Hawaii Liberty Chronicles

The U.S. Supreme Court released the full transcript from this morning’s hearing.

http://www.inversecondemnation.com/files/07-1372.pdf

Finer Points Must Be Addressed for Hawaii’s Future Freedom

By Daniel Brackins and Dan Douglass

On Monday Governor Lingle issued her State of the State address. Politically she came across well and sensible. To her credit she connected with the public much more-so than last April when her address to the Hawaii Economic Association sparked our initial Economic Reality Check for Governor Lingle. Some things we agree with and others we don’t. Finer points must be addressed.

In her speech there were a few surprises. She called for energy independence (not a surprise) and food self-sufficiency (surprise). This is an admirable goal since the premium cost of food is an unnecessary burden for Hawaii’s people. Yet she failed to mention that Hawaii’s high cost of food is caused by two primary factors: the shipping monopoly (resulting from no Hawaii exemption from the Jones Act) and food tax. Food is an item that the consumer has no choice but to buy. Food is a necessity for life, and yet the state taxes this. The Governor must concert efforts, based on the understanding that under our current economic conditions many could use the additional 4% in their pockets.

Urging various state departments to buy local produce seems a well start, but skirts the basic problem of how the once booming agricultural industry has been incrementally destroyed in our state by the shipping monopoly. The consequence of state departments paying premium costs for local goods will increase the cost of the various departments (unless the departments are downsized) that ultimately all the taxpayers of Hawaii pay for.

The basic flaw is common in the bureaucratic mindset from county to federal. It is the false assumption that consumption/consumerism is the answer; this mantra of economic stimulus through liquidity. But where does the flow come from? It’s taken from the productive sector that generates voluntarily growing stimulus (through the free exchange of goods and services) that must be left alone as much as possible. To punish the productive sector by urging consumption on the state departmental level is utter nonsense that in effect continues to “kick the can down the road” for the longer term.

Lingle also called for a reduction in government services and pay cuts for government employees (surprise). We agree that this is a necessary step. There is a huge amount of overlap and duplication of government services. We recommend that the governor create a special task force (at no taxpayer cost) to eliminate overlap, improve efficiency, and reduce waste. We feel that this alone would eliminate the state’s projected $1.8 billion deficit.

Ultimately lasting wealth will come from entrepreneurial determination. This is something creative that almost always dies once government’s sticky fingers or iron fists get in on the action. Thus it takes courageous leadership to outsource, streamline and sunset governing agencies out of the productive sector’s way as much as possible.

Thus we stand firmly opposed to the Governor’s proposal to delay, curtail, or eliminate tax credits, exemptions or deductions. Tax cuts will allow the additional money in the consumers’ and investors’ pockets to help stimulate the economy through additional purchasing power. Moreover every proposal for tax reform should be evaluated apart from the typically exaggerated claims. How to think about any given tax reform? Here are four rules:

• 1) If a bill reduces taxes through lower rates or increased deductions, it should be supported;
• 2) If a bill increases taxes through raising rates or repealing deductions, it should be opposed;
• 3) If a bill includes tax increases as well as tax reductions, it’s intellectually incoherent and therefore probably a trick;
• 4) If a bill promises to reduce taxes and increase revenue, it should be rejected out of hand.

While we agree that a deferral of the transit tax on Oahu should be an option, it does not go far enough. The transit tax should be eliminated for similar reason stated above. Transit tax collections have already dropped by 16% since last year, a total of $2.6 million. This is in opposition to what the planners had anticipated when they claimed revenue would continue to rise each year. This makes funding the rail system without raising taxes unrealistic. We believe that the whole rail project itself should be scrapped. In the current state of economic crisis on all bureaucratic levels, Hawaii productive taxpayer base (the real golden goose) cannot finance the Honolulu Rail Cartel’s monstrosity.

Once again we must reiterate that she reconsider her own five-point economic plan. Our own plan to stimulate Hawaii’s economy would include the following:

• Offer large tax incentives to business- this would include eliminating the corporate income tax or, at the very least, largely reducing it. This would include all industries, leaving none out. Incentives for small business development must also be explored.

• Lowering the tax burden- a reduction of taxes across the board including the GE tax. Taxes magnify the cost of doing business in Hawaii.

• Personalization of services- by eliminating wasteful state run services, such as the Department of Human Services (as an example), and outsourcing to non-profits, government spending can be largely reduced. This will also help with the previous point of tax reduction.

• State exemption from the Jones Act- this would effectively terminate the shipping monopoly and lower the cost of goods substantially.

• Free trade zones- by allowing tax free, tariff free, and duty free goods to be exchanged in Hawaii, the state could become a trading hub in the center of the Pacific connecting many areas of the world.

• Marketing to outside business- with large incentives for business, the state should market on the mainland and in other countries in order to bring business to Hawaii.

Both Hawaii Republican and Democratic Party politicians must shun the temptation of enriching friends, families and allies at the expense of the families and businesses on the brink of moving to economically freer states or nations. Our Hawaii’s future freedom demands these bold measures from all our leadership that generates incentive for success and eliminates corruption.

Governor Linda Lingle’s 2009 State of the State Address

Senate President Hanabusa, Speaker Say, Lt. Governor and Mrs. Aiona, former Governor Ariyoshi, former Governor Waihe‘e and Mrs. Waihe‘e, members of the Legislature, cabinet members, Chief Justice Moon, Chair Apoliona, Mayor Tavares, Mayor Kenoi, military leaders, members of the Consular Corps, distinguished guests, and to the people of Hawai‘i…good morning and aloha!

It is a great privilege and a humbling experience to come before you each year to share my thoughts about where our state stands, and where we are headed.

The annual State of the State Address is a time-honored tradition in states all across our great nation.

It is a time to take stock of where we are as a state, to recognize a few successes, and to lay out a clear roadmap for our future.

In this sense, it is a fairly typical speech.

But this has not been a typical year. We are facing a time like no other in our state’s history.

And 2009 will be one of the most challenging years in our nation’s history as we confront one of the severest economic crises we have ever faced.

The daunting task we face in the months ahead is making some very difficult decisions in order to address our immediate fiscal problems.

These are not decisions that any of us want to make, but they are decisions that must be made.

They are the same kinds of decisions being made across our state by individuals, families, businesses and organizations as they too confront a near-term future with substantially fewer financial resources, and a high degree of uncertainty.

I’m an optimist by nature…and as Winston Churchill said, “An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

So, I come before you today with a clear understanding of the enormity of what we face in the near term, but still enthusiastic about planning for our future together and optimistic about Hawai‘i in the 21st century.

Together we will meet both our near-term and long-term obligations by making those decisions necessary to navigate through the turbulence of the current fiscal crisis and achieve our preferred future.

That future includes energy independence, increased food self-sufficiency, and a 21st-century infrastructure that supports existing and emerging industries.

Our future also includes a well-cared for environment that increases recreational opportunities across the state.

We cannot afford to merely hunker down and muddle through the next year or two.

This is a time for us to work together to address the immediate reality, while searching for those opportunities that will enable us to emerge from this situation stronger than ever.

This dual effort will take patience and courage because there will be those who want to ignore reality and continue spending at current levels.

And others who only want to deal with our immediate revenue shortfall while deferring any talk of the future.

Either approach would leave us far short of meeting our duty to the people of Hawai‘i – a duty both to live within our means and position ourselves for a brighter future.

As we face this historic challenge, it is easy to forget how much success we have enjoyed in recent years.

I want to review the solid progress we have made in several areas, including home ownership and helping those most in need.

Since May of 2006 we have built nine new emergency shelters and transitional housing projects that provide safe and clean places to live for many who previously could only find a night’s rest in our parks, beaches, doorways or in their cars.

Nearly 2,800 people, including hundreds of children, have received not only safe shelter, but social services and an outpouring of community support to help them transition from homelessness to self-sufficiency.

It took many people to achieve so much in just two-and-a-half short years. I want to thank our entire community for embracing and helping those who had lost all hope.

In an attempt to address a completely different kind of housing need, we’re all aware of the success the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has had.

They’ve awarded more land to their beneficiaries than at any time in the history of the trust, and we all enjoy seeing families who have waited for decades finally receiving their homesteads.

But there’s a much larger DHHL story that will be fully revealed in the years ahead.

It is the story of a native Hawaiian agency that has chosen to meet its fiduciary duty to its beneficiaries by leading in a way that benefits the larger community of Hawai‘i.

Whether it’s their pivotal role in the $110 million Kroc Center, development of the future DeBartolo regional mall, kick-starting the infrastructure UH West O‘ahu needed in order to move forward, or being the first state department to move its entire O‘ahu operation to the Second City of Kapolei, DHHL has chosen to lead.

We now look to them as an important and integral part of our economic recovery, and as an example of how to develop desirable communities.

They are even blazing their own trail in our state’s efforts to achieve energy independence and provide a clean energy future for the generations that will follow.

Few could have envisioned six years ago the heights to which DHHL and the Hawaiian Homes Commission would soar.

I believe their well-recognized success has been achieved partly because of how they contributed to the broader community.

DHHL is not just about building homes, it is about building great communities.

And they have succeeded because they have demanded more of themselves and their beneficiaries.

The bottom line is that they have chosen to lead, not follow…and what a joy it has been to watch their transformation and ongoing journey.

I want to personally thank the DHHL staff and those who have served on the Hawaiian Homes Commission for showing us all what great things can be achieved when you recognize we are all part of one ‘ohana.

An important part of that ‘ohana is Hawai‘i’s keiki, especially those who are most vulnerable.

Two remarkable trends have occurred in Hawai‘i’s child welfare system since 2005.

The first is a 50 percent decline in the number of children in state care, to just 1,500 children, which is the lowest number since 1993.

At the same time, Hawai‘i’s child re-abuse rate also dropped by half to just 3.1 percent, which is one of the lowest re-abuse rates in the United States.

These positive trends were the result of a fundamental shift in the state’s approach to child welfare.

The Department of Human Services previously removed children from the custody of their biological parents at a rate four times higher than the national average, with no improvement in safety outcomes.

Today, DHS, and its community partners, uses a comprehensive assessment system to carefully weigh the risk factors in a child’s family environment, and ensure that they receive much-needed social services.

Director Lillian Koller has received national recognition for these and other achievements.

In November of last year, Governing Magazine honored her as a “Public Official of the Year” for widespread improvements at the Department of Human Services, including the overhaul of the child welfare system.

This was the first time a public official from Hawai‘i has won this prestigious national award.

I know Lillian believes that this success would not have been possible without our many outstanding social service agency partners as well as her own committed staff. Mahalo to all of you.

No matter how noteworthy these and other achievements may be, recent reductions in revenue forecasts mean that they and other worthy programs will take a back seat to our more immediate need to balance the budget.

Today’s struggling economy has created a deep hole in our budget that we need to dig out of this session.

The Council on Revenues has never in its history lowered its projections by so much in such a short period of time.

Over the past eight months, the Council has reduced its general fund revenue projection by $1.4 billion.

This downward projection reflects an unprecedented decline in tourism, construction, business activity, and consumer demand brought about by national and international events beyond our control.

These events – including sub-prime lending, frozen credit markets and volatile oil and other commodity prices – will impact us for at least the next couple of years.

Climbing our way out of this hole won’t be easy.

It won’t be quick.

It won’t be without pain; but it will be done.

The pain that will be felt by individuals and organizations both in and out of government will cause some to search for a specific reason or person to blame.

When a recently retired couple watches the value of its 401K drop dramatically…or a family struggles to make the mortgage payment now that their work hours have been cut back…or a social service agency faces the need to lay off employees because the government reduces the purchase of a service contract they were counting on…it is natural to want to understand why this is happening, and to hold someone accountable.

But we must refrain from playing the blame game because we know this downturn was not caused by any of us.

And we know we had been making good decisions in recent years to create a brighter future for Hawai‘i’s people by lowering taxes, increasing science and math education, moving toward energy independence, and preserving more of our natural and cultural resources.

