• Reject ‘County Manager’ ruse • No filming in sacred areas • On the path: listen to what people want • Worried about Kekaha boulders Reject ‘County Manager’ ruse What’s in a name? Strategists among the Charter Review Commission (CRC)
• Reject ‘County Manager’ ruse • No filming in sacred areas • On the path: listen to what people want • Worried about Kekaha boulders
Reject ‘County Manager’ ruse
What’s in a name? Strategists among the Charter Review Commission (CRC) and its administrative cohorts string-along an authentic county manager proposal which now runs parallel with a disingenuous and highly-deceptive new proposal entitled, “Amendment…Article VII, Sect. 7.07 and 7.08: Qualifications for a Managing Director.”
What is this “Managing Director?”
Those who worked tirelessly with CRC for several elections to bring a county-manager option to ballot, “Managing Director” is nothing but a title swap for “Administrative Assistant.” No substantive change is contained in the proposal (see CRC 2010 – 7).
Why “Managing Director”?
“Managing” is the operative word here. Ballot language whether appealing or otherwise would likely be crafted to make this dubious proposal sound like a county-manager proposal, so regardless of passing or failing — this proposal is of no consequence to the voters, the mayor, or his inner circle. Its design is two-fold — 1) to contemplate or imagine to elevate our current administrative assistant to that of a legitimate county manager and 2) to deceive voters in an appearance the County of Kaua‘i has not ignored a long-time county-manager advocacy and has indeed put “manager” on the ballot.
It’s a fake, a red-herring, an end-around…
As long as a feasible counterfeit is erected and the meaningful county-manager proposal is snuffed-out, the threat of significant change is again thwarted by the insiders’ good minions.
More enlightened commissioners should see this for what it is and reject it.
At minimum it is a waste of tax resources and human resources, but more importantly, this shameless proposal further makes illegitimate a commission already fraught with poor reputation or worse — cowardice.
Reject it on principle.
The “Managing Director” ballot proposal is simply a ruse.
Rolf Bieber, Kapa‘a
No filming in sacred areas
Living in the midst of the movie industry in Los Angeles, and also as a former kama‘aina of Kaua‘i, I can appreciate both sides’ viewpoints regarding the question of whether to allow filming at Kaua‘i’s sacred spots.
Is there a particular rationale offered on the part of the filmmakers for wanting to shoot the actual sites, rather than erecting mock-ups like they do all the time here?
After all, Hollywood is the hometown of illusion! I’ve been on the lots of all the studios here; trust me, VERY little that we see on TV or film these days is totally real!
When I lived on Kaua‘i I was told that the island of Bali Hai that was used in “South Pacific” was actually a photo of the top of the real Bali Hai, then superimposed over water to make it appear as a real island. So clearly, even that many years ago, Hollywood had ways of making false appear real.
Considering all the amazing technology at its disposal, I personally see no valid reason for needing to violate the sacredness of Kaua‘i’s holy spots just to get a “money shot.” I’m casting my vote as a “kama‘aina in absentia” with a resounding NO! to filming sacred sites.
Diana “Toots” VanHorn, Van Nuys, Calif.
On the path: listen to what people want
I have already written the mayor and County Council regarding my voice for the dogs on the path, but feel in light of the recent testimony at the Parks and Transportation Committee meeting, that I would like to express my feelings to you also.
I am wondering if you could help me understand why you would limit the dog owners to the tiniest and hardest accessible portion of the path, when in fact we were supposed to be allowed use of the entire path if we all followed the rules for the “sunshine” period.
Also, why does this continue to be an issue when clearly the results show that the “people” are for continued allowance of dogs on the MULTI-use path?
Isn’t the mayor and council supposed to represent the people? Those who voted all of them into office? And if so, then why do our voices have a good chance of being “overlooked” for what appears to be private platforms?
If in fact there is still discrepancies by the committee and/or council then perhaps this should be made a referendum at the next election. Then the REAL voices can be counted once and for all.
Please listen to what the people want.
Kathleen Gissing, Kapa‘a
Worried about Kekaha boulders
The county road crew did an excellent job cleaning and trimming along Route 552 (road to Koke‘e from Kekaha).
However on the hillside you can see a few potential dangers with a few boulders on the hill that are very visible. They pose a danger of rolling down onto the roadway at anytime.
There are trees (one to two inches in diameter) which I doubt could stop the boulders from rolling onto the roadway.
The county transportation personnel should look at and plan to remove these boulders before someone gets hurt.
Note: vehicles, trucks, and tour buses aren’t the only ones that use Route 552.
There are joggers/walkers and bicycle riders who use this route, too.
Howard Tolbe, ‘Ele‘ele
