The report may be read in its entirety here (LINK): Kau Listening Project Report

Section Five: An Assessment of Conflict Residents’ comments described communities deeply divided over the future of the Ka`u area--and over the Sea Mountain Five proposal specifically. This chapter describes three major cultural themes in Ka`u related to this conflict that were in the stories of citizens. It further describes how the citizens view the role played by Ka`u Preservation, Inc. [KPI] in fostering conflict.

Major Cultural Themes about Conflict There are three major themes that emerged from the stories of the people regarding this conflict. Each one is addressed in turn.

• 1. “Talk Story until there is a balance.”

This theme is the most widespread of the comments received from residents. Citizens showed that talking story is a part of their cultural mechanism for getting things done. When an action is contemplated that involves other people, the respectful thing to do in Ka`u is to talk story. Over time, it begins to be clear the course of action that is appropriate. That is what residents have asked for related to this conflict—that they be given a chance to do what they always do—talk story until there is a balance.

“It’s like a see-saw or a teeter-totter. You have to keep talking story until there is a balance.”

“People need to take a look at what is best for the whole community.”

“Balance is possible. It’ll require give and take on both sides. ‘Keep Ka`u Ka`u’ also means the people who live here.”

“Preservation is good to a point. I’m concerned about the turtles and access to the beach. I want development but not too big. I’m afraid that if they open it for one development, too many more will come.”

“A balance is possible if the beach is protected for quality and access.”

“All or none is the wrong frame.”

“Change will happen regardless. Make the change how you want it. That’s what we are doing in Ocean View.”

“Many of the activists do not necessarily represent the silent majority who want to stay in Ka`u and raise their children within the rural community.”

“There are too many rules if you preserve. There are too many rules if you develop.”

• 2. “Conservation of the Resources and the People”

The second major theme is that people want a balance applied to development and conservation questions. They want to conserve the resources but the people too, for the long term health of the whole system. “Preservation” for many implies locking up a resource. It is a static term that suggests things will always stay the same, when everyone knows that things change. “Conservation” means “taking care of,” in this case both the people and the resources.

“I’m for development and for preservation.”

“When you don’t develop, you don’t protect. This area is not pristine. It has been developed for a hundred years.”

“Ka`u Preservation talks about protecting turtles. Of course, save the turtles. It is ridiculous that that is their stance. We also need an economic base for our community.” [Kupuna]

“Why preserve if you are not going to take care of it?”

“The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Ka`u Preservation—they are all tree huggers. What about the balance with the needed economic growth?”

“They say, ‘Save the turtles.’ Our ancestors used to eat the turtles. I don’t understand what they are talking about.”

“Sure the rocks and turtles will still be here, but where is the children’s laughter?”

“I want the beach and the turtles to be taken care of and jobs for the people.”

“We’re trying to do our best to say no, no no, but how do you say yes to the benefits of the community?”

“I am in favor of growth. Without growth, we’ll live in a ghost town and that doesn’t benefit anyone. The Punalu`u development is a good one. I’ve followed the SM5’s proposal of community benefits and how they have scaled back and I think they seem like good people. The development will bring huge benefits to the whole of Ka`u and if it’s done right, the turtles will be saved, the beach will be preserved, and the people will flourish.”

“We need controlled growth that will give us jobs. Make the development smaller scale.”

“Aunty says we need jobs. We can’t just look at saving the turtles. Sure I want the turtles saved too, but they’ll be okay. What about the children and the future of Ka`u?”

“Save the people also. Our people end up in California and other places. We lose some of them to crime and drugs. Some have disappeared never to be heard from. That’s very sad.”

“The people who are for preservation only, with no regard for economics, are elitists.”

“We have concerns about protecting the beach, the shoreline area, Ninole Pond, the sacred Hawaiian sites, burial grounds, and the endangered species along with everyone else. However, we believe that the development can occur without destroying the habitat, significant cultural sites, and the beauty of the area.”

“People say. ‘Keep Ka`u Ka`u,’ but what about the young families that can’t get jobs? We need an industrial park. No growth will shut down the schools.”

“People have to have a place to go. Someone at one time made room for us.”

“Yes, we need to focus on kids, education and the turtle, but the land is not pristine. Work with the mayor hand in hand to get a balance. People are suffering while we are saving the turtle.” “With controlled growth, Punalu`u is an appropriate place for there to be development. I feel you can preserve the area the history and the culture and still create jobs.”