We also know that we are all in this together, and it is only by sticking together that we will be able to deal effectively with the immediate fiscal crisis and strengthen our economy in the long run.

We will need a mixture of courage, compassion, and collaboration to cope with the unprecedented budget gap we face.

Collaboration doesn’t mean we will see all issues the same way, it means that for the sake of Hawai‘i’s future, we must acknowledge our predicament and find an acceptable way to move ourselves forward.

In order to do this, we must start by accepting the fact that in this new economic and fiscal environment, there is simply no possible way to continue operating and spending the way we have.

Although I am extremely optimistic about Hawai‘i’s long-term prospects, I am not going to sugarcoat the immediate challenge we face.

In order to maintain the public’s confidence and trust, we must be open and honest about the nature and magnitude of what we are facing.

The reality is that we will have to make some unpopular choices that will reduce some services and cause others to be delivered in a different way.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

A number of projects will likely be delayed, curtailed, or possibly eliminated.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

We will have to ask government employees, like those who work in the private sector, to accept some reduction in wages and benefits.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

Some who currently enjoy special tax credits, exemptions and deductions will see them reduced or eliminated.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

This is a time of shared sacrifice when everyone must be willing to give up something.

This is a time when we must rely on each other, because no one is coming to rescue us.

We must also keep in mind that the economy will likely continue to soften in the near-term, perhaps causing the Council on Revenues to further reduce projections at its March meeting and then again in May after the budget is adopted.

We are not alone in facing this new reality and near-term uncertainty.

Families and businesses across the country and throughout our state have had to come to terms with this same situation.

But we should also recognize that the difficulty we face is temporary.

Our nation will regain its economic footing, and so will Hawai‘i.

How fast we recover here at home will depend to some degree on the decisions we make during this session.

Our solutions need to be decisive enough to address our immediate situation, but just as important, must prepare the way for our future.

Short-term solutions that merely defer the hard choices to those who will follow us are just as bad as no solutions at all.

We can’t meet our responsibility by kicking the can down the road.

We must make meaningful choices now that address the reality we face today while laying the foundation for a better future.

That better future is one that transitions us from an economy over-reliant on land development to one that is innovation-driven and relies on the capacity of our people.

A key area where we must bring innovation to bear is ending our over-reliance on imported foreign oil.

Oil pollutes the environment, it sucks billions of dollars out of our economy, and leaves us dependent on the goodwill of foreign countries and companies for our very survival.

We remain today the most oil-dependent state in America, but we have made great strides over the past few years.

Today windmills hum atop Kaheawa Ridge on Maui delivering clean, plentiful power and displacing the need to import 220,000 barrels of foreign oil each year.

On Lana‘i, a 10-acre solar farm now provides 30 percent of the island’s peak power needs.

A geothermal project on the Big Island that currently provides power for 30,000 homes is in discussions to increase its output by 50 percent.

And on O‘ahu, engineers are already figuring out where we will be plugging in the electric cars coming to dealer showrooms in the near future.

Last year we entered into a unique partnership with the federal Department of Energy called the Hawai‘i Clean Energy Initiative or HCEI.

It established the goal of a 70 percent clean energy economy by 2030.

HCEI experts from government, national labs, our military, utilities, universities and the private sector have recommended specific actions to achieve the 70 percent clean energy goal through indigenous renewable resources and energy conservation.

My administration and legislators will introduce several bills based on these HCEI recommendations.

These changes will significantly increase energy efficiency in our commercial buildings and residences, give consumers more control over their energy costs, transition us to alternative fuel vehicles, such as electric cars, and ban new fossil fuel power plants in Hawai‘i.

When adopted, these proposals will form the basis for Hawai‘i’s transformation to one of the world’s first economies based primarily on clean energy.

Implementing these policy changes will require a large measure of collaboration as we will need public funding, assistance from county governments, conservation by citizens, and investment by the business community.

To successfully transition to a clean energy economy, we will need the involvement of our entire community, alignment of our efforts, and a continual focus on our objectives.

I expect there will be a fair amount of spirited debate about the specific energy choices we should make, but if we recognize that we cannot go back to where we were, then I believe the choices are clear.

We can either work together toward a clean energy future or continue to operate in a business-as-usual fashion that will leave Hawai‘i vulnerable to the vagaries of world oil prices and the whims of foreign countries and companies.

As the world’s most isolated set of islands and our nation’s most oil-dependent state, a clean energy future is no longer simply a desire of environmentalists, it is an absolute necessity for our long-term economic survival.

This energy transformation is something we owe to future generations, and something they have a right to expect.

They have a right to expect energy security.

They have the right to expect stable and lower energy costs, and a cleaner environment.

They have the right to expect higher-paying, green-collar jobs that come with a thriving new energy sector.

And they have the right to expect us to stop sending up to $7 billion a year out of Hawai‘i to buy foreign oil, instead of keeping most of it here at home, to circulate in our economy.

Over the past 12 months, remarkable progress has been made toward achieving a secure energy future for our state, and we are being hailed as a national model because of our effort.

We must remain steadfast in our pursuit of energy independence and security, regardless of fluctuating oil prices.

Another area in which we must decrease our over-reliance on outside sources of supply is the food we eat.

We import 85 percent of everything we consume.

We need to take action now to increase Hawai‘i’s food self-sufficiency and strengthen and preserve agriculture for future generations as required by our State Constitution.

We must increase our efforts to protect the best agricultural lands from development.

And, we must strengthen our commitment to provide affordable water for agriculture.

Increasing our food self-sufficiency will contribute to the state’s economic recovery by keeping more of our money here at home.

If we replace just 10 percent of the food we currently import, it would create more than $300 million in economic activity, generate $6 million in taxes, and create 2,300 new jobs.

I will be asking state agencies such as schools, prisons and hospitals to take the lead by purchasing locally grown fruits, vegetables, poultry, eggs and meat.

Under new rules, Hawai‘i farmers will receive a 15 percent price preference when placing their bids for state purchases.

If we each make an effort to buy more locally produced food we will be contributing to our economic recovery, helping Hawai‘i farmers lower their unit costs, and protecting our open spaces.

Agriculture keeps Hawai‘i green, it recharges our aquifers and promotes a healthy lifestyle and good nutrition for families.

It also diversifies our economy and supports small businesses and rural communities.

Another requirement for a strong and innovative economy is an advanced communications infrastructure that will serve as the backbone for connecting us to the global economy.

This 21st century infrastructure is essential to creating the kind of high-paying jobs we are striving for in the coming years.

The communications infrastructure we have in place today barely meets our current needs.

We need to be planning for tomorrow’s needs.

We shouldn’t be limited in our thinking to believe that what we have in place today is acceptable.

We need to dream about tomorrow, and begin now to lay the groundwork for getting there.

We need a communications infrastructure that will allow us to achieve competitive advancements in the areas of: education, health care diagnosis and treatment, public safety, research and innovation, civic participation, creative media, e-government, and the foundation for overall economic development.

We have been working with the Legislature’s Broadband Task Force to craft a bill that recognizes the convergence of technologies that are used to provide voice, data and video services through wireline, wireless, cable and satellite communication.

The bill consolidates regulation and advocacy of communication services under one agency, a new Hawai‘i Communications Commission, in order to make attainable the latest communications services at the earliest possible time.

The Commission will not increase the size of government.

It will be funded from existing fees, and will focus on achieving specific goals, including: creating broadband access on a competitive basis at reduced prices…streamlining the permitting process…and providing access to businesses and residents by 2012 at prices and speeds that will make us a world leader and a place that will attract investment, while empowering our residents with enhanced communications capability.

This exciting, high-tech proposal couldn’t have moved forward without the hard work over the last two years of the Broadband Task Force, and I applaud the Legislature for the foresight shown in establishing it.

Although I have been discussing ideas that will position us well for the future, I think you would agree that the problem that bothers residents the most today is the everyday annoyance of sitting in traffic.

Sitting in a seemingly endless line of cars, burning expensive fuel, missing an appointment or your child’s soccer game, is not the way any of us want to spend our time.

The status quo has become intolerable, so we have joined with legislators in proposing a six-year, multi-island, Highways Modernization Plan to address known traffic problems with proven solutions.

This plan is intended to save lives…save time…and save money.

The program combines road building, highway and bridge safety improvements, anti-congestion traffic management, and a pavement maintenance program, in addition to safety legislation and increased public outreach and education.

The bulk of the near-term projects will be started using existing funds and anticipated federal fiscal stimulus funding.

The longer-term projects will be paid for by increases in highway-related taxes and fees that would be triggered at a future date if steady job growth indicates that our economy is growing again.

In other words, we will have a plan in place that is ready to go to construction when our economic situation improves. This innovative recommendation to tie future increases to measurable economic results in order to address a long-festering problem is the kind of creative approach being used by departments and agencies throughout government.

I have challenged every one of our departments to find new and creative ways to improve our quality of life in these tough economic and fiscal times.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources has risen to this challenge, and developed a comprehensive proposal to renew our state parks, small boat harbors and trails as well as the very way we care for these precious places – a true “Recreational Renaissance” that will benefit all residents and visitors.

The heart of the plan is $240 million in capital improvements over five years for both land- and ocean-based recreation.

The Department will fund this innovative plan by dedicating rents from some existing commercial properties to pay debt service, and developing now-vacant industrial and commercial lands that will fulfill the high demand for light industrial spaces in areas suitable for those uses.

Additional funding to support maintenance and operations will be generated from leases and concessions in parks and harbors combined with a small entry fee paid by visitors at a limited number of high-destination parks.

The plan’s final piece is the development of new land and ocean recreational opportunities through a public-private partnership to develop the long-proposed Ke‘ehi Lagoon Triangle adjacent to Lagoon Drive in Honolulu.

This centerpiece initiative will include 119 acres of light industrial space as a long-term source of revenue, coupled with new marina slips, canoe club storage and practice areas, boat ramps, storage and dry docks, beach parks and picnic areas.

I want to thank the staff at DLNR, DBEDT and Budget and Finance who developed this creative and comprehensive proposal which creates brand new, non-tax revenues and a better way of managing and caring for our recreational, natural and cultural resources.

It’s sure not business as usual at DLNR!

Working together, we can set the stage for this long-overdue “Recreational Renaissance” that will provide residents and visitors across our state with new and better recreational areas that are well-maintained, secure and enriching.

I am especially enthused about working with the Legislature on this and other proposals as a colleague rather than an adversary.

I will do more than reach across the aisle; I will walk across the aisle, and my door will always be wide open to you.

Our collaboration will demonstrate to the people of Hawai‘i that when history called on us to do so, we rose to the occasion.

I firmly believe that only by working together can we produce the kind of significant results that will enable us to exit this temporary downturn, and to position our economy for a stronger and more sustainable future.

Before concluding I want to take a moment to speak about the case pending before the United States Supreme Court involving the issue of ceded lands.

The issue involved in this case is not whether ceded lands should or should not be sold.

Rather the issue involves the fundamental question of whether the State of Hawai‘i has clear title to the land transferred to us by the federal government at the time of statehood.

The roots of this case date back to a decision made by former Governor Waihe‘e in the 1980s to sell certain ceded lands on Maui and Hawai‘i for the construction of affordable housing.

It was a decision he believed was in the best interest of all the people of Hawai‘i.

It is a decision that former Governor Cayetano defended in court because he believed it was in the best interest of all the people of Hawai‘i to do so.

And it is a decision that we are appealing to the United States Supreme Court because I believe it is in the best interest of all the people of Hawai‘i.

Acting in the best interest of all the people is the same standard I applied when supporting the Akaka Bill, fighting to protect federal programs benefiting native Hawaiians, or expediting Hawaiian Homestead leases.

And I will continue to advocate for these issues in the coming years just as passionately as I have in years past.

