• We want the same thing • Representative government We want the same thing When someone calls me an “environmental whacko,” I always consider it a compliment. I would hate to be an “anti-environmental whacko.” Clearly, there is a great
• We want the same thing
• Representative government
We want the same thing
When someone calls me an “environmental whacko,” I always consider it a compliment. I would hate to be an “anti-environmental whacko.”
Clearly, there is a great deal of fear within the fishing community and I can see why. The oceans have been fished out by huge, government-subsidized factory fishing ships, the reefs have been and are continually being poisoned from chemical based agricultural run-off.
We have a very large number of fishermen trying to get the last remaining fish with very little luck. “Ocean freedom” has gotten us “ocean rape.”
Some people have convinced the uninformed that the Hawaiian Humpback Whale Sanctuary is advocating closing up fishing, closing up surf spots and destroying Hawaiian and “local” culture. It reminds me of the slogan “Keep fear alive!” It is just plain silly.
Whale protection in Hawai‘i has nothing to do with fishing — nothing! The whales eat in Alaska, they come here to mate and have babies. They snack a little here and there, but their food is in Alaska.
There is no marine protected area in the United States that disallows surfing. I look forward to learning where Greg Holzman came up with that one.
The Surfrider Foundation has advocated marine protected areas precisely because we care about bringing back the fish and marine life. We have worked with the fishing community in many states and the “proof is in the pudding.”
Marine protection works. Turtles have come back from near extinction, it is time to take them off the endangered list. We almost lost the whales from hunting, but, they are coming back also.
The fishing community and the environmental community want the exact same thing, more fish. Let’s bring some calmness to the dialogue and stop the runaway anxiety.
Gordon LaBedz, Kekaha
Representative government
The Garden Island did a fine job of summarizing the council candidates’ views on four subjects, all excellent questions in its Oct. 7 story. And a lot of credit must be given to the North Shore Council for hosting the event; to KKCR for broadcasting it; and to Ho‘ike for TVing it.
I believe that every candidate did a fine job of answering the questions and, it appeared that they almost unanimously agreed that the 2 percent residential property tax cap should remain.
For those of you who may not know or were not part of the process that brought us this cap, let’s review a bit of history.
Led by retired lawyer from the North Shore, Walter Lewis and retired doctor Monroe Richman, the ‘Ohana Kaua‘i group was formed in 2004.
With property taxes soaring at unheard of rates the people were eager for relief. And since our elected officials were not doing a thing to stop this insane escalation, Mr Lewis and Dr. Richman put together an action group, ‘Ohana Kaua‘i and with a tremendous amount of work and fund raising from this group (with special thanks to Harold Bronstein for all his pro bono work) an amendment calling for residential tax assessments to be based on 1999 amounts and a 2 percent annual maximum tax increase was put on the ballot.
And, by almost a 2-to-1 vote, in November of 2004 the measure was approved. Against all odds — the council, the administration, the unions and many others opposed this charter amendment — the people in their wisdom overwhelmingly passed this measure.
But then, in the words of Pacific Legal Foundation Managing Attorney Robert Thomas (who argued the case for ‘Ohana Kaua‘i before the Hawai‘i Supreme Court) “the county sued the county” which was, as he said, unheard of in his legal career.
The county, after spending over a million dollars of our tax money on legal fees, finally prevailed by a 3-to-2 vote.
However, Justice Ronald Moon who cast the deciding vote in favor of the county with his ruling on the case, says “the government officials have more power than the people” but, Justices Acoba and Duffy who voted in favor of the amendment said that “he used Cowboy Tactics to manipulate the case “ and called him on it. You can read this whole case on Google and will see that Justices Acoba and Duffy were right on target with their remarks. The above quote came from the Hawai‘i Reporter of Aug 11, 2007, and was excellent.
“Though the county may say that they won their case”, they, along with the three members of the Supreme Court had to use questionable and manipulative tactics to do it.
So in 2005 with thousands of irate home owners unhappy with the county’s seeking to take away their democratic right to limit property tax, our political leaders decided to “throw their constituents a bone,” placate them and put a cap on property tax.
At first they offered a 6 percent cap but decided that the 2 percent cap offered by the OK group was more in line so that is the cap that now stands.
One might say that the tax payers lost the war but won the battle — lost the OK war but won the 2 percent battle. But an in depth review of that scenario will show that to be false.
First, the OK initiative was a Charter Amendment meaning that it could only be changed by the people with another charter amendment. The cap that is now in place was put there as an ordinance and can be changed any time the council wants to change it — a huge difference!
And, the OK amendment set the assessments at the 1999 level whereas the base for the cap now in effect was set in 2005. This five-year period was a time period that saw skyrocketing assessment increases.
Thus, the homeowner is still getting incomplete relief with only the 2 percent cap.
If this isn’t really the representative government that the people want then remember it when you vote.
Glenn Mickens, Kapa‘a
