Editorials
Monday, December 8, 1997THE City Council was wise in sending back to committee for reconsideration a $13.5 million bailout plan for the Ewa Villages Revitalization Project. As submitted by the Harris administration, the proposal contained a questionable allocation of $7.3 million in federal block grant funds to Unity House Inc. to help buy 153 homes. Ewa Villages bailout
needs more scrutinyPat Tompkins, a city housing specialist, challenged the plan, noting that another group, the Self-Help Corp. of Hawaii, was proposing to build 126 affordable units with just $1 million in federal funds. A total of $12 million in federal funds is to be shifted from other projects to subsidize three nonprofit groups building homes in Ewa Villages to help low-income families, the elderly and people needing long-term care.
Several Council members asked how the Unity House plan would help old-time residents of Ewa, which was the intent of the project. The current plan would set aside only 77 units for low-income families. First chances at the homes would go to members of the Unity House unions -- Local 5 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union and Teamsters Local 996.
The Ewa Villages project got into trouble when the developer was unable to sell 282 homes at market prices to help pay for redevelopment of the area. That was understandable in view of the weak real estate market. Private developments have had similar problems.
More trouble developed for the Harris administration with the arrest of two city housing officials and several persons in the private sector on fraud charges in connection with contracts to move Ewa residents and businesses. The cases are in the hands of the city prosecutor.
However, the proposed subsidies for nonprofit groups are a matter for the City Council, and the decision to refer them for more study seems warranted by the questions raised. If government funds are to be used to bail out the Ewa Villages project, as seems necessary, it is essential that they be allocated on an equitable basis.
AFTER the Board of Education gave Herman Aizawa a rating of "satisfactory but with some continuing concerns" last month, it was virtually certain that the board would vote to retain the superintendent of education, as it did Thursday night. However, no miracles have been wrought during his administration of the public schools. Improvements have been made in some areas but not in others. Grading Aizawa
By the end of the 1996-97 school year, Aizawa had met or surpassed six of 26 goals. These included raising performance on fire and building inspections, an increase in the number of graduates receiving the more demanding BOE recognition diplomas and lowering the dropout rate.
However, the superintendent's ratings dropped on scores on SAT tests and the state test of essential competencies, and teacher retention.
Perhaps the board was unrealistic in setting performance standards for Aizawa, especially in view of the state's budgetary problems. Evidently a majority of the board thought so. In the end, he had the votes of nine members, with four opposed to retaining him.
Aizawa was hired in 1994 on a four-year contract, the first state schools superintendent with such an arrangement. But the board decided not to give him a new contract. Instead his performance will be subject to periodic review.
This could make sense. Offering a contract to a new superintendent should make the job more attractive and improve the number and quality of applicants. But once a superintendent has been on the job for a while, having a contract ties the board's hands.
A high-profile divorce case in Stamford, Conn., is a moral victory for stay-at-home wives. Lorna Wendt was awarded about half the assets or approximately $20 million in cash, property and investments as compensation for 31 years of marriage to Gary Wendt, chairman of GE Capital Services, the high-profit finance arm of giant General Electric Co. The corporate wife
This was no ordinary divorce case. At one point during the trial, Gary's attorneys persuaded the judge to close the hearing and seal the court record, because the public disclosure might have affected the stock market.
In a classic case of he-said/she-said, her lawyers estimated his estate to be worth as much as $100 million; he insisted that it was more like $42 million.
But the real crux of the disagreement was whether Lorna "deserved" half of his wealth, because -- according to Gary -- she wasn't "employed" outside the home and he "had worked very hard and sacrificed a lot of pleasure to make this money." What an insulting sentiment to women who choose to be domestic engineers.
In retort, Lorna pointed out her many duties as a GE wife, including throwing lavish business dinners, traveling extensively on trips and counseling other GE wives. She also was responsible for handling the family's moves whenever her husband was promoted, and did most of the work raising their two daughters.
The ruling rightly recognized that a marriage is a partnership between equals and that both sides bring their own talents and contributions to the relationship.
As her attorneys argued, giving Lorna only a snippet of Gary's assets would say "that the value of the wage earner's contribution is higher and more important than the value of the homemaker spouse, that we as a society don't value those two kinds of activities equally, and the reason we don't is that women generally are the ones who contribute this unpaid labor."
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