I call upon all who cherish what is the essence of Hawai‘i to come together with a willingness to understand and respect the nature of this case and its importance to the future of our state.

Our current fiscal crisis and the ceded lands issue arise during the same year that we commemorate our 50th anniversary as a state.

It is a time when we can reflect on just how unique we are among the 50 states.

But it is more importantly a time to remind ourselves that regardless of the short-term decisions we must make in this moment of economic difficulty, we should remain firmly anchored on the sure footing of Hawai‘i’s rich culture, diverse heritage and sometimes complicated history.

Governors of Japanese, Hawaiian, and Filipino descent have delivered State of the State addresses at this very podium.

Hawai‘i elected the first Asian American to the United States Senate.

And, less than a week ago, Hawai‘i’s heart swelled with pride as one of its own, Barack Obama, became the first African American to take the presidential oath of office when he was sworn in as our nation’s 44th president.

We have so much to be proud of in our history, and so much to look forward to in the coming years.

We are indeed the most unique among all the 50 states, and we are certainly capable of meeting this current challenge.

In my heart, I know that if we work together to make these difficult budget decisions, the people of Hawai‘i will understand that these weren’t the decisions we wanted to make but that we had to make.

The people of Hawai‘i are counting on us to lead our state through this unprecedented time – and that is exactly what we are going to do.

When the curtain comes down on our time on this stage, I want our collective legacy to win reviews as a story of pulling together for the good of all rather than being written off as a cast of characters who was each acting in their own one-man show.

If we deal decisively with the current crisis while keeping our eyes open to the opportunities that these kinds of challenging times create, then the people of Hawai‘i will conclude that we have lived up to our obligation.

Now, let’s get to work.

By Tom McAuliffe

HONOLULU, HAWAII — The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH) has released a new study from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.

The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii estimates that the Akaka bill could cost the state up to $690 million per year in lost revenue.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 (S.310 and H.R.505) in the 110th Congress, also known as the Akaka Bill after sponsor Senator Daniel Akaka, proposes to create a sovereign Native Hawaiian Governing Entity (NHGE) within the state of Hawaii. This is the first study on the economic impacts of the proposed bill, which is expected to be re-introduced in the new session of Congress.

The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii is a straightforward look at how passage of the bill would hurt Hawaii business while pitting neighbor against neighbor,” said Grassroot Institute President Jamie Story. “Regardless of one’s feelings about the Akaka Bill and its benefits or shortcomings, it is vital to examine the economic impact of the bill on Hawaii’s people. This study demonstrates the irreversible economic damage the Akaka Bill would do to Hawaii, and we hope Washington DC officials will take this into consideration.”

Among the study’s findings:

• The bill could exempt Native Hawaiians living or shopping on land ceded from the state from paying state income and sales taxes.

• There may be a transfer of state-owned lands to persons designated as native Hawaiians to the detriment of non-Native Hawaiian taxpayers and, correspondingly, to the state economy. The resulting tax increases would have large, negative impacts on the state’s economy leading to a possible reduction of 20,793 private sector jobs, a loss of $417.2 million in investment and a loss of $1,461 in real per-capita disposable personal income annually.

“We’ve looked at the bill, as introduced in the last session of Congress, from many different angles and have provided an objective in-depth analysis of what the economic impacts might be on Hawaii and its citizens,” said Dr. David Tuerck, Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute and co-author of the study. “In The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii we’ve identified the most likely effects of the Akaka Bill on the Hawaiian economy. By almost any plausible interpretation of the bill, those effects are uniformly negative,” adds Paul Bachman, Director of Research at Beacon Hill.

The new The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii study is available free of charge at the Grassroot Institute web site. Please visit: http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/studies for more information.

Tom McAuliffe is the communications director for the GRIH. The mission of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is to promote individual liberty, free market economic principles and limited, more accountable government.

The Beacon Hill Institute engages in rigorous economic research producing readable analyses of current public policy issues for voters, taxpayers, opinion leaders and policy makers. Please also visit: http://www.beaconhill.org for more information on that organization.

Thanks to Dale Evans for this Toll Roads News article describing a proposed bridge in Norfolk, Virginia.

By Panos Prevedouros

This second part provides excerpts from the last 12 commentators and our brief conclusions.

12. Ed Wytkind, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
“Transit investment will relieve road congestion and offer environmentally sound transportation alternatives to increase economic efficiency and global competitiveness.” Sad to see that unions simply copy-paste boilerplate half truths.

13. Steve Van Beek, President & CEO, Eno Transportation Foundation
“Input straight-line assumptions about behavior today and out will come results which suggest public transportation will play a marginal role in the future. (Such an analysis when the Model T was invented would have led to a future replete with horses and buggies and with underbuilt road networks.)” Unfortunately Mr. Van Beek not looked into Bureau of Transportation Statistics showing that public transit share of trips is very small and diminishing, and that the increasing share of telecommuting begins to dwarf rail transit.

14. John D. Porcari, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation
“We have to start by leveling the playing field. While we get highway funds by formula, states and metro areas fight for transit monies primarily through earmarks, and the race to the bottom known as the New Starts program. End the false dichotomy between highway and transit funding by making system preservation needs the first call on federal dollars (whether highways and bridges, transit, aviation or port needs) and then using local, regional and state land use plans to drive new capacity (transit or highway) investment decisions with the remaining unified federal formula dollars.” Highways, bridges, airports and harbors generate their own revenues from user fees and are rarely subsidized by taxpayers. Electricity, telephone, water and sewer services break even and can be profitable. Where is the revenue stream for rail and bus? It is remarkable that people who charge one dollar for a trip that costs over ten dollars are in leading and expert prositions.

15. Greg Cohen, President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance
“The current funding arrangements are set up so that federal highway user fees subsidize transit expenses — thus creating the unfortunate reality that transit does compete for funding at the expense of highway programs. It is important for policy makers and the public to recognize that (excluding air travel) between 98 and 99% of all passenger miles and vehicles miles of travel occur of our nation’s aging roads. Both private auto use and efficient public transit use in most areas is largely dependent on a good network of safe and efficient roads.”

16. Robert L. Crandall, Retired Chairman and CEO, AMR and American Airlines
“In the furor over finding ways to increase and sustain employment, and the understandable desire to use infrasturcture investment to attach that problem, we need to remember that money invested in the wrong tools is the equivalent of money wasted. Bob Poole’s thoughts on how to use buses and rapid transit lanes strike me as worth very careful thought.”

17. Bob Poole, Director of Transportation Studies, Reason Foundation
“For the 22 Metropolitan Planning Organizations whose long-range plans were reviewed, transit spending averages 41% of the total, while transit’s projected mode share is just 5.5%. Something is wrong with this picture. First, MPOs project only modest increases in transit’s mode share by 2030, despite devoting more than 40% (on average) of all transportation dollars to transit. Second, they project that traffic congestion in 2030 will be significantly worse than it is today. There is a direct connection between under-funding the highway infrastructure that buses, car-poolers, and individual motorists depend on and continued increases in congestion. The key is to use congestion pricing for these express lanes. More than a decade of experience with HOT lane projects in half a dozen states has demonstrated the power of congestion pricing to provide reliable, high-speed, uncongested traffic flow on such lanes. Transit agencies would love to have exclusive busways, but a congestion-priced lane is, in fact, the virtual equivalent of an exclusive bus lane. The pricing simply allows enough paying automobiles to share the use of the lane, without degrading its uncongested performance.”

18. Geoff Anderson, Co-chair of the Transportation for America Campaign, President and CEO of Smart Growth America
“There is an undeniable linkage between our broken economy, our broken energy/climate policy, and our broken transportation system. Investing in a 21st Century transportation system with an emphasis on mass transit solutions – while creating safe streets for walking and biking to with them — is a three for one deal: it kick starts our economy and generates jobs, gives hungry Americans transportation options, and begins to solve our climate crisis.” Pure “smart growth” nonsense. There is no significant link between broken economy, walkable streets, bikeways and the ozone layer. You can, however, wordsmith good looking paragraphs and drive up the deficits in the absence of cost-effectiveness and accountability.

19. Deron Lovaas , Federal Transportation Policy Director, Natural Resources Defense Council
“The short answer is that yes, the time is ripe for making a larger commitment to public transportation than has been the case in the last 50 years.” Why? Spending 20% of the transportation budget in the last 20 years on transit systems that carry 5% of the public has not been bad enough?

20. Paul M. Weyrich, Chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
“I have my doubts about the effectiveness of stimulus bills, but since it is clear President elect Obama is intent on advocating one,I certainly hope the Congress will include $8 billion of American Public Transportation Association short-term transit projects in whatever bill they come up with.” This is $8 billion nationwide. Relatively tiny Honolulu would like to build a $5 billion rail … pretty please Mr. Obama.

21.Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow and Director, Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative
“Although almost all of our buses serve the top 100 metro areas but half are concentrated in just 10 large metros. Heavy rail (subways) exist in only 11 metros like Philly and San Francisco. Commuter rail is in only 14 metropolitan areas – primarily in the Northeast and California. And light rail can be found in only 26 – like Minneapolis, San Diego, and Denver. Based on the admittedly simple inventory of transit infrastructure available, 54 of the 100 largest metros do not have any rail transit service and also have relatively weak bus systems. As employment has dispersed through metro areas, lower income workers are finding themselves increasingly isolated and therefore need to spend higher proportions of their income to reach their jobs.” So how can a single rail line with 20 stations help them? Did I mention that it costs $5 billion?

22. Rich Sarles, Executive Director, NJ TRANSIT
“At NJ TRANSIT, we have experienced five consecutive years of record-high ridership with nearly one million trips taken on the system each weekday. Ridership continues to be strong, despite lower gasoline prices, especially on rail service on our busiest lines serving Manhattan. In the next 25 years, we expect ridership on these lines to more than double, creating new challenges to acquire the infrastructure (station capacity, track, rail yards, etc.), rolling stock (rail cars and locomotives) and resources needed to support this demand.” This is really where the nation should be spending its transit monies.

23. Pete Ruane, President and CEO, American Road & Transportation Builders Association
“According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), there is $20 billion annual shortfall at the federal level between current highway investment levels and what is necessary just to maintain road conditions. For public transit at the federal level, the shortfall is about $4 billion annually.” It is too obvious that priority one is maintenance and restoration of what we have, and cautious investment in new priced roadway capacity including exclusive busways and exclusive truckways.

To answer the original question in the subject line: All cases of rail transit in the U.S. excluding Chicago, New York City, and a few other legacy systems have been hyper expensive dinosaur resuscitations at taxpayer expense.

It would be a remarkably poor and expensive choice of President Obama to sink taxpayer dollars in rail transit New Starts. We can barely afford to keep the CTA, MARTA, BART and other metro rail systems alive. Let’s please leave all future dinosaur resuscitations to the movies.

By Panos Prevedouros

The title is paraphrasing a 1983 paper title by Dr. Joseph Schofer, Associate Dean, College of Engineering, Northwestern University. I think it is a more appropriate title than the biased question “Has Mass Transit Finally Arrived?” posed in the NationalJournal.com’s transportation expert panel discussion.

Of course the majority of the 23 commentators answer that the time for transit has come (as it did in all previous oil/global economy crises.) We know that the results were poor from most of those deployments. But learning from history is not a priority in modern society.

If you have about an hour, do read the original text which includes a handful of well thought out positions and concerns.
If not, here are some highlights from each commentator. This part provides excerpts from the first 11 commentators.

1. Eric Britton, Managing Director, New Mobility Partnerships
“Before rushing out to pour many billions of dollars into mass transit, we will do well to recognize that as a phrase, it is a relic of another day, another way of thinking about cities. And indeed another way of thinking about people (mass?).

Here is what we can counsel with confidence to the incoming Obama team about “mass transit” and its appropriate role for the critical 2009-2012 period.

If you have it already in place, your main challenge is to get a lot better at using what you have in a cost-effective manner.

