Thursday, April 25, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 1884

    Introducing Hawaii Reporter’s New Education Column-The Special Education Advocate

    0

    ”’Dear Parents:”’

    We all have hopes and dreams for our children. Then, the day comes when someone — perhaps a doctor or diagnostician, tells us that we must face reality, reduce our expectations and just accept that our child may never be “normal” due to his or her disability. At first we grieve and then we graciously accept whatever help is offered, apologetic that our child is a burden. It may be months or years later when we may discover that our child is not progressing and not getting needed help to achieve independence. Worse yet, we find out that the authority to which we entrusted our child knew all along that appropriate assistance was not being provided.

    That is when we learn to fight.

    We fight for our child’s right to a productive, happy life. The first step in the fight is knowledge. We research the disability; we seek out expert diagnoses and best practices. And then, armed with irrefutable evidence, we take this information to school or other government agencies to seek cooperation. When faced with uncooperative bureaucrats, we then learn about federal and state law, as well as the intricacies of navigating the special education maze.

    The Special Education Advocate is a collaboration of parents, advocates, doctors and attorneys to answer the daily questions parents and providers have about the ever-changing rules and regulations of state agencies and suggestions on how to advocate for any special needs child.

    The goal of the Advocate is not to be adversarial. The goal is better outcomes for children through parent education and assistance. We welcome all of your concerns as you join our online support group.

    Potholes in Paradise-June 26, 2003

    0

    I had the dubious privilege of being stuck in traffic today. The reason for the traffic jam was the City & County of Honolulu Pothole filling crew at work.

    This was truly an inspirational sight to behold.

    There were these two men, dressed in their reflective gear, each with a shovel in his hand. They were standing behind an extremely large dump truck. Each one very deliberately took a shovelful of asphalt, and expertly covered a hole with this asphalt.

    Both men then proceeded to pat the asphalt down to fill the hole, and to smooth the surface. Shovels and shoes were masterfully utilized to accomplish this feat.

    After finishing, the intrepid workers stepped back a few feet and admired their work. When they were certain their job was up to snuff, they loaded up their shovels and drove this very large dump truck down the street to the next set of holes.

    Like magic, the traffic disappeared. As I drove past their work area, the sound of fresh asphalt hitting the bottom of my car made me cringe. Heaven only knows what the underside of my car looks like.

    Do these workers, their supervisors or the City & County of Honolulu administrators really believe that these patches will still be in place after the next heavy rainfall? If they believe that, they also must also believe in the tooth fairy.

    When I grew up on the U.S. mainland (granted, a long time ago), repair crews used “hot patches” to repair the roads. Their repairs stuck for years through some very severe weather. If you drove over one of these repairs, there were no sounds of anything striking the underside of your car. Has anybody in the City & County ever thought of using the “hot patch” technique?

    Granted it is very old technology. However, training can be accomplished rather quickly and the tools required are simple and can be towed behind City & County dump trucks. This method also would ensure the same crews would not have to patch the same holes every few months. Using “Hot Patch” technology might even cut down on the number of employees doing this repetitive work. These workers could possibly be used for other work classifications.

    Could it be that by using better “patching techniques” they may even save taxpayers some money? What a concept.

    ”’Jack Schneider, owner of JS Services and Honolulu resident, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:jschn@lava.net

    Potholes in Paradise-June 26, 2003

    0

    I had the dubious privilege of being stuck in traffic today. The reason for the traffic jam was the City & County of Honolulu Pothole filling crew at work.

    This was truly an inspirational sight to behold.

    There were these two men, dressed in their reflective gear, each with a shovel in his hand. They were standing behind an extremely large dump truck. Each one very deliberately took a shovelful of asphalt, and expertly covered a hole with this asphalt.

    Both men then proceeded to pat the asphalt down to fill the hole, and to smooth the surface. Shovels and shoes were masterfully utilized to accomplish this feat.

    After finishing, the intrepid workers stepped back a few feet and admired their work. When they were certain their job was up to snuff, they loaded up their shovels and drove this very large dump truck down the street to the next set of holes.

    Like magic, the traffic disappeared. As I drove past their work area, the sound of fresh asphalt hitting the bottom of my car made me cringe. Heaven only knows what the underside of my car looks like.

    Do these workers, their supervisors or the City & County of Honolulu administrators really believe that these patches will still be in place after the next heavy rainfall? If they believe that, they also must also believe in the tooth fairy.

