• Coastal versus inland pathways • Projected cost is too high for Eastside path • Technology, jobs and business economics Coastal versus inland pathways This is not about the coastal path on Kaua‘i that already exists. This is not about
• Coastal versus inland pathways • Projected cost is too high
for Eastside path • Technology, jobs and business economics
Coastal versus inland pathways
This is not about the coastal path on Kaua‘i that already exists. This is not about the cost of that path or any other being considered, and whether it is wise to use public funds to pay for what may eventually disappear with the realization that the ocean will someday claim many low-lying coastal areas.
With that possibility looming before us, would it not be preferable to consider such pathways to be placed further inland?
The pros and cons about alleviating the way we transport ourselves here on Kaua‘i will continue.
If decisions are made to build pathways, along with the construction of more highways, avenues, in-town roads and/or streets, those pathways should meet the needs of our island residents first and foremost.
The four-lane highway now under construction in the Puhi-to-Lihu‘e area is a glimpse at Kaua‘i’s future. Lord, have mercy upon us.
With that said, in whatever manner we may be able to stroll, bike, motor, or drive ourselves from one point to another, let’s enjoy the scenic splendor Kaua’i has to offer … while we still can.
Jose Bulatao Jr., Kekaha
Projected cost is too high for Eastside path
Yes, “Kimo” Rosen, I will be happy to answer your question, “Why can’t we have both?” (Letters: ‘More roads and trails” Jan. 9.)
In fact, since Kurt Rutter’s letter, “Cost-effective transit” in that same forum was directed at my words, I will do my best to clarify what I said for both of you.
First, let’s be clear that I am not against multi-use paths, bikers or buses. I applaud those of you who use any of these modes of travel to move around.
Personally, I have jogged and walked every day for 22 years here in the homesteads to get my exercise and need no multi-million dollar path for that use.
My gripe is not with these paths per se, as I have seen many of them that are great for recreational purposes. But they will never take the place of the major highways and alternate roads that are meant for transportation purposes.
And, Kimo, my exact words were, “And yes, Debra, this administration and a few members of the council are pushing hard for a multi-modal DOH plan to shove down our throats.”
I did not say or assume that 95 percent of this island’s population feels the pedestrian trail is being “shoved down its throat,” as you said.
My major point that you, Kurt and the other 5 percent of our commuters who choose to walk, bike or bus seem to misunderstand is that I and the other 95 percent of vehicle users want to see more effort, time and money put into alleviating traffic and getting our roads repaired.
For me, this Eastside path was ill-conceived from the beginning.
It is trying to be retrofitted into an area already overbuilt and is causing huge problems for people like our Native Hawaiians who are opposing a lot of it due to their sacred burial grounds.
Plus the obscene amount of money spent and proposed to be spent on this path in these tough economic times is very wrong and not a high priority project.
The projected cost for 18 to 26 miles (definitive route and miles never defined) will be $100 million or more, plus maintenance and security costs added to that figure.
And for those who imply that most of the money will be federal dollars (free money?) who do they think that federal, state and local money comes from — one of our pockets or the other.
Glenn Mickens, Kapa‘a
Technology, jobs and business economics
I was in a popular market in Kapa‘a, standing in a check-out line. Another checker asked the line to use the self-checkout facilities. We refrained.
I looked at the requesting checker and said to myself, ‘They must not need their jobs, or they are so dedicated they do not know they are facilitating the loss of their own jobs.’
I have mentioned this before: Anything that takes a job away from a human being is the enemy of all, including the very business promoting it.
Virtually every company’s objective is to cut overhead to increase profit. Overhead is us, you and I. Imagine if every business was successful and eliminated you and I from their overhead.
How would we survive? We’d join the unemployment, welfare, and food stamps lines. Some of us would lose our homes, our transportation and join the homeless.
And what would happen to those businesses that thought cutting our jobs was such a good idea? They would have gone bankrupt and failed because no one could afford to purchase their products.
And by the time this revelation was realized, it would be too late — potential jobs gone forever.
Our public works, schools, etc., would suffer because of the loss of tax revenue. Automation, robotics and technology that replace human beings do not pay taxes.
And yes, this would lead to no money for unemployment, welfare or those food stamps. What then?
Virtually anything replacing a human being’s job is, all considered, evil, just as is greed.
Christopher Schaefer, Kapa‘a