If you do not have it, forget about using scarce taxpayer dollars to build yourself a new one from scratch, because there are far better ways of getting the job done.”

2. Nancy LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president of social impact
“To leave their cars behind, boomers will require the same level of convenience as they have had in their car-centered world.

A coordinated strategy of public transportation, paratransit, coordinated human services transportation, transit-oriented development, and “complete streets” sidewalk networks accessible to transit, can yield a multitude of benefits for people of all ages.

…making stops and vehicles more accessible and user friendly, helping newcomers understand how and where to access schedules and their closest transit with easy to use information, training drivers to understand and pleasantly accommodate the limitations of aging and in some areas offering neighborhood circulators or door-to-door service to grocery stores or shopping malls.”

3. Robin Chase, CEO, GoLoco, Meadow Networks
“If we think back to Katrina, the lack of alternatives for people without cars to evacuate the New Orleans proved disastrous. Some policy experts claimed that the solution was to make sure the poor and carless had access to cars. A few weeks later, another hurricane demanded that Houston evacuate. The highways were backed up and people sat motionless in their cars for hours. Today, as I write this note, a huge snow storm is bearing down on Boston. Planes are canceled and roads will be dangerous. My homeward-bound college age son is stuck in Washington DC.

My point is not that we should build trains and transit to accommodate one-day freak storms, just as I do not advocate building parking lots to accommodate Black Friday shopping demand. But real diversity and redundancy in transportation systems is mandatory. This nation needs to accommodate the transportation needs of people of all incomes, of all ages, of all development densities. The last 50 years of supporting one mode — cars — to exclusion of others, has not served us well. It is time to right the balance.”

Somebody needs to tell her that a few days after hurricane Ike hit Houston, all systems were up and running except for its rail that took two and a half weeks.

4. Michael A. Replogle, Transportation Director, Environmental Defense Fund
“Established rail systems need to be revitalized. But pouring money into poorly conceived transit projects will not make transit a viable alternative for the majority of Americans living in auto-dependent suburban areas.

The most cost-effective way to expand high performance mass rapid transit is Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT. … And BRT can be used like rail to anchor transit-oriented development. … A big advantage of BRT is that the bus can go anywhere. The same bus can operate in mixed traffic where there is no congestion, enter a busway in a congested area, and then leave the busway again.

Performance-based transportation investment plans should be required as a condition for funding, including operational plans for both highways and public transportation.”

5. Bill Graves, President and CEO, American Trucking Association
“Although mass transit performs many important uses, particularly for certain niche communities in large urban areas, it cannot replace our nation’s need for good highways. While mass transit effectively moves people, infrastructure investment is critical to the safe and efficient movement of freight.”

6. Judith Bergquist, Associate Director of Rural Programs in the Denver office of the Colorado Center for Community Development
“Sometimes we look past some simple and very viable alternatives to multi – modal transit for bigger glitzy solutions: We should look at road and bus systems that could effectively be started today and get buses to run every 10 minutes from suburb to suburb and suburb to work centers and downtowns. We need the buses to run often with lots of quick stops to increase this ridership before other transit is even in place. We will lose the cars because there will be ease of access.”

7. Paul Yarossi, President, HNTB Holdings Ltd.
“Public transit supporters definitely have the clout to influence the next transportation bill. In no way will this effort to fund more public transit projects replace the much needed investment in maintaining and expanding our national highway system.”

Solid advice for worsening the already huge budget deficits (to the benefit of mega contractors.)

8. Christopher B. Leinberger, Real estate developer, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Professor and Director of the University of Michigan graduate real estate program
“Why rail transit? Middle class Americans like it far better than bus transit. In addition, real estate developers and investors have increased confidence in it since rail transit implies permanence; it is easy to change a bus route but not so with fixed rail. The combination of middle class preference and the permanence of rail transit have resulted in far more real estate development being sparked around rail stations than bus stops.”

Great paragraph but there is little proof that any of this is true. Most US cities developed quite well in the complete absence of rail.

9. Emil H. Frankel, Director of Transportation Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center
“How can transportation best serve national goals and purposes like economic growth, environmental and energy sustainability, national connectivity, metropolitan accessibility, and safety?

Before we allocate funding - whether to give transit or highways more money - let’s ensure that we have a performance-based approach that can help us identify and prioritize programs that achieve national goals.”

10. Frank Busalacchi, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation
“The current transit programs send much of the funding to mass transit systems in our largest metropolitan areas. Our metropolitan areas rely on mass transit to provide a needed mobility option for those who don’t want to use their cars or don’t have cars to use. However, in many parts of the country bus fleets are old, far beyond the time frame in which they should have been replaced.”

11. Tim Kaine, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia
“Transit and rail investments are expensive up front and even more so when operation and maintenance costs are factored in over time. These long term financial commitments only make sense if there are different land use patterns to take advantage of the transit and rail investments.

Increased funding should not come at the expense of other modes, particularly given the dire need to repair and replace our existing bridges across the country.”

==========

A few common themes emerge from these diverse opinions:

* Need to maintain what infrastructure we have and expand it.
* Look into buses, BRT and other affordable solutions first.
* Performance-based decision making and accountability for infrastructure projects.

The latter means that a systematic way is used to look at urban transportation problems and address the issues in a cost-effective away.

This is the opposite of what occurred in Honolulu where a politician was elected in 2004 and made rail the number one priority: Total top-down dictum. The lack of accountability is obvious in that there is no accounting of $107 million spent on rail studies and the shameless use of taxpayer money to defame those opposing the system and produce an avalanche of TV, radio, newspaper and home-mailed ads and fliers.

By Panos Prevedouros

As you know, I strongly oppose the proposed rail for Oahu. The proposed city charter amendment for rail that obtained 50.6% of the yes vote is a recommendation not a demand upon elected officials. It was obtained after a multimillion dollar misinformation campaign at taxpayer expense. The rail project exemplifies the most wasteful and irresponsible use of taxpayer monies.It is very important to send a letter to the City for the rail Draft EIS. The letters must be post marked February 6, 2009.

No matter how brief, they will need to read and respond to it. And we need to make them aware of our concerns. Let your friends know about this.

Some guidance is here: “Read the Rail Study and Comment so City Can Design the Best System”

Your letter does not have to be negative. You can declare support if you support rail but ask for clarifications and raise concerns. If you know journalists here or on the mainland, let them know of your concerns too.

Of course too many things are going on during the holidays. (They count on it!) Please don’t drop this ball

Aloha and Best Wishes for the Holidays!

By Romy Cachola

Funding for the city’s 20-mile minimum operable segment of rail has always been a major concern for me.

The half-percent GET collection for rail for the first 20 months was $246 million. If averaged out over the 15 years of collection, the total GET would be about $2.2 billion, which falls short of the overly optimistic $4.1 billion in GET surcharge revenues estimated in the draft environmental impact statement.

The following are other reasons for concern:

• With GET levels down, there may not be enough funds collected to build the eight-mile first segment from East Kapolei to Waipahu, which I suspect may cost around $1 billion.

• The airport alignment, if selected instead of Salt Lake Boulevard, would add $220 million more to the total price tag, plus an additional $75 million to double-deck the platform and guideway at the Lagoon Drive station, according to the draft EIS.

• According to the president’s budget for fiscal year 2007, as stated in the Annual Report on New Starts Proposed Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 2007, there are 21 other transportation projects ahead of Honolulu’s rail project that have applied for full funding grant agreements.

I stated early on that we can expect one or more of the following proposals if our construction cost estimates are off:

• Extend the half-percent GET collection beyond 2022, the final year of tax collection.

• Increase the GET to 1 percent.

• Borrow money by floating bonds.

• Increase property taxes.

It seems that the administration’s plan to fast-track the first segment of the project using collected GET funds is coupled with the notion that once construction begins there will be no stopping. This may explain why the administration is hinting at floating bonds sooner rather than later to make up for the shortage. If we are forced to borrow money, as I suspect we will be, the debt service will be an added strain on taxpayers.

Instead, I strongly suggest, if at all possible, that the city fast-track its application to secure a FFGA with the Federal Transit Administration before starting construction.

The benefits of an FFGA are that it:

• Defines the project scope.

• Establishes a firm date for project completion.

• Provides a mechanism for designating funds for future years.

• Leads to the development of accurate cost estimates.

• Permits the use of state and local funding for early project activities without jeopardizing future federal funding for those activities.

An FFGA will result in better predictability and transparency and hopefully prevent cost overruns and delays of the project. Also, an FFGA will give our taxpayers peace of mind and comfort in knowing that they won’t be saddled with the burden of repaying long-term debt through borrowing. We would further save taxpayers’ money if the more affordable Salt Lake Boulevard alignment, which has a solid ridership base, is selected.

The City Council and administration need to keep taxpayers’ best interests in mind for this multi-billion-dollar project. A successful project is one that will not only encourage commuters to leave their cars at home but also won’t bankrupt our taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

Contact Romy M. Cachola, Councilmember for District VII at 768-5007 .

By Bobbie Slater

First, thank you to everyone who helped the initiative effort. Being on the ballot gave us good visibility with the press, and made 140,000 people aware of the fact that they don’t want rail transit. What a huge success!

A month had passed since the election, and there is much happening on the rail transit front.

Several important local organizations are making their voices heard loud and clear:

·         Na Leo Pohai, the public policy affiliate of The Outdoor Circle has done excellent research on the DEIS and the “concerns” they have raised should have everyone up in arms.

* Hawaii’s 1,000 Friends is equally upset, and has written a very forceful critique of the project.
* The Hawaii chapter of the American Institute of Architects is in opposition to the elevated structure downtown and has done an eloquent and well thought out paper on their concerns
* The League of women Voters has voiced their opposition to this project from the start.

All of these organizations are in favor of public transportation, but given this particular rail transit project, with its huge cost and unparalleled environmental blight, have felt compelled to speak out.

Honolulutraffic.com, which has always been the research arm of the stop rail initiative will continue to be the “mother ship” of the movement with the aim of continually educating the public on the most important public works issue in our history, and what the real solutions are.

Currently, we are working on a detailed response to the Federal Transit Administration on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It is very important that you all prepare statements to them as well.

This is truly a grassroots effort of real people, as we saw in yesterday’s morning Advertiser. Go Rail Go and the other pro rail groups all received their money from big developers including Infraconsult and Parsons Brinkerhoff. The donations to stoprailnow were all from individuals – concerned citizens like you.

We want to reach out to all of the 140,000 new supporters who voted against rail in the election in any way possible.

Starting within our group, ask everyone you know that voted against rail to do two things.

1.      Make sure that you and everyone you know who is opposed to rail are members of honolulutraffic.com. It’s easy. Just go to honolulutraffic.com, click on “who we are” and add your name to the many that are there. It is important as we go forward that we represent thousands of Honolulu citizens who realize that this boondoggle will unalterably ruin our Honolulu. All stoprailnow people should also be honolulutraffic.com members.

2.      Ask people to respond to the DEIS. They do NOT have to be versed in the document itself.

Merely ask people to write to the Federal Transit Administration and express whatever concerns they have. The huge issues of course are the elevated rail downtown and the visual blight that will result, and the environmental justice issue of the most regressive tax in the country used to fund the project.

These letters should be emailed or postmarked on or before January 7th and addressed to:

Mr. Wayne Y. Yoshioka

Department of Transportation Services

City and County of Honolulu

650 South King Street, 3rd Floor

Honolulu, HI 96813

808-768-8303

Email: wyoshioka@honolulu.gov

Mr. Ted Matley

FTA Region IX

201 Mission Street, Suite 1650

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-744-3133
Email: ted.matley@fta.dot.gov.

In addition, it would be most helpful if copies were sent to:

Governor Linda Lingle

Executive Chambers

Hawaii State Capitol

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Email: Governor.Lingle@hawaii.gov

City Council members:

http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/council/ccl.htm

These letters don’t need to take much time. Ask people to speak from the heart. As always, we are available to answer questions any time.