    When I grew up on the U.S. mainland (granted, a long time ago), repair crews used “hot patches” to repair the roads. Their repairs stuck for years through some very severe weather. If you drove over one of these repairs, there were no sounds of anything striking the underside of your car. Has anybody in the City & County ever thought of using the “hot patch” technique?

    Granted it is very old technology. However, training can be accomplished rather quickly and the tools required are simple and can be towed behind City & County dump trucks. This method also would ensure the same crews would not have to patch the same holes every few months. Using “Hot Patch” technology might even cut down on the number of employees doing this repetitive work. These workers could possibly be used for other work classifications.

    Could it be that by using better “patching techniques” they may even save taxpayers some money? What a concept.

    ”’Jack Schneider, owner of JS Services and Honolulu resident, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:jschn@lava.net

    From Mixed Moving Feelings to Withholding of Affections

    0

    “Suzanne Gelb Image”

    ”Good News, Why the Tears?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    My family and I are relocating out of state because my husband has a good job offer. There are a ton of good reasons for us to move. So why do I feel sad about moving?

    Sad

    Dr. Gelb says . . .

    Dear Sad:

    Many people experience a natural type of separation anxiety when making a transition such as moving. There are numerous losses that can accompany relocating and it is important to grieve them. That is purpose of the natural emotion “grief” — to deal with the losses that are experienced during a lifetime.

    Relocating symbolizes a type of loss, no matter how much one may be gaining personally or financially because of a move. There is still likely to be a sense of loss and separation and it is important to grieve such losses and celebrate the changes.

    ”Off Limits, Why No Hugs?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    My teen-age daughter is undemonstrative to our family. She won’t let us hug her but she is lovey dovey with her friends. We’re a loving family and my husband and I believe in discipline and rules, but there has never been abuse or anything like that. I know my daughter doesn’t like our rules, but why would she make her parents/family off limits like this?

    No Hugs

    Dr. Gelb says . . .

    Dear No Hugs:

    One way that some parents have handled the challenge you describe has been to not make an issue about the withholding. This is because they believed that the alternative, disapproval, was what the child was looking for. In a rebellious and punitive way, the child was trying to get at their parents and punish them for what s/he considered to be unfairness.

    It is important that parents not allow such withholding to undermine their confidence about their parenting standards. Soon the child is likely to realize that the withholding behavior is their loss, not their parents’.

    ”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

    ”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

    ”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com

    From Mixed Moving Feelings to Withholding of Affections

    0

    “Suzanne Gelb Image”

    ”Good News, Why the Tears?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    My family and I are relocating out of state because my husband has a good job offer. There are a ton of good reasons for us to move. So why do I feel sad about moving?

    Sad

    Dr. Gelb says . . .

    Dear Sad:

    Many people experience a natural type of separation anxiety when making a transition such as moving. There are numerous losses that can accompany relocating and it is important to grieve them. That is purpose of the natural emotion “grief” — to deal with the losses that are experienced during a lifetime.

    Relocating symbolizes a type of loss, no matter how much one may be gaining personally or financially because of a move. There is still likely to be a sense of loss and separation and it is important to grieve such losses and celebrate the changes.

    ”Off Limits, Why No Hugs?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    My teen-age daughter is undemonstrative to our family. She won’t let us hug her but she is lovey dovey with her friends. We’re a loving family and my husband and I believe in discipline and rules, but there has never been abuse or anything like that. I know my daughter doesn’t like our rules, but why would she make her parents/family off limits like this?

    No Hugs

    Dr. Gelb says . . .

    Dear No Hugs:

    One way that some parents have handled the challenge you describe has been to not make an issue about the withholding. This is because they believed that the alternative, disapproval, was what the child was looking for. In a rebellious and punitive way, the child was trying to get at their parents and punish them for what s/he considered to be unfairness.

    It is important that parents not allow such withholding to undermine their confidence about their parenting standards. Soon the child is likely to realize that the withholding behavior is their loss, not their parents’.

    ”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

    ”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

    ”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com

    Jones Act Stranglehold on Hawaii Must End-Three Bills Introduced in Congress Today Will Bring Relief to Hawaii Businesses, Consumers

    0

    ”’Congressman Ed Case (Hawaii, Second District) today introduced three bills in the U.S. House of Representatives to end a century of closed market cargo shipping to, from and within Hawaii. The bills would exempt Hawaii and other non-contiguous U.S. locations from the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, which mandates that cargo shipping between U.S. ports exclusively utilize U.S., not foreign, vessels. Below is the speech he made with the introduction of what he deemed the United States Noncontiguous Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, Hawaii Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, and the Hawaii Agriculture/Livestock Shipping Open Market Act of 2003.”’