“I don’t want any encroachment on the black sands beach area and sea turtles but I think there could be a compromise somewhere.”

“Are they going to sacrifice people for the turtles? People are dying on the highways, people have to commute so far and so long, they are committing suicide. Family life is hard.”

“They say preservation but what about the people?”

• 3. People Don’t Want To Take “Sides”

The opposite of talking story is “taking sides.” This theme is also widespread and speaks to the frustration residents shared in the tactics of Ka`u Preservation. The notion of talking story is that discussion of public issues is the only way to go forward in a way that includes everybody. By contrast, the “taking sides” approach forces public issues into a win/lose situation, with insufficient debate to understand the merits of any one direction. In addition, if one or both of the “sides” spreads rumors or misinformation, it is even more difficult to know what is going on, a situation that describes the present time in Ka`u Ka`u.

“I don’t like the dichotomy, not either for or against.”

“How come you are talking to pro-development people?” [A question directed to a JKA team member]

“We knew we needed community support. People have to get to know you here but with Ka`u Preservation being so loud, it was hard for people to get to know us.” [Sea Mountain Five owner]

“Maybe it’s time for people to write the Mayor, call him, visit him, voicing our concerns and what we want. Enough fighting each other.”

“We don’t always agree, but we always agree to talk civil to one another.”

“There is no that side and this side, just God’s side.”

“I teach the kids to listen to all sides of stories. Kids have been torn on this issue because other kids have different opinions. One school teacher was telling students that development is really bad.”

“I don’t take sides. Each side should step back and figure out if one or more of the group is stopping dialogue. Both sides have real concerns. Those that want power while we are losing. Losing is having to move to California, ride the hele-on bus.”

“They do have parts of their argument correct, but are flying high with intimidation power. They will fall down one day, so who is hurt? The native Hawaiians will be, not us. We can always move away. If politics are too hot, Hawaiians still have to stay. Damage is already done and being close to separating families. That causes them to choose sides.”

“Yes it is a tragedy what is happening in our community. One group is hard headed. They are concerned about setting a precedent of larger scale building on coast of hotels and other tourist type business. Can be like Kona, very cluttered. We for the most part do not oppose development, but hope any development will be thought out, using the people’s desire.” [3 men after church]

“I am very concerned for the people and the sides they are taking, dividing the community. It is very tragic when friends and families are divided. What is worse is that there are some violent people or person scaring the residents. People tire and strike violently back and things will explode. I pray to God this will not happen.”

“We don’t want fight and had friends that now will not even talk to us. Other families are facing the same. They are trying to intimidate people.”

“If ____ was worth his salt, he should not be taking sides and backing one faction. He should try to facilitate the balance and a plan.” “We gotta help each other instead of fighting. Haoles fight each other and bring that attitude to us. We have to learn to get together and shut out the trouble makers.”

“We are not against or for.”

“In the eyes of some, it’s about, ‘I have to be the one that came up with that.’ Some people have to get the credit.”

“I was on [KPI] board, I didn’t want sides.”

“There is a small minority of people here that have shut down so many good opportunities, the space port, and other things. There were many lies put out about the space port. There was only going to be one shuttle per month and would have created many jobs. The prison would have brought jobs and security hot heads came and disrupted the meetings. Ka`u needs jobs badly.”

“I live here because it is country and I like the open space. I want the land preserved. We also need jobs that are non-polluting, where developers keep the trees and land intact.”

“I was surprised by some of the kupuna making fun of ____ and putting her down, I have never heard kupuna talk about one another like that, and I guess I was disappointed in them even though what they said was true.”

“I’d like to see both sides win.”

“You have the loud mouthed haoles versus the modest Hawaiians.”

“I am after balance. I can see both sides.”

“I can see both sides of the issue. I have heard about the tactics of Ka`u Preservation group and I do not agree with how they do things.”

What People Said About Ka`u Preservation, Inc. (KPI) The organization, Ka`u Preservation, came up repeatedly in the stories of residents. There were two main areas of concern related to this group: Support for the values and the mission, and frustration with the methods. Each is addressed in turn.