Our very best wishes to everyone for this Holiday Season. We hope the New Year brings to you, and to our Honolulu, only the best.

By Panos Prevedouros

The architects’ society, AIA Honolulu, drafted comments on the rail DEIS. Basically they are in favor of the rail concept but they do not want elevated rail. To quote their December 4, 2008 draft letter to the City: “In comparison with elevated systems, at grade systems would require less taxpayer funding and offer greater flexibility and affordability in planning for future extensions.”

On Oahu, at grade rail will be cheaper in terms of guideway costs, and it will have a much lower aesthetic impact, but its requirements for condemnation and roadway congestion will both skyrocket. Condemnation would be extensive (and very expensive) because at grade space must be found for the wide turns that trains make and for 20+ stations. Roadway lanes will be lost to light rail; not only one lane per direction, but also adjacent lanes to install stations. For example, an at-grade light rail installation between downtown and the UH will practically take all of Beretania Street and maybe allow for one lane left for local access and deliveries. Lane-taking in Honolulu, one of the most lane starved cities in the nation, is not rational. Overall AIA’s recommendation for at grade rail is not a practical one.

Would a light version of the Japanese roof-mounted monorail make better sense?

This is the Ofuna Enoshima monorail. The guideway and posts of this system can be made slimmer by designing them for smaller and lighter trains, so the visual impact when a train is absent is small. But of course its stations would still be big and obtrusive. Such a system was not presented or evaluated in the DEIS.

Another fixed guideway option is the PPT, or personal public transit, but all of them are experimental or drawing board concepts. There are several concepts but the SkyTran concept for personalized magnetic levitation (Maglev) rapid transit (http://www.unimodal.com/) is exciting and All American. Its light structure makes it much more suitable for beautiful Honolulu.

If Honolulu were to develop 12 miles of HOT lanes now to solve its leeward Oahu congestion issues, in 20 years some of the PPT could be market ready and they have the potential to be fast, quiet, convenient and inexpensive. With HOT lanes, underpasses, smart traffic lights and PPT, Honolulu in 2030 would be an international transportation technology capital. This would be accomplished at a locally affordable cost and with minimal impact to aesthetics, cultural and historical sites.

Panos Prevedouros is an engineering professor and former candidate for the C & C of Honolulu.  See his blog, Fix Oahu!

The city will have its first public hearing on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for Honolulu rail on Dec. 6 from 9-11 am at Kapolei Hale, 1000 Uluohia St.

Here are the other meeting dates, times and locations are:

By Romy Cachola

By early December, the City Council will have decided whether to re-route the transit line to the airport, or keep it on Salt Lake Boulevard.

We find ourselves at this point as the result of a meeting between the mayor and leaders in the Salt Lake community in February of last year. At that meeting, the mayor committed himself to support the transit line along Salt Lake Boulevard. He offered the route to the community. As the councilmember of the district, I was there to facilitate the discussion.

If this commitment is not followed through, consider it another in a line of broken promises to the Salt Lake community. Earlier, the administration deleted $30 million earmarked to complete the widening of Salt Lake Boulevard but promised that the work would be done concurrently with the construction of the transit line on Salt Lake Boulevard.

In the November election, many Salt Lake residents voted ‘yes’ for the rail project, believing that it would be routed through their neighborhood. Yet, barely a day after the election, an announcement was made to re-route the line to the airport. Tell me—is this fair?

Promises notwithstanding, it would seem that rerouting the transit line to the airport is the logical choice at first blush. But if you take a closer look at the issue, the Salt Lake route makes a strong case as the optimal route.

The first issue is cost. The Salt Lake route is $220 million less to build than the airport. Then there is the cost to operate and maintain the system. Currently, taxpayers subsidize the cost of the Bus at $120 million per year.

We can expect even higher taxpayer subsidy for rail, especially when the initial segment will be built from East Kapolei to Waipahu. Who will ride on his “train to no where?” Worse yet, this first segment will do little to relieve traffic since gridlock begins where H-1 and H-2 merge.

A second key argument is ridership. The City’s ridership projections are provided for the Year 2030. When the rail line is built in 2017, ridership levels for the airport won’t be realized for 13 more years! In comparison, Salt Lake offers a solid ridership base in a densely-populated community and as a result, the potential for higher farebox revenues. Even with downturns in the economy, ridership for the Salt Lake route would be less affected.

I question the 95,000 passengers a day for the airport route, particularly when considering that there are approximately 12,500 civilian employees at Hickam and Pearl Harbor who already have free parking on base. There are also approximately 3,500 state and private sector employees at the airport, which also has over 7,000 parking stalls, including the new 1,800 stall parking structure.

As for our visitors, 71 percent of the total 7 million who come to Hawaii each year land at Honolulu International Airport. Two million of our visitors are Japanese, the majority of whom arrive on tour packages with pre-arranged transportation.

The remaining option for other visitors is to take the taxi or City bus. Not many choose to ride the City bus, due to the inconvenience and lack of space for their luggage.

In much the same way, visitors may find the rail to be inconvenient, especially since the station is located too far away from the passenger terminal and with the lack of a direct link into Waikiki.

The fact of the matter is that promises were made to Salt Lake residents. To renege on these promises is simply bad karma. If there was ever a community that knows what a broken promise feels like, it is the residents of the Leeward Coast who have struggled for years with a landfill in their backyard. Their trust in government has been repeatedly violated with unkept promises to close the landfill.

While the airport route may appear to have public support, I believe that the rail issue is not a popularity contest, but rather a serious pocketbook issue with billions of dollars at stake. The Salt Lake community has worked hard to justify why the alignment for rail should go through their community.

The reason is simply that it costs fewer dollars and makes the most sense.

By Panos Prevedouros

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the City’s proposed rail system is the document that should provide answers to all reasonable impacts. It is available at all public libraries. It is also available at the city’s website honolulutransit.com along with a lot of the rail propaganda that your tax dollars paid for.

Below I list 20 simple but important questions. Does the DEIS answer them clearly?

1. The bus routes will change. What happens to your route? What happens to express buses?
2. Lanes will be taken away, some temporarily for construction and some permanently. Where are those lane closures and what is their duration? Are there traffic rerouting plans?
3. Will there be bike racks on the train and where will they be located? Will bikes be allowed on the train? Will there be a place for surfboards? What about luggage? What about construction workers’ tools? Will there be a place for people to put large items they purchase at a big box retailer? What’s the size limitation?
4. Will there be washrooms at the stations? How about convenience stores, vending machines? Will the platforms have seats? How many?
5. Under land use, Aloun farms needs to relocate. Is that possible? Where will they go?
6. A relatively simple job of sewer upgrades in Kailua and Kapiolani lead to the loss of businesses and jobs. Are details provided about similar effects during the construction of the rail?
7. Is there a detailed plan for the effect of rail construction on water, sewer, gas and electric utilities? Will there be disruptions of service? Who pays for all these?
8. About $107 million will be spent on the soft costs of this project. This “paperwork” cost is rather exorbitant for a single 20 mile rail line. How did $107 million get spent?
9. The DEIS list of preparers for technical content shows that it was done almost exclusively with out-of-Hawaii engineers, planners and specialists. (See this document under Consultants: http://www.honolulutransit.org/library/files/end.pdf.) H-3 freeway was designed mostly with Hawaii based engineers. If Hawaii engineers are not able to design rail, who will supervise and build this unfamiliar-to-Oahu infrastructure?
10. Rail construction involves unique skills and certifications that Hawaii construction workers do not have. How will this be addressed?
11. The city has declared that in many cases only a portion of a parcel needs to be condemned and taken away. Can the business survive with the remaining portion? Are they forced to mandatory downsizing and some loss of employment?
12. There are 16 schools that are adjacent to the alignment. Will the overhead structure, the continuous high current exposure and the intermittent noise and vibration affect the learning environment? Is it prudent to relocate the schools?
13. Does rail fit our Hawaiian Sense of Place? How was the impact to tourism and local quality of life by a large elevated structure through town been assessed?
14. Does the DEIS address the impacted vistas and scenery? Are the aesthetics of the structure and each station explained and presented adequately?
15. What will happen in the event of a hurricane? Will the train operate? The train in Houston was shut down for 10 days due to hurricane Ike.
16. BART in the Bay Area uses rail cars made of aluminum to combat corrosion. Is the city’s position that corrosion is not an issue?
17. It appears that General Excise Tax surcharge proceeds for rail will be much lower than expected for at least four years in a row. How is this deficit going to be made up?
18. If ridership turns out to be lower than forecast, then what? If the city is forced to provide free train rides like in Puerto Rico, how is the shortfall going to be covered?
19. I heard that the Ala Moana station will now be at a lower elevation, at the west end of Kona Street and not above Nordstrom’s. What is the exact plan for the Ala Moana Center station and how is the train going to Waikiki and UH afterwards?
20. Starting construction in Kapolei makes little sense. It may be expeditious and convenient but it is not smart. Why can’t a temporary rail yard be established near the airport or Aloha Stadium and build rail east into the city and west out to Kapolei simultaneously?

The billion dollar question that no DEIS could address is this: With President Obama at the helm and Senator Inouye chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee can we get four billion for rail? How about splitting the bill 50-50 with the feds? Other cities got a 50% or better federal match. Why does Honolulu get less than 25%?

These and many more questions require simple and clear answers.

In addition to the 429 page DEIS, the following files contain information and visuals. The City distributes them on a DVD.

• Historic Resources.pdf
• Land Use.pdf
• Transportation Tech Report.pdf
• Street Trees.pdf
• Electric and Magnetic Fields Technical Report.pdf
• Visual and Aesthetic Technical Report.pdf
• Historic Appendix B.pdf
• Cultural Resources.pdf
• Economics.pdf
• Geology, soils, farmlands, and natural hazardsTech Report.pdf
• Haz Waste and Mat Tech Report Appendix A.pdf
• Natural Resources.pdf
• Noise&Vibration.pdf
• Haz Waste and Mat Tech Report.pdf
• tEISTravelForecasting ENTIRE.pdf
• Community Impacts.pdf
• Archaeological Resources.pdf
• Water Resources.pdf
• AQ&Energy.pdf

The City released this huge document just before the November 4 elections and in a period that includes the most holidays and days off. (The deadline for comment is January 7, 2009.) The hearings on the adequacy of the Alternatives Analysis were also conducted and concluded in the late November to late December 2006 period to make it as hard as possible for citizens to participate. (If it looks like a Banana Republic and acts like a Banana Republic …)

Honorable Linda Lingle

Governor, State of Hawaii

Subject: Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030

Refs:     a) Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 (ORTP 2030)

http://oahumpo.org/ortp/index.html.b) Tampa Elevated reversible -

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/172c) Managed Lane Study “Transportation Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating Traffic congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu. The full report is available at

www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/UHCS.pdf.d) DEIS Honolulu High-Capacity transit Corridor Project Nov 2008

Dear Governor Lingle,

President elect Obama is meeting with State Governors today to encourage the Governors to submit public works projects to create 2.5 million jobs and to stimulate the economy. Below are two highway projects that are very much needed to eliminate the severe Central Oahu traffic congestion on H-1 at the H-1/H-2 merge and at the Middle Street Merge.

The Oahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) 2030, reference (a), lists State Project No. 52 , Nimitz Flyover (2.2 mile, Estimated cost - $250 million) will substantially remove the Middle Street bottleneck. However, to increase traffic capacity while reducing the cost of this project, it is strongly suggested that the Nimitz Flyover structure be built similar to the Tampa Elevated three-lane Reversible HOV as described on reference (b). The actual 2005 cost for the 10 mile Tampa Reversible is $420 million or $42 Million per highway mile. Using a geographic and escalation factor of 100 percent, the 2.2 mile Nimitz Flyover at $80 million per mile would cost $175 million for three HOV reversible lanes.