    Today, I introduce three bills to end a century of closed market cargo shipping to, from and within my isolated home state of Hawaii, as well as the other noncontiguous locations of our country. In doing so, we will break the stranglehold on the economies and peoples of these exposed communities which results from just a few shipping companies controlling the lifeline of commerce upon which our communities absolutely depend.

    These bills all amend the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act. That federal law mandates that all cargo shipping between U.S. ports occur exclusively on U.S., not foreign, flagged vessels. (A similar federal law of the same vintage, the Passenger Vessels Services Act, provides the same mandate for cruise line and other passenger transit; the same arguments as drive these three bills apply there, but that is another effort, already commenced through limited federal exemptions.)

    The Jones Act was enacted in a protectionist era under the guise of preserving a strong national merchant marine. But today it is just an anachronism: most of the world’s shipping is by way of an international merchant marine functioning in an open, competitive market. And those few U.S. flag cargo lines that remain have maneuvered the Jones Act to develop virtual monopolies over domestic cargo shipping to, from and within our most isolated and exposed locales: our island and offshore states, territories and possessions.

    My Hawaii is a classic example. Located almost 2,500 miles off the West Coast, we import well over 90 percent of our life necessities by ocean cargo. There are no doubt plenty of international cargo lines who could and would compete for a share of that market. Yet only two U.S. flag domestic cargo lines – Matson Navigation and CSX Lines (fka Sea-Land) – operate a virtual duopoly over our lifeline.

    While they are nominally subject to federal regulation, the fact of the matter is that cargo prices have gone in only one direction – up, and fast – and it is indisputable that there is no downward market pressure which would otherwise result from meaningful competition. These accelerating cargo prices are not absorbed by the shipping lines, but passed through all the way down the chain, to the transporters, wholesalers, retailers, small businesses, mom-n-pops, and ultimately consumers, of all of the elementals of life, from food, to medical supplies, clothes, housing and virtually all other goods. The result is a crippling drag on an already-challenged economy and the very quality of life in Hawaii.

    The broadest, deepest effects of the Jones Act on Hawaii result from its impact on westbound imports. But Hawaii is an export location as well, in key products such as agriculture and livestock. Here the Jones Act also effectively stifles meaningful competition in getting those products to their primary markets on the U.S. Mainland. Because the producers of these products and all that rely for their own livelihood on their successful export have to eat inflated shipping costs, these export industries, which any economist knows are the ultimate key to any economy’s prosperity, are also crippled.

    Let’s take a concrete example: Hawaii’s once-prosperous ranching/cattle industry, which is so key to the economic health and the very lifestyle of so much of the rural Second District which I proudly represent. That industry depends on getting its product, young cattle, to West Coast pens and transportation hubs in a cost-efficient manner.

    There are foreign cargo carriers that specialize, through custom cattle ships and overall sensitivity and adjustment to rancher timetables and needs, in such transport, but the Jones Act outright excludes them from the Hawaii-Mainland market. As a result, Hawaii’s ranchers are reduced to two crippling, cost-magnifying options.

    The first is to ship their cargo by foreign carriers to Canada, where they have to go through a myriad of bureaucratic, cost-magnifying gyrations to get their product eventually to their U.S. markets. The second is to beg for the goodwill of the domestic carriers, to whom this is simply a hindrance rather than a major commitment, to ship directly to the West Coast.

    And it shows: most of the cattle are first shipped from Hawaii’s Neighbor Islands, where the bulk of the cattle industry is located, to Oahu, in small “cow-tainers,” where they sit for days in Honolulu Harbor awaiting the return to the Mainland of one of the massive cargo ships designed and utilized for quite another purpose. The result (besides associated higher costs): in-harbor cattle waste disposal challenges; higher in-transit cattle mortality; lower-weight cattle delivery to market. That’s what happens when you try to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

    These three bills say: enough is enough. The first, the United States Nonocontiguous Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, exempts all noncontiguous U.S. locations, including Hawaii, from the Jones Act. (Frankly I question whether we shouldn’t outright repeal the Jones Act, but I leave it to my colleagues from the contiguous U.S. to evaluate that option; the consequences are especially acute in the noncontiguous US and that is my focus.) The second, the Hawaii Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, exempts Hawaii. And the third exempts Hawaii agriculture and livestock. Essentially, the bills are intended to lay out the options from broad to narrow; we can get into the issue at any level and work our way up or down.