• 1. Support for the Values and Mission

Many residents are fearful of resort development, believing that the impacts cannot be managed and the benefits cannot be guaranteed. These concerns seem to be amplified by looking at other places on the Big Island and other parts of Hawaii of development without controls and the negative effects that resulted.

Moreover, the value for taking care of the earth, and the sense that ecosystems are in imminent danger of collapse, lends an urgency to the debate. Many people feel strongly about this issue.

“We don’t want this place destroyed. I will fight to the end to protect this place, all the sewage dumping into the ocean. The people get to change the beds. It’s not our future.”

“What are owners of the land going to do to support agriculture, local jobs that are not menial, cultural education?”

“We will create a world class cultural school to educate the children of the world.”

“Development should go in Na`alehu and Pahala.”

“We need to preserve the entire coast line from any development. The development will cause impact to the ocean and the fragile ecosystem there. I have a degree in biology/marine certified, and I see what can happen and what is happening. The coastline should be for public use with public access. People want access to the beaches. I’m not against development in general just development on the coast, including Punalu`u.”

“Some places should be left alone and this is one of them. Anything can happen as long as it is not at Punalu`u.”

“The plan that Ka`u Preservation has is a pretty good one. They have a cultural center planned, along with school, and science education, but nothing right down on the beach. They have a nice ecological park with composting toilets planned. They will include the history of the whole area with all the cultures. Fishing, ranching, hunting, sugar cane, Filipino, Japanese, and Hawaiian.”

“In Hawaii, passion is respected, even if people get a little out of line.”

“I support preservation and living classroom. _ is purchasing a living classroom, bringing kids to study ocean works, beaches, the outdoors, really sacred. No hotel.”

I firmly believe the County of Hawai'i should purchase as much land as is possible in Punalu`u to keep it from resort and urban development. Give the local community a chance to follow through on their plans to create an eco-campus, a live learning lab for our children and grandchildren.” “I believe in saving the environment.”

“I believe that we must save this incredibly precious resource, especially for the children of today and tomorrow. As a local-born islander and now an elementary teacher, I see the invaluable opportunity that Punalu`u serves as a Hawaiian resource in its ‘outdoor classroom’ setting.’”

“[KPI] stands its ground, supports rural character.”

”I read the EIS [Environmental Impact Statement]. The coast will be destroyed. I spearfish at Punalu`u. I see tourists touch turtles. It’s too pristine.”

“Activists go too far, but somehow they speak to something that hurts, a loss, fairness.”

“It’s not fair to us. We’re giving up our area and what do we get?”

“I am not with Ka`u Preservation but I am concerned about preserving Punalu`u. I noticed that it is a ‘gathering place’ for locals, and that there is no other beach access for them.”

• 2. Frustration with Methods

The concerns of residents with the methods of Ka`u Preservation were widespread and strongly held. This group came up time and time again in negative ways, related to their style of operating in the community. The categories of complaint are listed below.

“I don’t like the tactics of the Ka`u Preservation group nor their rhetoric. I don’t think they have such hot ideas, either. I’m here because I like the rural life.”

“They don’t want to talk story.”

“They have some good ideas, but their strong exclusionary stand does more harm than good.”

“[KPI] has taken over the preservation talk but that issue does not belong to them. It belongs to everyone. Other people have gone underground with this issue.”

“You’d think they’d want to talk and share their viewpoint.”

“[KPI] makes us all mad. They refuse to hear my opinion. The only thing they want to talk about is the party line. They think they know what is best for me. They are not open to negotiation. It is their way or the highway.”

“[KPI] is not willing to dialogue. They are unwilling to find middle ground. We hear so many comments that it will be over ____’s dead body.”

“I finally learned that if I wasn’t going to be with them, they were going to be against me.”

“He needlessly alienates so many people. He attacks them and demonizes them, for what?”

“I’m tempted to email __ __and tell him to lighten up. They’ve got to be more open and get some dialogue going.”

“They are not willing to negotiate. If you talk up at meetings you are ridiculed, booed, and looked at strangely.”

“If people want to work in hotels, let them go to where the hotels are. If you have to drive to Kona to work, you should live there.” [KPI officer]

“That attorney comes in and wants me to be against everything, but he is so negative. I’m sick of it.”

The officers of KPI announced in a letter to the Mayor and in a letter to the editor stating that they refused to participate in this JKA research project. KPI officers did not return team phone calls through the course of this project. Late in the research period, two of the officers agreed to talk with us, each of them prefacing their remarks with, “We are not speaking for the organization, just for ourselves.”