Reference (c) recommends the Tampa Reversible type highway over this Nimitz segment and provides the downtown terminal connections from the Nimitz HOV Flyover via an elevated busway from Iwilei to Hotel Street and a single lane underpass to both Alakea St/Halekauwila Streets. Note that one of the three lanes would exit the Flyover at Waikamilo Rd. to provide access to job centers in Kalihi, resulting in the Flyover having only two lanes entering downtown.

The planned ORTP 2030 Project No. 45, Interstate Route H-1, “Widen the Interstate Route H-1 by one lane in the eastbound direction, from the Waiawa Interchange to the Halawa Interchange (cost estimate $251 million)”. A better highway project would be to build a three-lane reversible HOV “Kamehameha Flyover” which has three times higher traffic capacity for a slightly higher cost. The solution is to build a 4 mile, elevated, three-lane reversible HOV “Kamehameha Flyover” over the median of Kamehameha Hwy from the H-1/H-2 merge to the H-1 Viaduct east of Aloha Stadium. Again, the three-lane “Kamehameha Flyover” structure should be similar to the Tampa three-lane reversible, reference (b), which should cost about $80 Million per mile for a total cost of $320 million. Reference (c) provides the highway connections between the “Kamehameha Flyover” and H-1, H-2, Farrington Highway and Kamehameha Highway at the Waiawa Interchange.

The DEIS, reference (d), shows the rail route over Kamehameha Highway between Pearl City and Aloha Stadium which could conflict with the proposed three-lane “Kamehameha Flyover” route outlined above. If the rail is built, it is suggested that both the Kamehameha Highway “Flyover” and the Rail be built within the elevated Kamehameha Highway corridor. In this case, only a two-lane “Kamehameha Flyover” is needed ( instead of three-lanes) to be built alongside and parallel to the Rail transit. The rail with a capacity of 6,000 commuters per hour and the two-lane “Kamehameha Flyover”, with a capacity of 4,000 vehicles per hour, should be adequate to substantially reduce the bottleneck at the H-1/H-2 merge.

You will note that a three-lane HOV Flyovers on Kamehameha Highway and on Nimitz Highway will not need Rail to eliminate the two bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Middle Street merge.

I strongly urge you to appeal to President elect Obama to provide federal funds for these two Sate highway bypasses around the  H-1 bottlenecks to eliminate the Central Oahu traffic congestion and to support Oahu’s slumping economy

Sincerely,

Ben Ramelb P.E.

Honolulu

By Dan Douglass

Permaculture is a dual combination of the words permanent and agriculture as well as permanent and culture.  It was coined in the 1970s and has since been most promoted by Bill Mollison.  To find out more about Bill and his work visit his site.

Urban Permaculture in Chicago, Illinois.

Farms in unused plots of land is a concept I was introduced to by a Salt Lake neighbor here in Honolulu.  In his profession he analyzes trends in non-profits.  He expressed his deep concern for food supply in Hawaii.  The food banks experienced significant decrease in consumables donated while a significant increase in need.  He recommended unused land be put to wise use through community farms where the governing jurisdiction lease land for low or no cost to the willing and able public to grow fresh produce.

Urban Permaculture in Brooklyn, NY.

The following videos demonstrate that Urban Permaculture is not only possible, but that it has been successful in a variety of municipalities in the U.S. and world.  Why not here in Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii?  Many of our schools are adjacent to City or State parks where even as little as five thousand square feet of land allocated to permaculture could yield year round produce and instruction opportunities to our children.  The City could offer property tax incentives to associations that implement urban permaculture.  And forget the politically and economically bankrupt ‘Transit Oriented Developments’ that destroy Honolulu’s beauty, Hawaii as a whole needs ‘Agriculturally Sustainable Development.’ With our ideal tropical conditions and nutrient rich soils permaculture can be a reality here to the benefit of our environment, economic and consumable needs, cultural enrichment and the next generation.

Parts 1-4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpyocn1Vc5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCyDN9nAnVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmW4nIgjkb4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYhCtpJY1NI

By Benjamin Powell

Feast and football. That’s what many of us think about at Thanksgiving. Most people identify the origin of the holiday with the Pilgrims’ first bountiful harvest. But few understand how the Pilgrims actually solved their chronic food shortages.

Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.

In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.

Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.

This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.

We are direct beneficiaries of the economics lesson the pilgrims learned in 1623. Today we have a much better developed and well-defined set of property rights. Our economic system offers incentives for us—in the form of prices and profits—to coordinate our individual behavior for the mutual benefit of all; even those we may not personally know.

It is customary in many families to give thanks to the hands that prepared this feast during the Thanksgiving dinner blessing. Perhaps we should also be thankful for the millions of other hands that helped get the dinner to the table: the grocer who sold us the turkey, the truck driver who delivered it to the store, and the farmer who raised it all contributed to our Thanksgiving dinner because our economic system rewards them. That’s the real lesson of Thanksgiving. The economic incentives provided by private competitive markets where people are left free to make their own choices make bountiful feasts possible.

Benjamin Powell is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, assistant professor of economics at Suffolk University and a Senior Economist with the Beacon Hill Institute. Dr. Powell received his Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University. He has been assistant professor of economics at San Jose State University, a fellow with the Mercatus Center’s Global Prosperity Initiative, and a visiting research fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research.

Leon Siu and Ken Conklin have weighed in for years on Hawaii’s sovereignty issues.  Their latest articles were released yesterday in the Hawaii Reporter.

Leon Siu article: Hawaii Ceded Lands Case Rejoinder

Ken Conklin’s article: Diplomatic, Military and Economic Threats to Hawaii Security

By Skip Gay

When the Council and Mayor tell the people that the rail route is in one direction, merely to get their vote, then immediately change that route after the election, all reasonable and fair-minded people, whether they live in Salt Lake or not, have reason to question their character and sincerity.  Were those lies, or was it intentional misinformation given to the public to get their vote?

Either way, it confirms in the minds of many people that those that sold the idea of rail, are two-faced, and nothing they say can be believed any more.  For me, all bets are off.  I call for a new petition and a new vote on rail!

Skip Gay is a home-owner and resident of Salt Lake.

Editor’s note: originally published in Hawaii Reporter on Sept. 19, 2008.

By Daniel Brackins, John Carroll and Dan Douglass

Now is the time for a demonstration of leadership unlike ever before seen in the history of Hawaii. The clock is ticking and the only thing Gov. Lingle has to gain or lose is her own future political career.

Our state leaders must not succumb to the failed systems of the old boy networks that infest, corrupt and destroy every area of Hawaii’s economic livelihood, but rather convey an unparalleled vision of economic freedom that will not only inspire the oppressed of Hawaii to action but establish an unshakable and globally competitive marketplace in Hawaii.

The faces of the economically oppressed have grown and diversified over the years. It’s not only the hungry family or individual you see at IHS or River of Life Mission, but any and everyone who can no longer survive in Hawaii’s failing marketplace.

These are our family members, colleagues, friends and neighbors who ultimately end up purchasing the one way ticket to a place of economic refuge. Will our leaders unashamedly put the self-benefiting political deal-making aside and take the courageous necessary steps that will empower and restore Hawaii’s economy?

It has been five months since Governor Lingle gave her speech on the state of Hawaii’s economy- “Highlighting Hawaii’s Economic Challenges and Opportunities.” It was at that time we responded to her disconnection with the hardships of the Hawaii’s citizens in “Economic Reality Check for Governor Lingle.”

The Governor’s office responded to our piece with, “Gov. Lingle Has the Facts and Solutions on Hawaii’s Economy.” Their response continued to be cluttered with misstatements, and warranted our reply in, “Economic Reality Check for Governor Lingle Part II”

On Sept. 16, 2008 the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reiterated our predictions in reporting that Hawaii is facing a recession. Gov. Lingle claimed many months ago that “reverberations from the U.S. economy are now being felt worldwide,” but “many of these stories [about a failing economy] simply don’t apply to Hawaii.”

Hawaii is now facing increased numbers of bankruptcies, layoffs, business failures, foreclosures, and increased unemployment.

All of these are indicators that Hawaii’s economy is in peril; indicators that Gov. Lingle and her administration seemed to have missed when painting their rosy picture of the economy several months ago. Yet we mentioned all of these factors in our analysis, but they were dismissed as “completely ludicrous statement[s] based on zero fact.”

We earlier claimed that the state is “peering into possibly the most painful economic period in our Hawaii’s history since statehood.” With the current national economic crisis possibly being one of the worst since the 1930’s, how can Hawaii not be affected?

Hawaii has not hedged itself against a downturn in the national economy. Our economy relies mainly on tourism. With a lack of confidence in the U.S. economy, travelers are very unlikely to come to Hawaii for vacation.

In turn our economy has seen a decline in the tourism industry. With fewer tourists coming to fuel our economy all other businesses are affected. One of these affects is an increasing unemployment rate with businesses having to cut expenditures.

The solution to hedge some of these negative effects would have been a vibrant sustainable economy in Hawaii. We provided many possibilities in our previous articles, but two foundational examples are the establishment of free trade and an agricultural industry in the state.

Why does industry and commerce based on importing and exporting in Hong Kong and Singapore flourish while Hawaii spirals downwards? Why do we pay so much more in Hawaii for everything shipped in when our central location should be a tremendous contribution to boom our economy?

Now, in excess of 90% of all goods, food, consumables, and others are imported. Why? With the nearest cape 2300 miles away to the East, the negative impact of the Jones Act on Hawaii’s fragile economy is truly devastating. How does this affect Hawaii? One instance that most can relate to is the cost of goods such as milk. Milk is on average over $7 a gallon. This is because there is no significant dairy production in the state, and milk must be shipped from the mainland.

Once upon a time agriculture was Hawaii’s leading economic component. Every item we use in agricultural production such as fertilizers, feeds, pesticides, and field equipment must be imported. With just two companies controlling all the shipping, these costs skyrocket above what is being paid for the same items on the mainland. Implements manufactured in Russia, Denmark and China are simply not available to Hawaii’s farmers.

Additionally, even if we produce our very delicious fruits such as mango, lilikoi, papaya, lychee, grapefruit, melons, rambutan, and oranges we cannot ship them to world-wide markets where they can command the highest prices. Our healthy cattle, free of hoof and mouth or mad cow disease, would be highly prized in international markets and bring substantial profit here to our ranchers.

The major impediment to eliminating this constricting law is our own Congressional delegation and the State of Hawaii’s administration that choose to not act to reform this denigrating law. With a Hawaii exemption from or elimination of this Act, coupled with major free trade zones, our Hawaii would be well on its way towards a self sustainable economy.

Investors and business would pour into Hawaii, this could lead to new industries being developed that will bring revenue and employment to the state.

Currently the GDP of the state is about $50 billion; with our suggestions Hawaii could expect a GDP of well over $200 billion. Singapore and Hong Kong, both with a vastly smaller land mass than Hawaii, bring in a GDP of over $222 billion and $208 billion respectively. Both of these areas use many similar economic principles prescribed by us, and are economically self sufficient.

Our state politicians were not prudent enough to take proactive measures. Hawaii’s citizenry is now faced with fearful uncertainty. There are no simple solutions and we do not expect a quick end to the current financial crisis, with more turmoil ahead. We urge Gov. Lingle to take the lead and begin to take the steps necessary to make Hawaii a self sustaining economy. The hope of our state rests in the determined productivity and ingenuity of the rising generation. Our current officials have a choice. To oppose and stifle this hope through special-interest driven regulatory policy and bailout at the public’s expense or to facilitate future freedom by getting out the way of honest competition and demanding integrity every time they look in the mirror.

By Panos Prevedouros

Proponents of rail argue that billions of dollars of development will occur along a rail line and they offer multibillion dollar estimates from other cities.