    Let me address directly some arguments sometimes offered up by the domestic shippers in defense of the Jones Act: that it contains important labor and environmental protections that would be lost upon repeal. Of course, the exact terms of repeal are up to this Congress and administration, and all three of these bills propose to retain these important protections. Specifically, these bills provide that all foreign shippers operating under Jones Act exemptions must comply with the same labor, environmental, tax, documentation, U.S. locus and other laws as are applicable to non-U.S. flag ships and shippers transiting U.S. waters today.

    Mr. Speaker, these long-overdue bills are of the utmost importance to the localities which have long borne the brunt of the Jones Act. Sometimes it is difficult to pierce the veil of longstanding custom and understanding to see what should instead be, but clearly the time for these measures is overdue. I urge their passage.

    Mahalo (thank you.)

    Jones Act Stranglehold on Hawaii Must End-Three Bills Introduced in Congress Today Will Bring Relief to Hawaii Businesses, Consumers

    0

    ”’Congressman Ed Case (Hawaii, Second District) today introduced three bills in the U.S. House of Representatives to end a century of closed market cargo shipping to, from and within Hawaii. The bills would exempt Hawaii and other non-contiguous U.S. locations from the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, which mandates that cargo shipping between U.S. ports exclusively utilize U.S., not foreign, vessels. Below is the speech he made with the introduction of what he deemed the United States Noncontiguous Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, Hawaii Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, and the Hawaii Agriculture/Livestock Shipping Open Market Act of 2003.”’

    Today, I introduce three bills to end a century of closed market cargo shipping to, from and within my isolated home state of Hawaii, as well as the other noncontiguous locations of our country. In doing so, we will break the stranglehold on the economies and peoples of these exposed communities which results from just a few shipping companies controlling the lifeline of commerce upon which our communities absolutely depend.

    These bills all amend the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act. That federal law mandates that all cargo shipping between U.S. ports occur exclusively on U.S., not foreign, flagged vessels. (A similar federal law of the same vintage, the Passenger Vessels Services Act, provides the same mandate for cruise line and other passenger transit; the same arguments as drive these three bills apply there, but that is another effort, already commenced through limited federal exemptions.)

    The Jones Act was enacted in a protectionist era under the guise of preserving a strong national merchant marine. But today it is just an anachronism: most of the world’s shipping is by way of an international merchant marine functioning in an open, competitive market. And those few U.S. flag cargo lines that remain have maneuvered the Jones Act to develop virtual monopolies over domestic cargo shipping to, from and within our most isolated and exposed locales: our island and offshore states, territories and possessions.

    My Hawaii is a classic example. Located almost 2,500 miles off the West Coast, we import well over 90 percent of our life necessities by ocean cargo. There are no doubt plenty of international cargo lines who could and would compete for a share of that market. Yet only two U.S. flag domestic cargo lines – Matson Navigation and CSX Lines (fka Sea-Land) – operate a virtual duopoly over our lifeline.

    While they are nominally subject to federal regulation, the fact of the matter is that cargo prices have gone in only one direction – up, and fast – and it is indisputable that there is no downward market pressure which would otherwise result from meaningful competition. These accelerating cargo prices are not absorbed by the shipping lines, but passed through all the way down the chain, to the transporters, wholesalers, retailers, small businesses, mom-n-pops, and ultimately consumers, of all of the elementals of life, from food, to medical supplies, clothes, housing and virtually all other goods. The result is a crippling drag on an already-challenged economy and the very quality of life in Hawaii.

    The broadest, deepest effects of the Jones Act on Hawaii result from its impact on westbound imports. But Hawaii is an export location as well, in key products such as agriculture and livestock. Here the Jones Act also effectively stifles meaningful competition in getting those products to their primary markets on the U.S. Mainland. Because the producers of these products and all that rely for their own livelihood on their successful export have to eat inflated shipping costs, these export industries, which any economist knows are the ultimate key to any economy’s prosperity, are also crippled.

    Let’s take a concrete example: Hawaii’s once-prosperous ranching/cattle industry, which is so key to the economic health and the very lifestyle of so much of the rural Second District which I proudly represent. That industry depends on getting its product, young cattle, to West Coast pens and transportation hubs in a cost-efficient manner.

    There are foreign cargo carriers that specialize, through custom cattle ships and overall sensitivity and adjustment to rancher timetables and needs, in such transport, but the Jones Act outright excludes them from the Hawaii-Mainland market. As a result, Hawaii’s ranchers are reduced to two crippling, cost-magnifying options.

    The first is to ship their cargo by foreign carriers to Canada, where they have to go through a myriad of bureaucratic, cost-magnifying gyrations to get their product eventually to their U.S. markets. The second is to beg for the goodwill of the domestic carriers, to whom this is simply a hindrance rather than a major commitment, to ship directly to the West Coast.

