Letters to the Editor


Convention center is a very loud neighbor

I live near the new convention center and am very happy to report that the pile driving has finished. The construction of the new center has begun and I can watch the tax dollars flowing. The steel erectors are doing a fantastic job and the building is taking shape at breakneck speed. They are even working on Saturdays to try and finish before the citizens realize what a rip-off this will be to taxpayers.

I realize that this great need to finish is important to someone. But consideration should be given to those of us who live in the immediate area. How about not working on Saturdays? The noise level is not as loud as the pile driving, but it is still loud. At least the pile drivers let us have weekends off. If the person in charge could please let us have more than one day a week off without being disturbed it would be appreciated.

CARLOS ROLDAN



Some lawmakers will gain under pure tort system

The House recently passed a pure tort measure that provides major benefits to trial lawyers at the expense of consumers and businesses. Apparently, conflict of interest is an alien concept to some members of the Legislature. Some of the outspoken advocates of a pure litigation system are trial lawyers. These lawyer/legislators participated in the joint committee hearing that passed out the pure litigation bill.

Why are legislators who earn their living from auto insurance litigation allowed to speak out for, and vote on, legislation that will create a feeding trough for lawyers? Isn't this a conflict of interest?

In all hearings on auto insurance, lawmakers who either enjoy a direct financial benefit from personal injury cases involving auto insurance claims or whose firms benefit from such cases should recuse themselves.

Sadly, the exact opposite occurs. Those with the biggest conflicts are the loudest advocates of pure tort and the most strident opponents of pure no-fault. This seems to be a situation where the proverbial fox is guarding the hen house.

GIANNA CROSETTI BICKSON



Will water board take cue from high sewer rates?

I join the move for lower sewer fees. Consider my own situation:I have a narrow lot on which two old buildings (totaling four units) are served by one sewer line to the street.

For the period of Nov. 24, 1995 to Jan. 25, 1996, I was charged for a total of 28,000 gallons of water consumed by the four units and was billed $53.96 for this two-month period. This is followed by the Department of Wastewater Management (the sewer department) fees for sewer service based on the water consumed by the four units for the same period. It comes to $164.60 - almost three times the water bill.

I am now afraid the Board of Water Supply will up its rates to match.

ELLEN HEE



Law and public sentiment back evictions at Makua

I would like to respond to recent letters concerning the Department of Land and Natural Resources' recent actions at Makua Beach.

The situation at Makua is a tough one for everyone involved - the occupants, the state and the Waianae Coast community. It is a situation that can no longer be ignored.

The laws of the state dedicate the Makua Beach area as a public park, rather than as a residential neighborhood. The state Legislature gave DLNR the responsibility to manage our state parks and lands, ensure access to these areas for everyone, and uphold laws which prohibit residency on public park lands. This is a public trust responsibility to future as well as present generations of Hawaiians.

We also have a responsibility to respond to the Waianae community whose members have asked us to take action at Makua. We have received an increasing number of complaints regarding the degradation of the beach and limited access by the public to the area. This degradation includes unacceptable use of the beach and surrounding areas for human waste disposal by more than 200 people.

On March 5, the Waianae Neighborhood Board No. 24 was asked by occupants at Makua to support a five-year moratorium on evictions in the area. The motion failed by a vote of 12 to 1.

While we share the concern that has been expressed for those at Makua, we cannot agree with public land being used for a select few. While the need for public assistance is real for some at Makua, this is not the case for everyone. The state will do everything it can to help those who are truly in need.

MICHAEL D. WILSON
Chairman, Board of Land
and Natural Resources




Text Site Directory: [News] [Business] [Features] [Sports] [Editorial] [Community] [Info] [Stylebook] [Feedback]