Let’s take a few examples of large developments that occurred on a 6-mile corridor in Honolulu between 1992 and 2008:

• Extensive hotel and retail renovations in Waikiki
• Two new towers at Hilton Hawaiian Village
• The Hawaii Convention Center
• Ala Moana Center nearly doubled in size
• Three colossal Nauru towers
• Several other large buildings along Kapiolani Blvd. and in Kakaako
• UH’s Kakaako Medical Complex
• Aloha Tower Marketplace development
• A couple of new towers in downtown Honolulu including First Hawaiian Bank tower, the state’s tallest building
• Redevelopment of Dole Cannery and the large Costco complex in Iwilei.

All these and other smaller developments sum up to multi billion dollar development along the 1992 rail route. We did not build rail. But if we had, then all the developments above would be credited to it!

Lesson: You do not need rail for development and opportunities to flourish. You need a robust economy, a well-paid populous, low taxes, good quality products and services (tourism, education, local products, etc.), steady and smart leadership, and reliable infrastructure and government operations. Rail is simply a scheme to rob a million people (through taxes) in order to benefit a few hundred insiders and a few thousand workers, most of them temporary.

A video-piece of Mayor Hannemann unashamedly disputing himself and a parody of this morning’s Honolulu Advertiser front page.

Find more videos like this on Ann Listens!

Courtesy of zeroshibai.com

“Facts” in EIS Executive Summary Mis-inform, Mislead Public.

By Donovan Dela Cruz

Honolulu, October 31, 2008. Councilmember and Mayoral Candidate Ann Kobayashi and Professor Panos Prevedouros will hold a press conference today at 1:15 pm at Kobayashi Headquarters.

They will address several statements in the EIS summary that are misleading and will provide clarification on key areas in the summary, including the City’s revised figures on the reduction of traffic congestion and building and operational costs of the rail project.

Kobayashi states that she is “deeply concerned that our citizens are being asked to vote on a multi-billion dollar rail system, the largest public works project ever in the state in just four days, with no real information on which to base their vote.

“This manipulation of the EIS is just more of the same irresponsible behavior we’ve come to expect from Mufi. The people of our island are being misled and this is just wrong,” she adds.

“The EIS reference to a summer traffic reduction of 23% is pure fantasy,” said Prevedouros. “By the mythical math the city used to achieve that figure, the EzWay will reduce traffic by 61%.”

“Until now, we have been inundated with advertising on television, radio and in the newspapers about the rail project. All of it has been carefully crafted to present a bright picture, all under the guise of “education” and paid for by $2.6 million of taxpayers’ money,” says Kobayashi. “We now know that the FTA did not require this expenditure, despite information in Mufi’s printed 8 page brochure that claims the city is mandated to do so.

“From an environmental standpoint,” added Kobayashi, “It is painful to read that ‘visual and aesthetic impacts include project components that are out of scale and character with their setting.”

Donovan Dela Cruz is Ann Kobayashi’s campaign manager

Sean Hao of the Honolulu Advertiser released this story today about the timing of Honolulu Rail Transit’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement.  Dept. of Transportation Services Director, Wayne Yoshioka, stated:

“The election has nothing to do with it (the timing of the release). What determines the release of it is when I get word from RTD (Rapid Transit Division) that the document is ready for release.”

This is as political as it gets.  The press and everyone with their lawyers and pet dogs will scrutinize that document once it’s released.  Rail proponents know exactly that and are now buying whatever time they can.

District VII, Council-member Romy Cachola released this statement last week to clarify misleading advertisement by the Hannemann campaign.

Recent ads that discredit City Council member Ann Kobayashi’s involvement in the Waimea Valley settlement are half-truths. Here are the facts:

June 2001: The council adopted Resolution 01-160 urging the city to allow OHA to purchase the property. OHA then was willing to pay up to $6 million.

May 2004: I was appointed as the council’s settlement negotiator. Council member Kobayashi’s expertise as budget chair was invaluable.

November 2005: Attorney Bill McCorriston proposed a settlement to split Waimea — 300 acres for the city and 1,500 acres to Attractions Hawai’i — and subdivide the property into homes and an ecological camp. The proposal was supported by the mayor but opposed by many, including Hawaiian and environmental groups.

Dec. 7, 2005: The council rejected the settlement. Council member Kobayashi consistently voted against the proposal to split the property.

The mayor denounced the council’s 9-0 vote, and McCorriston said he would deal only with the mayor. At that point, I was left out of negotiations.

Jan. 13, 2006: A new deal was reached, but at taxpayers’ expense. OHA acquired title to Waimea Valley for $2.9 million, while the city paid $5.1 million for half the easement shared with the state, which paid $1.6 million.

March 15, 2006: In a strange twist, the council’s final vote on the settlement took all of two minutes while council members Kobayashi, Rod Tam and myself entered the chambers.

The mayor was not the savior of Waimea Valley. If he had his way, the property would have been split and developed. Council member Kobayashi deserves credit for voting against any development and to preserve Waimea Valley.

Originally published on 05/02/08 on Hawaii Reporter subtitled ‘What Hawaii Residents Want to Know.’

By Daniel Brackins and Dan Douglass

Lenny Klompus no doubt is one of the best, if not the best at what he does here in Hawaii as our Governor’s Communications, Senior Advisor. As Senior Advisor he must bear significant responsibility for her disappointing speech given last Friday, “Highlighting Hawaii’s Economic Challenges and Opportunities,” that was analyzed and challenged in an op-ed entitled, “Economic Reality Check For Governor Lingle“.

Possibly it is Klompus who has not ridden around Oahu lately and seen the tell-tale signs of Hawaii’s failing economy more so than our Governor as referred to in the response piece. Whether he sees the current realities through empathetic eyes or not, he at least deserves credit for taking the tremendous political risk in continuing to talk up the economy when Hawaii’s public is experiencing rapidly growing economic pain.

In Klompus’ most recent op-ed entitled “Gov. Lingle Has the Facts and Solutions on Hawaii’s Economy,” he states that Brackins and Douglass “should recognize that the Governor is leading the state’s economic solutions.” This is recognized. That is why the analysis and vision statement was addressed to her and not her advisors, cabinet or anyone else. That being said, we thank Klompus for taking the time out of his busy schedule that must recently be consumed with how to best address the recent Aloha Airlines Cargo crisis and other situations in need of a good whitewash.

The administration is to be greatly commended for leading Hawaii from a $215 million deficit in 2002 to a $420 million surplus this year. On top of that, many in Hawaii are aware and very grateful that the Governor has promoted refunding Hawaii’s taxpayers. Nevertheless, spending policies are more in line with the out of control spending akin to the Democrats when a budget increase of $306.7 million is proposed.

The people of Hawaii are by and large making sacrifices in their budgets unlike ever before. We now see unprecedented numbers of homeless families and individuals along our shoreline, under our bridges and in our parks. Shouldn’t our entrusted leaders at the very least refrain from increasing the tax burden of the struggling taxpayers of Hawaii? A long time neighbor who closed the family restaurant down late last year is now moving to Las Vegas and wants to know.

As Klompus states, the Governor has championed herself to not only diversify but transform the economy. Our economy is still fundamentally dependent on military industrial and tourism as it was five and a half years ago at the Governor’s inauguration and as it was since the 1990’s. So where’s the transformation? Many friends and family who are now working for tech companies in San Jose and Seattle who’d like to move back to their home state want to know. At least they agreed that the stump speeches were inspiring and voted for her.

Where is the administration’s seriousness to see Hawaii grown commodities produced on our barren agricultural lands for immediate and long term survival? The productive farmers from Hilo to Hanapepe and local shoppers looking for competitively priced, locally grown products want to know.

Where is the administration’s seriousness to benefit the public’s interest by breaking up Hawaii’s shipping monopoly through lobbying for a Hawaii exemption in the Jones Act? This is where tremendous economic stimulus remains suppressed. Why didn’t Klompus address this arguably most significant point? Hawaii’s consumers who pay nearly double freight costs for everything coming in because we have little to no exports want to know.

Klompus addresses the great strides the administration has made in energy efficiency. This is undeniable. But are we at the forefront when only 10 state facilities are implementing solar? Will we retrofit all of our facilities to best use natural light rather than electricity, cross ventilation rather than air conditioning and solar panels for electricity? High school students about to graduate who see what they are inheriting if they decide to live in their home state want to know.

Klompus skews the numbers by stating that, “Even with increases in foreclosures brought on by the national subprime mortgage crisis, Hawai‘i ranks 45th in the country in foreclosure rates. We had four times fewer foreclosures in 2007 than in 1997.” That is certainly true between 1997 and 2007. It is 2008 where single family home sale activity is now at the same level as it was in 2001 (pre-boom) while the median price for February and March of this year are lower than they were last year. Where are Klompus’ figures for this year? As we stated in our earlier piece, “Hawaii’s March foreclosure rate was 84.6 percent above the same month a year ago.”

He continues to question our statement regarding the possibility that this may be the most painful economic period in Hawaii’s history since statehood. He asks where we were in the 1990’s. We thank Klompus for alluding to evidence to support our claim. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s real estate values dropped by about 10 to 20 percent. This was followed by a recession.

Historically, recessions usually begin about two years after real estate peaks out, and the peak for this cycle occurred in 2006 (in the previous cycle it was 1989). In addition, depressions and recessions occur on average every 18 years. This leads us to the year 2008. To answer Klompus’ question about where we were in the 1990’s, Daniel Brackins traveled extensively with his military parents during that decade and Dan Douglass as a Hawaii product of the 1970’s started voting in Hawaii at that time.

Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” This adage also applies to unemployment measurement. Klompus states that, “Hawai‘i’s unemployment rate is tied for fourth-lowest in the nation. Despite what Brackins and Douglass say, this is a valid measure that is applied consistently across every state and nationally.” Simply because Klompus says it’s valid doesn’t make it true. We provided ample evidence explaining why the unemployment rate is skewed.

The measure reported by the media as the unemployment rate that severely undercounts the unemployed is referred to as U-3. The U-3 rate is obtained by dividing the narrowest definition of the unemployed by the work force. The U-3 definition does not include whom the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls discouraged and marginal workers, those who want a job but have given up the search because market conditions and personal experience indicate the process is futile. Rather the U-6 unemployment rate counts the marginal and discouraged. The U-6 unemployment rate for Hawaii is around 9%. Mr. Klompus has probably not often enough traveled on the Leeward coast. Perhaps he can ask those living in tents cities whether or not the unemployment rate is as low as he indicates.

Yes, our proposed solution includes reduction in government spending. Isn’t this a principle that Republicans are supposed to uphold? Yet Klompus claims, “This would be a mistake.” He also states that, “There is a significant return on investment that comes with spending money.” This begs the question, what has the government produced that is productive? Where are the returns? Could it possibly be our consistently ailing Department of Education? The only long term productive and positive returns to be found are associated with the free market.

“We can pay for infrastructure improvements now, or pay twice as much in the future,” says Klompus. These words sound very familiar to the words of Democratic leaders, espousing their socialist agendas. Perhaps it is also on the Governor’s agenda to silently support the supposed “beneficial” Honolulu rail project. There are options available to the people of Hawaii that would allow us to take more responsibility for our state through the free market. Less government spending equals more money in the pockets of Hawaii’s citizenry. Doesn’t more money in our pockets then exchanged through local commerce result in a more productive economy? A mother who understands this basic principle who has to pay $6-$8 for a gallon of milk wants to know.

Klompus goes on to claim that “Ultimately, politicizing our economy for personal gain is bad for business and bad for our residents.” We agree, and the Governor should not have given her speech on the economy in order to boost her own political standing, especially since many of her “facts” were skewed. We believe that the economy is the driving force behind our entire state; as such it affects all of us. Relating to the public about the current state of the economy is essential in order to gain transparency in regards to the spending of our government officials.

“Governor Lingle has been in public service for almost 24 years – 10 years on the Maui Council, eight years as Mayor of Maui and five and one half years as Governor,” says Klompus. While this is true, length of service does not equate to positive economic productivity. Did Governor Cayetano’s 26 years of public service equate to economic productivity when Governor Lingle first ran against him in 1998? Positive economic improvements will result when leadership changes towards less government intervention and greater personal and market oriented freedom.