    And it shows: most of the cattle are first shipped from Hawaii’s Neighbor Islands, where the bulk of the cattle industry is located, to Oahu, in small “cow-tainers,” where they sit for days in Honolulu Harbor awaiting the return to the Mainland of one of the massive cargo ships designed and utilized for quite another purpose. The result (besides associated higher costs): in-harbor cattle waste disposal challenges; higher in-transit cattle mortality; lower-weight cattle delivery to market. That’s what happens when you try to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

    These three bills say: enough is enough. The first, the United States Nonocontiguous Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, exempts all noncontiguous U.S. locations, including Hawaii, from the Jones Act. (Frankly I question whether we shouldn’t outright repeal the Jones Act, but I leave it to my colleagues from the contiguous U.S. to evaluate that option; the consequences are especially acute in the noncontiguous US and that is my focus.) The second, the Hawaii Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, exempts Hawaii. And the third exempts Hawaii agriculture and livestock. Essentially, the bills are intended to lay out the options from broad to narrow; we can get into the issue at any level and work our way up or down.

    Let me address directly some arguments sometimes offered up by the domestic shippers in defense of the Jones Act: that it contains important labor and environmental protections that would be lost upon repeal. Of course, the exact terms of repeal are up to this Congress and administration, and all three of these bills propose to retain these important protections. Specifically, these bills provide that all foreign shippers operating under Jones Act exemptions must comply with the same labor, environmental, tax, documentation, U.S. locus and other laws as are applicable to non-U.S. flag ships and shippers transiting U.S. waters today.

    Mr. Speaker, these long-overdue bills are of the utmost importance to the localities which have long borne the brunt of the Jones Act. Sometimes it is difficult to pierce the veil of longstanding custom and understanding to see what should instead be, but clearly the time for these measures is overdue. I urge their passage.

    Mahalo (thank you.)

    Finally – No Funding for Controversial Vision Teams-Mayor Cans Funding for Vision Teams, Neighborhood Board as Council Considers Two Proposals to Weaken Spending Powers of These Entities

    0

    After more five years of criticism for millions of dollars spent on random community projects, City & County of Honolulu Managing Director Ben Lee announced yesterday the city will no longer allocate funding to the city’s 19 visioning teams.

    Lee’s announcement came prior to the Honolulu City Council Budget Committee consideration of two related resolutions. The first would put a two-year moratorium on funding for vision teams and neighborhood board projects, and the second would require vision team and neighborhood board allocations be used for the maintenance of city roads, which according to a recent study, and Oahu’s drivers, are in dire need of repair.

    The announcement was well received by some of the 9 members of the Honolulu City Council, including Council Member Charles Djou who commended Harris for taking a “needed step in reforming the visioning team process.”

    Djou says over the past five years, vision teams have been responsible for a number of cost prohibitive projects, like the community signs in Nuuanu, which reportedly cost in excess $500,000, and have increased the city’s debt load.

    Other critics point to vision team projects such as the $150,000 “Welcome to Hawaii Kai” sign at the entrance of this East Honolulu community, as wasteful. Not only was the sign costly, but at just one year old, it is already deteriorating, cracking and in need of $18,000 in repairs.

    The vision team project across Kalanianaole Highway referred to as the “canoe halau,” similar to the one built under vision team instruction in Kailua, was criticized for its total cost and the fact that several of the canoes did not even fit within the structure that was designed and built.

    A third project under fire in Hawaii Kai is the so-called “traffic calming – tree beautification” project in the center of Lunalilo Home Road, complete with its own irrigation system. The neighborhood board, when informed of the project, unanimously voted to oppose it, as did citizens who attended that meeting. The city administration however announced it was not subject to scrutiny or approval by the neighborhood board as the visioning team initiated the project, and the city would go ahead. The initial contracts already have been let by the city.

    The 19 visioning teams, founded in 1998 by Harris, were supposedly set up to encourage citizens to get involved with local government and come up with projects to improve their communities.

    Each visioning team was allocated $2 million per year, with that amount dropping to $1 million in FY 2003-2004 because the Honolulu City Council cut the funding.

    But neighborhood board members who are elected, complained their authority was being undermined by vision team members who were not elected.

    The mayor, in a public relations move, allocated $1 million per year to each of the 32 neighborhood boards, leading some of the board members to stop their protests. But government watchdogs and some of the more fiscally astute neighborhood board members said the $1 million allocation was just adding to the city debt load. This neighborhood board funding, which dropped to $500,000 this fiscal year, also is being cut altogether next fiscal year according to managing director Lee.

