We need leadership that will fix the mess we’re in."

And how’s that done?The community and our village need to get involved, and what better way than the upcoming election on Nov. 4?

Vote, people, vote.Take the time to read about the issues.

What are the constituents’ platforms?How will decisions affect you and your family, now and in the future?What impact will the statewide initiatives have on us?

Get informed and then prayerfully make an effort to do the constitutional thing and vote.

Linda Iverson
Moiliili

Preschool measure is questionable

Once again voters are being asked to vote on a ballot measure that has yet to be defined or assured of funding.

If preschool for 4-year-olds is not going to be part of Hawaii’s Department of Education system, there are too many unanswered questions.

» Will all 4-year-olds be able to attend near their homes?

» Will some children attend free (as with public schools) and some pay? Who decides?

» If the state is to outsource this portion of public education, who will ensure that teachers are qualified and programs are equal? A few preschools do little more than babysitting.

»How will this be cheaper than adding a year of preschool to all elementary schools?

Voters need more information.

Duane and Sarah Preble
Manoa

Endorsement favored Lethem

Your endorsement in the Brickwood Galuteria vs. Chris Lethem Senate race raises questions as to which candidate you really prefer ("Incumbents in state Senate tough to beat," Star-Advertiser, Our View, Oct. 20).

You support Galuteria as the incumbent, but list criticisms of him that challenger Lethem has raised throughout the campaign.

You point out that Galuteria:

» Puts the interests of OHA above those of residents;

» Fought for Senate approval of OHA’s plan for residential units in Kakaako, a plan that "should not be resurrected"; and

» Strives to keep Native Hawaiian issues at the forefront of public policy, but needed to heed "broader concerns."

At the same time, you note that Lethem has mounted an "aggressive challenge" that places residents’ concerns ahead of the district’s "rapid development."

You go on to say that the software expert with a military background is waging a "spirited campaign," one that "taps into frustration over the pace and scope" of Kakaako’s development.

Lethem’s supporters will be delighted over this endorsement-by-comparison.

Richard W. Baker
Hawaii Kai

Name-calling harms civilized discourse

In a free society, one can express his or her opinion. In a civilized society, an opinion is treated with respect and consideration.

It concerns me when a part of our society states, "Which clowns and what idiots want the Obama library built in Hawaii?" ("Obama library built here would be a burden," Star-Advertiser, Letters, Oct. 20).

When a part of our society resorts to name-calling, it give the impression that there are some who feel they are intellectually superior to others. Therefore, they call them clowns and idiots. In a civilized society, we can agree to disagree. We exchange differing opinions, views or thoughts without condescension or degradation. That’s civilization.

When I read a letter to the editor like this, I begin to wonder if society has progressed or regressed. Given a letter like this, society has taken a step backwards.

Robert K. Soberano
Moiliili

Don’t charge for unwanted channels

The article on video streaming services in the Star-Advertiser highlights a blossoming problem ("Costs add up for a la carte," Star-Advertiser, Oct. 21).

There are two things needed in Hawaii. Competition is one, which is not adequate nor will it be with single-source services. The other is regulation. TV sources such as Time-Warner Cable or DirectTV should be regulated so that they do not force people to pay for hundreds of channels they never watch.

The cost of a channel to the cable company plus a reasonable service fee and profit, spread over those customers who want the channel, is what the charge should be. No doubt many of the hundreds of channels we are now forced to pay for would simply not be offered because the few people who want them would find them just too expensive. But that is what a free market is all about. These charges based on desired channels should be subject to audit and public report at least annually.

Jim Pollock
Kaneohe