”I have no interest in talking about this with you.” [KPI officer]

I heard someone called somebody from your group a snake. That’s awful. We all know who. The people from your team handled the incident good, that was awesome.”

“We hear that the mediators were told to stay away from the festival at Naalehu. Go, it’s open to the public.”

“You are not from here, you don’t know the facts. You have messed it up. The mayor is coming in too late.” [KPI board member, shouting]

“They lie and distort information.”

“[KPI] was not involved in the protection of the Honu`apo area, except that they testified at the end, and then claimed credit for the accomplishment.”

“I know the lies and the truths.”

“You are not the majority, where do you get that idea?”

According to several community members, the “South Kona-Ka`u Coastal Task Force” was dominated by members of KPI. At a general meeting, KPI members were said to have driven out eight other task force members, including a developer and planner for Sea Mountain Five who had a right to be present as land owners. Official representatives of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) did not protest the act of exclusion. Residents complained that there was shouting, stating that it was impossible to have discussion about options because only KPI positions were tolerated.

“Some people on the Task Force wanted 1.5 mile setbacks and a local committee to control. I told them they were nuts if they thought the government would give locals control like that.”

“_ and _ [Ka`u Preservation officers] ran the Task Force.”

“They manipulated the process. When an important vote came up, they would change the date to one which detractors could not attend. A [KPI officer] came in with recommendations developed outside the Task Force meetings and got them adopted.”

“They are a loud and angry group.”

“[KPI] is so loud and I don’t like their tactics but I do believe in their mission. I am a KP member.”

“They will not budge, not talking things out, only loud bursts. It’s a very angry group.”

“But the biggest strongest toughest wins. So if they shout loud enough they’ll win.”

“[KPI] people get really loud and raise their voices and get angry and won’t listen to reason.”

“___ is so passionate he is right up in your face screaming and pointing his finger and shaking his fist and shouting. You can’t do that, that scares me.”

“People are afraid.”

“People are afraid.”

“I don’t want to make enemies.”

“The blood will flow in the streets [if the resolution does not pass]. I can’t wait to see that day.”

“People are afraid to speak out. They have been intimidated and they are timid people to start with.”

“I feel so overwhelmed by this that is going on. Don’t tell anyone. I do not want to show fear about this in public. Have fun. You’ll find people who will talk story.”

“People are insulting each other, friend against friend. It is a shame. Cars are being defaced.”

“We are appalled at the behavior and bias of the Ka`u Preservation Group and the manner in which this group has been allowed to dominate meetings and disrupt proceedings with their loud, ignorant, obnoxious and sometimes, profane and frightening ways. Attending meetings when able, we found too many KPG leaders and followers come from outside the Ka`u District yet are allowed to testify, loud and long, often without any facts or true figures, or regard for the truth. This is not right or fair.”

“We need some sort of development, I’ve got lots of friends that said I’m not going to get up and testify but they want development.”

“I was talking to my friends about Sea Mountain when __ walked in. My friend tells me, ‘That is a __ person.’ The room went quiet. My friends got scared.”

“We didn’t show up [at the hearings] because we don’t want to be seen testifying. We take a chance to voice our opinion.” “When people find out that [KPI] is coming to meetings, people don’t come out. No one will stand up to them.”

“Blood might be in the streets and it won’t be my fault.” [KPI board member]

“I’ve been here and raised my kids on that beach all my life. Every weekend we go down there and play and visit with others. Thirty years now, I watched those coconut trees grow. Today, they’re all grown up. Those people are violent and so the community is scared.”

“Because people are so violent, we don’t bring up subjects like the prison, hotel, or any jobs. We are afraid to speak.”

”They single you out. They know you go to the meetings or speak up then you have to watch out for your children. I can’t speak up because I have to think of my grandchildren.”

“They have an outsider agenda.”

“I am half Hawaiian. I feel what the people are feeling. I’ve been here over 30 years. I know what is going on. The other side will not give in, it’s terrible. All of this started with the haoles. They came a long time ago and started to impose their ways on the people. People did not know what to do or how to really resist them.”

We are getting tired of this. Haoles are getting native people to fight/argue with ourselves. What is going on with Black Sand Beach is an example.”