    Criticism also came from those who regularly attended meetings and claimed members of Harris’ cabinet, city employees and architects, contractors and those who would benefit from the proposed projects, were making the major decisions, directing the meetings and ultimately acting in Harris’ or their best interest rather than the community’s.

    In essence they said the vision teams were a mechanism for the mayor to construct many new city projects with little oversight from the Council, yet the ability to blame the vision team leaders for the often excessive expenditures.

    Critics, including legislators, cited the fact that the vision teams exempted themselves from the state sunshine law, which requires specific procedures in announcing meetings, setting agendas and keeping minutes.

    Sen. Vice President Donna Kim, D-Kalihi, a former council member, proposed legislation two years ago that would have required these vision team meetings to be subject to state sunshine law, but the mayor, his cabinet and corporation council argued vehemently against the legislation and lobbied heavily for its defeat.

    Another common criticism: Vision teams gave the city government the excuse to condemn private property for the “greater good” of the community. For example, the city threatened to condemn the Aiea Sugar Mill property owned by then Crazy Shirts head Rick Ralston, and with the threat, led to the new buyers’ quick exodus.

    Ralston invested millions of dollars in the purchase and clean up of the property, which used to house the sugar mill in Aiea, a landmark in the community.

    But when Ralston moved to parcel the property and resell it to regain some of his losses caused by delay in construction of his store and by higher clean up costs of the contamination property, the Aiea Visioning Team voted to have the city condemn the property.

    The effort was headed by then city employee, now City Council Chair Gary Okino, who voted to have the city condemn the property so it could be turned into a community park.

    The announcement, and the city’s posting of its own logo on the property led to the buyers, many in escrow, to ditch their purchase and cut their thousands of dollars in losses put into designs costs before their losses increased.

    Ralston soon after had to declare bankruptcy and lost his once thriving company and his property.

    Managing Director Lee told the media that the city administration still wants vision teams to list with priority projects annually, which will be considered for inclusion in the mayor’s budget. But these projects will not longer have a guaranteed approval.

    Djou says he would prefer a moratorium on vision teams altogether, without the mayor’s proposed expansion of their scope and purpose.

    Finally – No Funding for Controversial Vision Teams-Mayor Cans Funding for Vision Teams, Neighborhood Board as Council Considers Two Proposals to Weaken Spending Powers of These Entities

    0

    After more five years of criticism for millions of dollars spent on random community projects, City & County of Honolulu Managing Director Ben Lee announced yesterday the city will no longer allocate funding to the city’s 19 visioning teams.

    Lee’s announcement came prior to the Honolulu City Council Budget Committee consideration of two related resolutions. The first would put a two-year moratorium on funding for vision teams and neighborhood board projects, and the second would require vision team and neighborhood board allocations be used for the maintenance of city roads, which according to a recent study, and Oahu’s drivers, are in dire need of repair.

    The announcement was well received by some of the 9 members of the Honolulu City Council, including Council Member Charles Djou who commended Harris for taking a “needed step in reforming the visioning team process.”

    Djou says over the past five years, vision teams have been responsible for a number of cost prohibitive projects, like the community signs in Nuuanu, which reportedly cost in excess $500,000, and have increased the city’s debt load.

    Other critics point to vision team projects such as the $150,000 “Welcome to Hawaii Kai” sign at the entrance of this East Honolulu community, as wasteful. Not only was the sign costly, but at just one year old, it is already deteriorating, cracking and in need of $18,000 in repairs.

    The vision team project across Kalanianaole Highway referred to as the “canoe halau,” similar to the one built under vision team instruction in Kailua, was criticized for its total cost and the fact that several of the canoes did not even fit within the structure that was designed and built.

    A third project under fire in Hawaii Kai is the so-called “traffic calming – tree beautification” project in the center of Lunalilo Home Road, complete with its own irrigation system. The neighborhood board, when informed of the project, unanimously voted to oppose it, as did citizens who attended that meeting. The city administration however announced it was not subject to scrutiny or approval by the neighborhood board as the visioning team initiated the project, and the city would go ahead. The initial contracts already have been let by the city.

    The 19 visioning teams, founded in 1998 by Harris, were supposedly set up to encourage citizens to get involved with local government and come up with projects to improve their communities.

    Each visioning team was allocated $2 million per year, with that amount dropping to $1 million in FY 2003-2004 because the Honolulu City Council cut the funding.

    But neighborhood board members who are elected, complained their authority was being undermined by vision team members who were not elected.