As Klompus said, serious times call for serious solutions. So does the current administration have the best answers based on facts? We disagree. Rather we believe that the citizens of Hawaii, who bear the brunt of failed government policy, have the answers.

By Justin Rouzaud

Government intrusion into the real estate business has become the feel-good policy of choice for Hawaii state government. The proposed Turtle Bay acquisition is but one example of government meddling in the marketplace. Despite support by policymakers, such use of taxpayer dollars is unwarranted and wasteful.

There are a number of reasons why going on a land-buying spree won’t “keep the country… country.” First, the state government can’t efficiently manage the 36 percent of Hawaii it already owns, illustrated by the poor condition of Hawaii’s boat harbors and road infrastructure. Like other state agencies, too many public resources are spent on project regulation and too little spent on effective planning. Most resources set aside by the state are held as neglected assets rather than well-managed public resources.

Secondly, state owned property means taxing all of Hawaii’s people to maintain land only some will use. User fees are a more fair method of bringing in revenue.

Finally, the right of individuals — not the government — to own and use private property is one of America’s highest values and the foundation for economic growth. It is why the Constitution guarantees it.

Sadly, the Hawaii State Legislature fails to see the waste and problems that years of intrusive land practice has caused. Not only is such action ill conceived, but it fails to recognize prior failures and will not lead to the preservation of the “real Hawaii.”

Contrary to the arguments put forth by many of the opponents of Turtle Bay’s expansion, the choice is not between preservation or urbanization. Future development of Turtle Bay would not attract the industrialization that would necessitate the “parking structures and elevators” some observers fear. Developers realize the environment is an essential part of the equation, thus rationally would look to cooperate with those concerned about environmental issues.

Various coalitions claim that expanding the Turtle Bay resort will destroy the area’s quality of life. An article in the Honolulu Weekly listed various concerns, including: Kamehameha Highway’s inability to support the traffic produced by such an expansion; water and sewers may be inadequate; and increased shoreline development may negatively impact the endangered monk seals and turtles. Like the vast number of people who may be receptive to these arguments, stakeholders see these concerns as priority to their entrepreneurial livelihood. It is in their fundamental interest to preserve the “country feel,” not the other way around.

According to Pacific Business News, purchasing the 850 acres could cost as much as $500 million. Additionally, Hawaii Senate Bill 2423 has authorized the governor to proceed with purchasing or condemning the property. While it may be politically expedient to support the Turtle Bay acquisition under the false guise of environmental protection, in reality, the government’s acquisition of Turtle Bay will do little more than force a half-billion dollar burden on the state’s taxpayers at a time when they can least afford it.

Justin Rouzaud is a Senior at Hawaii Pacific University studying International Relations. Over the summer he was a Policy Research Intern at the Grassroot Institute.

By Ken Schoolland

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Tragically, political interference for the “public good” has often resulted in perverse and unintended consequences. In 1940 politicians monopolized public transport in Honolulu by outlawing all the bus and jitney companies that were competing with the biggest and most powerful bus operator.

The competitors, wildly popular but politically powerless, were ordered by officials to “cease and desist.” If the decision was put to a vote of the general population, it is very unlikely that this multitude of transport companies would have been forced to close.

The loss of this competition over the last sixty-eight years has been devastating to the development of transportation on the island. Indeed, the power of competition in solving social and economic problems is very much underappreciated.

A dozen bus and jitney/van providers over the past half-century could have brought unimaginable benefits to Oahu—greater innovation, improved service, and lower costs to resolve traffic woes. Without monopolistic regulation and heavy subsidies, competition could well have provided dependable door-to-door service, in style and comfort with Wi-Fi, refreshments, video, and reclining seats at a fraction of the current combined passenger and taxpayer cost.

COMMUNICATION & TRANSPORTATION

Just look at what has happened to telecommunications since AT&T lost its monopoly of telephone service and cell phone companies were allowed to compete on innovation, service, and price. The price of a minute call from Hawaii to Alaska dropped from $10 to less a penny. There is every reason to expect the same positive changes in transportation if monopolistic subsidies and regulations are ended.

Ironically, political interference in subsidizing road systems drew customers away from the Oahu Railway and ended service that thrived on the island from 1889 to 1946. Now in 2008, billions of taxpayer dollars are scheduled to revive a railroad, already killed off sixty-two years ago by previous political schemes.

Current problems of traffic congestion could be managed without a costly new railroad. Variable time pricing, as implemented in Singapore for instance, could solve congestion in transportation just as variable time pricing has solved congestion in communication for over half a century in this country. At the busiest times of the day a different price is charged for usage, just as with peak hour phone pricing.

But politicians prefer expensive construction projects that give massive favors to generous benefactors and campaign contributors. Though commonplace and legal, this process is a form of corruption.

Politicians rarely give up their role as “superior owners” and rarely stand out of the way. Instead, politicians usually prefer to add new layers to their power with more taxes, more regulations, more subsidies, and more takings.

PLAYGROUND CIVICS LESSON

Given the realities of eminent domain, perhaps we should prepare our children with relevant civics lessons for the playground.

When a gang of kids wants to grab a pretty ring off the finger of a little girl, they can avoid annoying accusations of “theft” by following a few simple steps:

1) The gang must use the Latin words eminent domain, never “stealing.”

2) The gang must designate one of their members as leader—thus the “superior owner” of everything on the playground.

3) The gang leader must instruct his or her lieutenants to “tax” a few coins from other children on the playground in order to offer “just compensation” to the girl when her ring is taken.

4) The gang leader must explain that his actions are for the collective good—as he determines the “good.” If the girl cries over the loss of her ring, this can be justified. The leader can explain that it is selfish to keep one’s own belongings; and it is unselfish to take what belongs to others.

Something like this is already happening on playgrounds across the island. But without taking the proper steps, it is merely the work of bullies and thugs.

By Ken Schoolland

Our parents have taught us from childhood that it is wrong to take from others what doesn’t belong to us. Yet, growing older we learn that there are ways to do this if we really want something badly enough.

STEP ONE: PROPER LABELS

The first step in rationalizing this kind of action is to label it carefully. It is best to use the Latin expression eminent domain, instead of by the vulgar term “stealing.” In ancient Rome eminent domain would have referred to the idea that Caesar was the “supreme lordship” or “superior owner” of everything and every person in the empire. So he had the right to take whatever he wanted.

Without our own Caesar, the second step is to designate someone as the “superior owner” of everything in the island. This is done in a very strange ritual that involves all kinds of rhetoric, chicanery, bribery, exclusion, propaganda, and eventually the counting of hands—selecting politicians who have a large number of enthusiastic fans. This popularity contest is typically embellished with large sums of money that are contributed by supporters who expect to be on the receiving end of eminent domain.

Once selected, politicians swear to us that their first obligation is to protect our life, liberty, and property—then they set about deciding what property to take from their subjects. A few years ago politicians decided to force development by taking property in Waikiki from one owner and transferring it to another owner. More recently politicians have decided to prevent development by taking property at Turtle Bay from one owner and transferring it to another.

SUPERIOR OWNERS?

Who are these politicians? Are they highly revered in society for their integrity and wisdom? Strangely not. While they are adored for their power and fame, they are frequently reviled for their poor judgment and lack of integrity.

The Investors Business Daily ran a survey of public opinion about the “honesty and ethical standards” of people in twenty-one different occupations.1 Occupations earning the most respect were scientists, teachers, and the clergy. Among the occupations that were respected the least were politicians, just slightly ahead of prostitutes and car salesmen at the bottom of the list. This ranking seems a bit unfair, however, since only one of these occupations employs the use force against people.

Conduct your own survey with friends and neighbors and you will find similar results. “Are the moral standards of politicians higher or lower than your own?” “Who is more likely to win an election, an honest politician or a dishonest politician?” You’ll usually get a chuckle over the oxymoron “honest politician.”

UNJUST COMPENSATION

The third step for effective exercise of eminent domain is to claim that the true owners of property are being “justly compensated.” Normally, just compensation is decided by voluntarism. If people voluntarily agree to an exchange, then it is just.

So how can compensation be “just” if it is compelled? It cannot. Nevertheless, this is rationalized by asking disinterested parties to give an assessment of what they think the value of property should be.

I’ve tried this many times with my economics students. I show them my ring and ask them what they would be willing to pay me for it. Their assessment usually averages around $10. Then I tell them that this ring is the only memento I have from years with my grandfather, a man I grew up with and revered. We traveled a dozen times across the country together, discussing history, philosophy, and politics.

I then ask my students to state the price I would accept for this rare keepsake. They say it is priceless. True enough. And if I value a ring so much, how much more might I value a home?

Such is the expected loss for Sam Alipio of Pearl City who was interviewed on television recently.2 He is upset that his home of seventy years is being condemned to make way for a city parking lot.

DO UNTO OTHERS

There are other problems with the notion of compulsory “just compensation.” When politicians declare that they want a piece of property, this instantly reduces the market value of the property. Who would buy from, or lend to, a private owner whose property has been targeted by politicians for eminent domain?

This is now happening to home and business owners who are in the way of politicians’ plans for a new railroad on Oahu. Jim Frierson, concerned about his Island Pool & Spa business near Ala Moana, said that politicians destroyed the value of his own development plans. “Effectively,” said Frierson, “you can’t really sell the property. Nobody’s going to buy a property that’s going to be condemned.”3

The notion of “just compensation” is further compromised by the fact that politicians do not pay for condemned property with their own money. They simply take other people’s money, through taxes, to pay for the condemned property.

There is no “just compensation” to current and future taxpayers for their lost wealth because it is assumed that the wisdom of elite politicians is sufficient compensation to the whole community. Taxpayers might ask to be allowed a direct vote on the current railroad project, for instance, but many politicians are adamantly opposed. A direct vote of the taxpayers is a challenge to their role as “superior owners.”

Perhaps there would be more caution in taking people’s homes if politicians were required to give up their own homes whenever exercising eminent domain. This was attempted once when U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter voted to support the taking of private property in the famous Kelo v. New London case.

Citizens of New Hampshire responded to Souter by initiating a ballot measure to condemn Souter’s own house in the same manner. Justice Souter did not appreciate the poetic justice.

Souter might have replied that eminent domain is commonplace and is allowed by the Constitution. Yes, and so was slavery. A hundred and fifty years ago slavery was commonplace and allowed by the Constitution. But it was still wrong. Morality trumps legality.

PUBLIC BADS

The fourth step for effective eminent domain is to rationalize the actions of politicians as serving the “public good.” It is important to believe that politicians have vision and competence while mere mortals are blind and stupid.

This is a very dangerous myth because it enables influential lobbyists to capture a mantle of legitimacy for using a government bulldozer on their behalf. In addition to the physical bulldozer, there is a media bulldozer of public relations campaigns and official propaganda for which taxpayers are often forced pay.

Public officials frequently lash out at citizens who criticize their royal actions, or arrange for sycophants to do so. If public officials were truly public servants, then such a lashing would amount to insubordination. Instead, these officials see themselves as public masters who use their position and power to intimidate dissent.

In every case of the so-called “public good” there are both winners and losers. The winners are usually influential and crafty connivers who spend their lives in the halls of legislation. The losers, like Sam Alipio and Jim Frierson, are folk who haven’t spent their lives in pursuit of political influence; who mind their own business instead of minding the business of others.

Political force is quick and easy in handling issues. But force is a brutal and crude substitute for the persuasion, hard work, and imagination that characterize voluntary cooperation in the marketplace. George Washington described it perfectly: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

___________________________________________________________

1. “Public Opinion,” Investors Business Daily, 6-5-00

2. Television interviews 10 o’clock news, KHNL & KHON, 6-17-08

3. “189 Properties in rail’s path,” Honolulu Advertiser, 6-1-08