“You know [KPI] is now all outsiders. We look around, that group isn’t even of locals anymore. I’m a local girl, born and raised, I know.”

They [KPI] are mostly haoles. Some lived here for a short time. They say they love our ways, then use native people to have people think it is from the Hawaiians. They love money, use turtles and the beach to gain power. Yes, development could be good, but let us have a say, not their say.”

“We know about the mediation team visit. It is good that your team is hired by the mayor. Things are not looking good. The other side is really throwing obstacles. They are so set on destroying anyone who opposes them. They use intimidation, a lot of fears. Most are haoles. A few Hawaiians with them. It’s an outsider agenda, not Hawaiian.”

“They want power and control.”

“If ____ can’t gain from it, she’ll make trouble.”

“It will take a settlement for them, as it has in other developments around the state, before it is put to rest.”

“Access to the beach will be denied, especially to locals, if [KPI] gets control of the beach. They do not even want to talk to us, anyone.”

“The principal got flack from teachers for referring kids to the Cousteau summer youth program because it was made into a controversial issue.”

“We’re against them. They wanna do things for them not all of us. They have changed their name so many times, you gotta wonder why?”

“There were other names prior to Ka`u Preservation: Ka`u Ohana O Kalae; Pele defense fund; Punulu`u Preservation; then Ka`u Preservation.”

“I’ve been coming here for years with my husband to the beach and to Pahala. One family try keep everyone off beach, for themselves. They use violence to get people to do things they want. Used to be everyone worked together.”

“I suspect there is money to be made by KPI. They have received money from the government before. They can use the land to get leverage, get more money. They are greedy, they will never budge.”

“Ka`u Preservation teaches separatism and racism.”

“These guys are too aggressive. There plenty local boys want this thing [development].”

“We used to be aligned with [KPI]. We realized what they were up to and disassociated ourselves with them.”

“They are not Hawaiian in spirit.”

“I am Hawaiian and I don’t agree with Ka`u Preservation.” “The traditional Hawaiian way is to make things right—Ho o pono pono. That is not happening.”

“They are founded on an old view of how Hawaii was stolen and it does not serve our future.”

“[KPI] professes to have the traditional spirituality and reverence for the land, water, fish, turtles, all things. Yet they are responsible for allowing the removal of pohakou (sacred rock) to be removed and sent to Smithsonian.”

“My biggest fear is that land will go to an organization that has no aloha and is closed with no aloha. I may be haole but I have aloha. I know some Hawaiians that don’t have aloha.”

Stories of Intimidation in Ka`u

Most disheartening of all the stories from citizens were stories of intimidation. To intimidate is defined in the dictionary as “to make timid or fearful,” and “to inspire and affect with fear.” There were over 15 stories of physical and mental intimidation and violence that were related to the field team. These stories have been sent to the proper authorities.

Section Six Toward Healthy Community Process

This community assessment has shown that residents in the Ka`u area can, by and large, agree on many challenges facing their communities. They want: • Natural resources and shoreline resources conserved for themselves and future generations. • To maintain Punalu`u beach as a local beach for future generations to enjoy with their families. • More economic activity of a type and size that fits the community, protects the rural lifestyle, and creates opportunities for young people to stay in the community and raise their own families if they so desire. • Agriculture to be supported and encouraged. • To address current community concerns of education, drug and alcohol addiction, job training, and housing.

There is much that the residents do not agree on. Many people simply do not want resort development in Ka`u under any circumstances. While most people support a scaled-down version of the Sea Mountain Five proposal, where exactly the balance is between conservation and development is actively debated. In the coming weeks and months, it is likely that community discussions will continue about Ka`u’s future. The forum for these discussions could be:

1. Hawaii County may find the means to expedite the Community Development Plan (CDP), as we recommended in Section 1.
2. Completion of the design of, and the community benefits package for, the Sea Mountain Five proposal.
3. If Hawaii County Council passes Resolution 169-07, it will then have to be converted into a Bill or Ordinance form in order that formal action can be taken to secure the land if Sea Mountain Five is interested in selling. If that happens the forum could be on the creation of a community plan for the purchase and management of a new 150 acre park.