    The mayor, in a public relations move, allocated $1 million per year to each of the 32 neighborhood boards, leading some of the board members to stop their protests. But government watchdogs and some of the more fiscally astute neighborhood board members said the $1 million allocation was just adding to the city debt load. This neighborhood board funding, which dropped to $500,000 this fiscal year, also is being cut altogether next fiscal year according to managing director Lee.

    Criticism also came from those who regularly attended meetings and claimed members of Harris’ cabinet, city employees and architects, contractors and those who would benefit from the proposed projects, were making the major decisions, directing the meetings and ultimately acting in Harris’ or their best interest rather than the community’s.

    In essence they said the vision teams were a mechanism for the mayor to construct many new city projects with little oversight from the Council, yet the ability to blame the vision team leaders for the often excessive expenditures.

    Critics, including legislators, cited the fact that the vision teams exempted themselves from the state sunshine law, which requires specific procedures in announcing meetings, setting agendas and keeping minutes.

    Sen. Vice President Donna Kim, D-Kalihi, a former council member, proposed legislation two years ago that would have required these vision team meetings to be subject to state sunshine law, but the mayor, his cabinet and corporation council argued vehemently against the legislation and lobbied heavily for its defeat.

    Another common criticism: Vision teams gave the city government the excuse to condemn private property for the “greater good” of the community. For example, the city threatened to condemn the Aiea Sugar Mill property owned by then Crazy Shirts head Rick Ralston, and with the threat, led to the new buyers’ quick exodus.

    Ralston invested millions of dollars in the purchase and clean up of the property, which used to house the sugar mill in Aiea, a landmark in the community.

    But when Ralston moved to parcel the property and resell it to regain some of his losses caused by delay in construction of his store and by higher clean up costs of the contamination property, the Aiea Visioning Team voted to have the city condemn the property.

    The effort was headed by then city employee, now City Council Chair Gary Okino, who voted to have the city condemn the property so it could be turned into a community park.

    The announcement, and the city’s posting of its own logo on the property led to the buyers, many in escrow, to ditch their purchase and cut their thousands of dollars in losses put into designs costs before their losses increased.

    Ralston soon after had to declare bankruptcy and lost his once thriving company and his property.

    Managing Director Lee told the media that the city administration still wants vision teams to list with priority projects annually, which will be considered for inclusion in the mayor’s budget. But these projects will not longer have a guaranteed approval.

    Djou says he would prefer a moratorium on vision teams altogether, without the mayor’s proposed expansion of their scope and purpose.

    Analysis: Carpooling Not Without Drawbacks

    0

    SAN FRANCISCO, July 23 (UPI) — Berkeley, Calif., resident Jan
    Lecklikner’s routine is ordinary by most measures. At 7:30 a.m. she
    pulls the car out of her suburban driveway and shuttles to a nearby
    cafe for her first cup of coffee; but then her schedule takes a
    rather unconventional turn.

    At 8 a.m. she lines up outside her neighborhood transit station and
    invites two complete strangers into her car. Her purposes is nothing
    shady — she is attempting to shave a few precious minutes off of
    her morning commute to work.

    “Casual carpooling,” as this practice is called, is a kind of
    highly-organized and civilized form of hitchhiking that has emerged
    as the San Francisco Bay Area’s answer to traffic-snarled highways
    and infuriating rush-hour gridlock.

    It does not work everywhere, however. Residents of cities like New
    York tend to consider corralling two strangers into their vehicle
    each morning as borderline deranged behavior.

    Here in the Bay Area, however, where morning commute times over the
    8.4-mile-long Bay Bridge can take a single driver up to two hours,
    residents have warmed up to this unconventional transportation
    strategy, which pairs two passengers with a lone motorist, giving
    each of them speed in numbers. All three riders bypass the toll
    station and forgo the steep public transit fares they might
    otherwise pay, which can total several hundred dollars per month,
    and enter the High Occupancy Vehicle, or HOV, lane, which requires
    at least three warm bodies.

    For commuters like Lecklikner, who work outside the downtown public
    transit grid, casual carpooling improves their quality of life
    drastically. A public defender who sees her fair share of criminal
    behavior, Lecklikner said inviting strangers into her car does not
    intimidate her.

    “I’m a pretty outgoing person so I tend to meet interesting people
    on the ride in,” she told United Press International. “I’ve never
    had a problem.”

    Passengers get a good deal as well. They often shuttle into the
    city in a comfortable, leather-interiored luxury car — a huge
    step-up from the sticky, over-crowded seats of the commuter train —
    in half the time it would take on the public transit system.

