[ OUR OPINION ]

---

Legislative bungling will
make our roads more
dangerous

THE ISSUE A Senate-House conference committee killed two measures that would have allowed operation of traffic cameras and set up a program for licensing young drivers.

BOTCHED handling of two proposals aimed at saving lives on Hawaii's highways has led to defeat of both in the Legislature. The proposals would have allowed counties to operate traffic-enforcement cameras and set up a three-stage licensing program for young drivers. Each of the proposals was used to try to coerce support for the other. When that failed, the legislators threw up their hands and quit.

Gamesmanship superseded the public safety in the handling of these proposals, an episode that should be a source of embarrassment for the House and Senate transportation chairman -- Rep. Joe Souki and Sen. Cal Kawamoto. The proposals should be considered separately in next year's session.

The traffic-camera proposal was by far the most controversial. The state abandoned a program two years ago after motorists reacted with hostility to a private company photographing them speeding. The proposal put before this year's Legislature would have authorized counties to install cameras at fixed locations to catch motorists speeding or running red lights.

The other proposal would have put Hawaii on the same road with 38 other states with rules that require beginning drivers to acquire learner's permits and provisional licenses before attaining full licensure. Most states allow exceptions for teenagers driving to and from school or work and for farm-related activities. Hawaii legislators disagreed about whether the exemption should include driving to and from school activities, but that was a minor issue that should have been easily resolved.

Souki introduced the traffic-camera proposal in the House and linked it with the licensure measure because, he said, "I thought that each one was equally important." Instead, the maneuver was used as leverage in a failed attempt to coerce senators to accept the traffic-camera proposal.

Kawamoto said the Senate could accept a program allowing cameras to be installed at intersections to catch motorists running red lights, but not along stretches aimed at catching speeders. With cavalier behavior, the two legislators acknowledged their disagreement and killed the two proposals. As a result, Hawaii's highways will be more dangerous in the next year than they could have been.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Army housing builder
should pay taxes owed

THE ISSUE A California company is asking for city and state tax waivers in building and operating housing units for military families on Oahu.

A company that submitted the winning bid to build and maintain an ambitious privatized housing development for Army personnel on Oahu is asking that it be exempted from city and state taxes. Angered by the move, Rep. Neil Abercrombie says the company "low-balled" the bidding process, and the contract should go to the second-lowest bidder. Tax waivers should be denied, and the company should back away from the contract if it cannot meet its terms.

Actus Lend Lease of Napa, Calif., submitted the low bid of nearly $7 billion to build 7,700 units, maintaining, operating and retaining ownership of them over 50 years. The company said in its bid that it would pay city property taxes and state general-excise taxes, which could total hundreds of millions of dollars over the half-century.

Actus now is saying that it needs the tax waivers to provide additional "amenities" for the military families. "The money that the waivers will provide will go toward quality-of-life issues such as new community centers," said Actus spokesman Ryan Mielke.

Any suggestion that such amenities are add-ons contingent on city and state tax waivers is not credible. As the contract is described on the Actus Web site, construction of "multiple new community centers and recreational centers" are included in the project.

Abercrombie, who co-authored legislation creating the privatized housing project for the military, submitted documents to the City Council that he said show how the company is trying to reduce its original bid by 2,000 housing units if denied the tax waivers. That, he said, is an attempt to "extort" from the city and state. Mielke responded that the denial of tax waivers might result in construction delays but no loss of housing units. Since the payment of taxes was assumed in the original contract, even delays would not be justified.

Mielke maintains that "property taxes are typically given for fire, police, refuse pickup. These projects don't get city and county services ... Those will be paid for the project, by us."

Actus should have made that argument when writing its contract bid.