The preferred choice would be to complete the Ka`u CDP. This would allow the Ka`u communities to avoid its current situation of reacting to each development proposal. Instead it would allow the community to set the “standards of development” for all to know—citizens, proponents, and government. Moreover, CDPs allow each District to create a plan that reflects the social and geographic uniqueness of each community. Such a proactive, geographically-sensitive plan can provide all parties interested in living, working, recreating and investing in Ka`u—a greater sense of predictability and reliability that would foster better policy choices in the long run.

“There should be guidelines for building.”

“Let the developers know what we want. We often say what we don’t want, but it’s time to tell them what we do want.”

“We need balance. We need to unite all of Ka`u. We need a long term plan that dictates where we want to develop and where we want parks etc. The people need to participate in shaping and controlling growth and development. Need more of the Costeau programs and get kids interested in this kind of stuff. We need a vision for the future. Someone could water color paintings of how it could be; what it could look like. The Mayor needs to hear ideas about a long term plan before special interests or developers take charge.”

“Controlled, planned and well-funded development is best for the economic future of Ka`u.”

As community discussions continue, whatever their forum, it will be important to create a process that builds safety and confidence on the part of citizenry to participate in their future. A number of reasons have been discussed that makes sustained participation by residents difficult: • Many residents do not have a “culture of involvement” in civic affairs—they just do not go to meetings. Many local people commented that, “People will not go to meetings. You have to go into their homes.” • Many Ka`u residents are working people whose schedules preclude regular attendance at public meetings. This is especially true in recent years as people take more than one job to survive and the commuting lifestyle has become more common. • The polarized nature of community discussion in the last several months has led to a lessening of communication among people of differing views, making it easier to project negative characteristics onto the “other” group. • The tactics of shouting, threats, and intimidation have led many people to avoid public settings. With the moderate ground harder to find, more extreme rhetoric has become the norm.

“Meetings don’t work, people commute and they’re tired.”

“There is no time for meetings. All that fighting, people don’t go to meetings.”

“Churches are good. In Na`alehu, go to the parish hall. Sundays are best after church.”

“People are working and they can’t come to the meetings. The people against can come to meetings.”

Figure Five below shows a process that emerged from the stories of residents which offers a way forward to healthier community communication and decision-making. It shows that one-on-one talk story is a productive beginning—that people love to talk in settings that are comfortable and natural for them, they are active observers of their community, and they have a sense of the future born of their experience of living in Ka`u.

1. One-on-One. The Discovery Process at the individual level reveals patterns in citizen issues (as exemplified by this report) that can be used to build future communication and

1. Chat Sessions. As the patterns emerge, the second phase, that of family and small group chat sessions, can begin. Discussions and differences of opinions at this stage are comfortable, and an initial round of agreements is possible at this stage.
2. Neighborhoods. After chat session are concluded, the process will take place in neighborhoods—in homes, cafes, churches, schools, or other acceptable locations. In

Figure Five (see report) pg 94 Building Participation and Confidence in Public Policy At this level, people begin to think “outside the box,” as their perspective widens from focus on a single issue, which may have compelled them to get involved in the first place, to a broader focus on the whole of the community. The natural leaders are obvious by this point as well. By this point, there are large areas of agreement in which people have a common understanding of the issues at hand, and the policy choices which would address them.

1. District-Wide Meetings. The process culminates in one or two district-wide meetings. The areas of disagreement, with the attendant action alternatives for consideration by the community, are presented as well. Then, a means is created by which individuals indicate their preferences. The “means” could possibly be electronic privacy voting pads, which anonymously record the votes of citizens.

Discovery Process: one-on-one talkstory Family and Small Group Chat Sessions Neighborhood Sessions

Discovery Process: one-on-one talkstory Neighborhood Sessions Regional Meeting Vision!! Inclusiveness Focus Family and Small Group Chat Sessions

This process, The Discovery Process, of drawing ever-larger circles is one that creates inclusiveness and focus over time. It draws in greater and greater numbers of people at the same time it focuses ever more intently on the choices before the community. It must be stressed that this process is designed to create safety for participants so that final choices represent the best possible course of action for the greatest number of people. From the chat sessions, to the neighborhood sessions, and particularly at the regional meetings, facilitators must protect against the domination by the few. Facilitators can be trained about how to respectfully listen and take input from all and not allow any one individual to monopolize the group or pressure its members to act in a certain way.

In this way, the democratic process is strengthened.

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

Today in Hawaii...