    Casual carpooling also has become popular in the Washington, D.C.,
    area, where approximately 5,000 random individuals connect each
    morning in the Northern Virginia region — more than 8,000
    participate in the Bay Area.

    The program’s genius is its clever mix of informality and
    formality. Drivers and riders are not hindered by the schedules of
    other commuters because sufficient numbers in each group allow
    clusters of three to form spontaneously during peak rush hours at
    designated stops.

    To make the arrangement palatable to all parties involved, the
    system has some unspoken rules.

    For example, passengers should not strike up a conversation with
    the driver unless spoken to first and the driver should not play
    cloying or obnoxious music. Etiquette requires audio choices be
    limited to classical music or news radio.

    The passengers — or “slugs,” as they are called in Metropolitan
    Washington — should try to act as passive cargo by abstaining from
    touching the driver’s controls or opening and closing windows.

    These simple rules are supposed to ensure a consistently pleasant
    trip and the system depends largely on a basic trust casual
    carpoolers will abide by them. No government or private entity
    oversees its function.

    Casual carpooling took shape spontaneously during times of crisis.
    The Washington system was born out of the oil shortages of the
    1970s. As commuters opted increasingly to take public transit
    instead of their cars, drivers in the Virginia suburbs began picking
    up passengers waiting at bus stops in order to qualify for the HOV
    lanes to the Pentagon. Gradually, the practice gained acceptance and
    the slug system expanded to include nine different pick-up locations
    throughout the greater D.C. area.

    High gas prices also spawned the Bay Area system, but casual
    carpooling really took off after a transit strike shut down the
    buses and trains from the East Bay to San Francisco. The region now
    boasts one of the highest carpool rates in the country.

    Some environmental groups, such as Environmental Defense, an
    advocacy group in New York City, have praised the ingenious
    transportation alternative because it slashes vehicle emissions by
    reducing the number of cars on the road. But, increasingly, research
    is showing exactly the opposite is true.

    Other public interest groups, including the Sierra Club, claim
    carpooling actually increases highway traffic and vehicle emissions
    and that the system should be actively discouraged.

    “My research shows that HOV lane construction leaves vacancies in
    the other lanes which are filled by other drivers,” Akos Szoboszlay,
    vice president of the Modern Transit Society, told UPI. “It’s an
    excuse to circumvent the clean air act by the false claim that
    carpooling and constructing HOV lanes decreases vehicle emissions
    and air pollution,” he said.

    Casual carpoolers tend to drive to their local pickup stops whereas
    public transit patrons tend to walk. The cold starts of autos
    traveling to carpool pickup locations obviate any benefits to air
    quality from the practice of casual carpooling, claim opponents of
    the ad hoc programs.

    Moreover, they argue, the systems divert commuters from public
    transit, causing those publicly funded systems to lose revenue and
    increase fares. Casual carpooling likely occurs in other cities with
    a large portion of suburban to urban commuters and highways that
    require three passengers for access to the HOV lane, says Joy
    Dahlgren, a traffic expert and assistant research engineer with the
    University of California, Berkeley School of Engineering.

    “What seems to happen is that when you need three people to
    carpool, you see people picking up strangers at transit centers. It
    reduces patronage on the transit system and reduces transit
    revenues,” Dahlgren told UPI.

    According to a 1999 survey by Rides.org, 74 percent of casual
    carpool passengers said they used public transit before they
    switched to carpooling.

    Because it tends to attract commuters who would have otherwise
    opted for public transit, casual carpooling actually adds about 645
    cars to the HOV lanes on the Bay Area’s main artery into San
    Francisco, concluded the study.

    “It’s potentially a very minor contributor to congestion and air
    pollution,” concedes Steve Beroldo Rides.org’s research manager.

    Despite these unforeseen drawbacks, the advantages to casual
    carpooling — it is faster, cleaner and cheaper than public transit
    — is prompting the practice to catch on in other cities. For
    example, officials from Portland, Ore., visited the D.C. slug system
    last year in order to explore the possibility of forming a similar
    program in the Pacific Northwest.

    “It’s sort of a perverse argument to say that expanding the
    transportation system and increasing commuter convenience is a
    negative,” Frank Moretti, research director for TRIP, a
    transportation policy think tank, told UPI.

    Beroldo agreed. “It may add a few cars to the roads but the upside
    is that it’s another option for commuters that they seem to like,”
    he said. “You don’t have to worry about a schedule, you don’t have
    to pay and, occasionally, you meet interesting people,” he added.

    “It’s really a delightful way to get into work in the morning.”

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.