Two recent news articles illustrate the state’s dilemma in assisting those whose property is damaged or destroyed by natural disasters.

A July 1 Star-Advertiser report said 671 homes have already been destroyed by lava in Puna, and public officials have suggested that no further building be allowed where there is high risk of volcanic activity (“Ban on new construction in lava zones proposed”). Such a ban would potentially apply to 60,000 existing vacant lots on Hawaii island.

On July 5 the paper reported that 34 percent of Hawaii’s coast is at risk from higher sea levels as climate change accelerates (“34% of Hawaii’s coast at risk as climate change accelerates”). Far more valuable properties would be affected by sea level rise than by lava flows.

Politicians are suggesting that new subdivisions be created on state land and made available to those displaced by lava.

If the state is going to assist those displaced by lava, is it going to assist those displaced by rising seas? At what cost?

Randolph Moore

Makiki Heights

—

Time to redefine Native Hawaiian?

Sunday’s Star-Advertiser had two good articles in the Insight section of concern to the future of Hawaii and Native Hawaiians in particular (“Kamehameha Schools: The New Vision”; and “DHHL’s century of broken promises,” Island Voices). Both Kamehameha Schools and Hawaiian Homelands, as well as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, have important roles to play in fulfilling our state’s responsibility to the Hawaiian people.

The Star-Advertiser has provided excellent reporting on the poor administrative practices at DHHL and OHA. In the case of Kamehameha Schools and OHA, the allocation of resources lies with the definition of Native Hawaiian: When you are “hapa,” should your educational or financial benefits be correlated with your amount of Hawaiian blood?

In Hawaii, Native Hawaiian ancestry is a source of pride. Is it time to look at our definition of Native Hawaiian so that we can adequately serve those closest to the source of aloha?

Jack Gillmar

Palolo Valley

—

Keep bicyclists off city sidewalks

I was disappointed by the news in the article, “BikeShare Hawaii to add 40 docking stations” (Star-Advertis- er, July 5). Will Hawaii pedestrians ever have to opportunity to walk on the sidewalks in Honolulu again without having to dodge Biki bikes at every corner, compliments of our mayor?

To make matters worse, despite the city ordinances which prohibit the riding of bikes on the sidewalks in Waikiki and business districts, I have yet to see any signs of enforcement by the Honolulu Police Department. The sidewalks have become a free-for-all where anything goes.

I applaud the mayor’s efforts to get campers off of our sidewalks. Now, Mr. Mayor and Police Chief Susan Ballard: Could you please do something to get these darn Biki bikes off of our sidewalks, too?

Mark Brown

Ala Moana

—

Replace car stalls with bike stations

For decades I have admired and respected my Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi. She’s known to fight for the “little guy.” Yet we are in complete disagreement now over bicycle docking stations vs. single-occupant vehicles (aka SOVs). She complains that BikeShare Hawaii docking stations take up valuable space on city streets. But she says she doesn’t mind when the stations are on sidewalks, just get them off of parking spots.

Hey, Ann! I’m a 70-year-old pedestrian. Don’t block my sidewalk any more than the utility poles and illegally parked cars already do.

I want more bike stations and I want them replacing parking spots. This island is over-saturated with SOVs and the surprising growth of BikeShare Hawaii clearly says that people are ready and willing to trade the “joys” of driving an SOV for a healthy bicycle commute. This is the future.

Karl Malivuk

Moiliili

—

Demise of public transportation

The city helped Uber gain a foothold with few, if any, regulatory safeguards, perhaps envisioning free market competition between taxis and Uber would ensue.

It isn’t going to happen, whether Uber continues to use surge pricing or not. Investors (venture capital) subsidize every Uber passenger fare by as much as 59 percent. A $20 fare actually costs Uber about $32, which resulted in a $6 billion loss for Uber last year. Eventually, Uber will drive taxi operators out of business and raise its fares unchallenged.

Uber’s ultimate goal is to replace all its drivers with autonomous self-driving vehicles. UberScoot and UberJump Bikes will also likely arrive, decimating bus and rail service.

Is Uber a free market solution we want? No. This is a city-assisted takeover of a regulated trade industry. Thousands will become unemployed just as when Mesa Air Group/go! pushed Aloha Airlines into bankruptcy.

Chuck Masseth

Makiki