I wish I could share the mild but growing optimism about Hawaii's future. Instead I'm lining up with my friend and contemporary, George Mason, retired founder-editor of Pacific Business News, in fearing the optimists are cockeyed. Reasons for concern
on Hawaii’s futureYes, we will have gradual tourism growth - if we don't set it back with crime and political confrontation.
Yes, we will have a continued military presence here as our No. 2 industry, but it is unlikely to grow. Over the long term it will shrink.
Yes, we will put some abandoned sugar and pineapple acres back into use as bases for diversified agriculture, but collectively these crops are unlikely to equal the lost crops in value. They will be puny in relation to tourism. Most of them will not even equal a 1 percent rise or fall in tourism in economic impact.
Yes, we will have more ecotourism, but relatively small.
International education offers us opportunities. So does the opportunity to become a Pacific health-care base. We have small but invaluable science centers based on our geophysical advantages.
Yes, homes are more affordable. That is good for the buyers and renters if not the sellers and landlords.
Yes, City Council has voted for rules that will permit Waikiki to be upgraded but even this has drawn sour reactions.
Yes, we want to improve and streamline government and upgrade public education in particular. But a rigid government union structure intimidates politicians and stands in the way.
We are soiling our nest and our aloha spirit.
They may be few statistically but the seemingly increasing violent attacks on strangers are horrifying. So are the purse-snatchings and car-robbings - from visitors in particular. We are not the safe place we once were.
The nastiness introduced into the sovereignty movement from the Hawaiian Studies Center at the University of Hawaii-Manoa is frightening in its potential for stirring ethnic conflict.
The Legislature must roll back ceded land payments it voted to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or face budget-busting from the way a court has interpreted the 1990 law - and that may be nasty.
Nasty, too, may the property rights confrontations following a 1995 state Supreme Court ruling that threw our 150-year old Western property ownership practices into an era of uncertainty.
The court greatly broadened previous interpretations that traditional Hawaiian rights must prevail in undeveloped and underdeveloped lands. It clouded the reconciliation process since no easily available records or rules exist to carry out its mandate.
The court stressed the generally conciliatory nature of the Hawaiian culture. It seemed to ignore the activist confrontations and occupations. Its ruling is apt to keep lawyers fully employed and spawn many more confrontations before a new balance is achieved.
THESE developments do not bode well for the Hawaii economy. If they lead to high unemployment and tax shortfalls, things will get still worse.
The coming cutbacks in welfare and efforts to limit the growth of Medicaid, Medicare and even Social Security seem necessary to create an economy that won't bankrupt our children and grandchildren.
They are being met to some extent by increased volunteerism (a great plus) and are intended to stimulate a desirable increase in self-reliance. But they also are being met by demagoguery that impedes necessary efforts to counsel together to achieve humane results.
Yes, we have a place in America for single-interest groups who will cry foul unless they get their way absolutely. But what has happened to the even more necessary focus on the common interest with sacrifices accepted if necessary for the long-term good of all?