Public funding would lower voter cynicism

I agree with Rep. Brian Schatz in his Sunday, March 6, viewpoint, "Now is the time to change the way campaigns are financed." That's why I became the community organizer for Hawaii Clean Elections, the citizen advocacy group working with AARP Hawaii, Sierra Club, University of Hawaii students and others to pass the Comprehensive Public Funding of Elections bill.

Schatz rightly refers to a citizenry "Growing increasingly cynical about a system where the unmonied voice falls on the political hard of hearing." We hear the same thing: People believe high-cost campaigns and big-money contributors leave them out when it comes to influence and accessibility at the Legislature.

People get excited when they learn about the successful public funding system in Maine, Arizona, Vermont, New Mexico and North Carolina. Increasingly, Hawaii citizens and legislators embrace the idea of changing the "pay to play" system our candidates are stuck using these days.

A recent statewide poll by Honolulu's well-respected QMark Research showed island voters want "major changes" in the current campaign financing system. Sixty-seven percent with opinions endorsed the new system where "candidates would no longer raise money from private sources" but would "receive a set amount of money from a publicly financed election fund." Legislators must pass the public funding bill this year.

Ferry will make Hawaii more independent

The debate over the Superferry environmental impact statement, which is in reality a debate over the Superferry itself, is about many facets of change, but mostly to the economy. Clearly it will impact those industries that depend on the isolation of the islands and inconvenience of interisland travel. But are these service industries ones we want to protect, that serve only visitors and the wealthy? Are those low-level service jobs the ones we want to offer to our young people?

What will be created by the Superferry is an interdependent, interisland economy, which will bring about a stronger, less mainland-dependent Hawaii, one where people and goods can move freely between the islands. Imagine bringing your whole family to visit friends and relatives on neighbor islands! Imagine fresh produce from our islands instead of Chile, Mexico or California, and small farmers actually making a living!

The benefits of a low-cost transportation system knitting the state together are innumerable, and essential to a more independent, and ultimately more sovereign, Hawaii. This project should be welcomed by all who truly care about the future of this state, and allowed to proceed without delay.

Superferry EIS bill is anti-environmental

Senate Bill 1785 to require Hawaii Superferry to perform an environmental impact statement is an anti-environment bill masquerading as a pro-environment bill. It was meant to kill the interisland ferry. It would have done just that, by killing its private financing.

The EIS is not required by law. Obviously, if it were, the bill would not be required. Other shipping companies are not required to perform an EIS. The bill was intended to single out Hawaii Superferry and destroy it before it is born.

Hawaii Superferry will use existing port facilities and will pay fees to the state of Hawaii to use them. It will use the open sea, and after it has passed the sea in its wake will be unchanged. No freeways, airways, runways or railways are needed. The ferry will not create congestion; it will reduce it.

The ferry will use one-thirtieth of the fuel needed for air transportation, per ton of cargo. It will emit one-thirtieth of the greenhouse gases. It will reduce Hawaii's need for imported petroleum, and thus help to reduce the nation's trade imbalance.

It is unacceptable that this archipelago should not have interisland public sea transportation.

Abandoned cars mar island's beauty

This is my fourth year as a visitor to your state. I have been a tourist since 2001. This was my longest stay in Hawaii. Each year I have gone on the around-the-island tour of Oahu. In the past, I have noticed on the windward side of the island all the rundown houses and junk cars in the small towns and villages along that side of the island.

It seems to never change. Each year the same cars that are junk are still sitting along the side of the road. I am not the only tourist to see this. I have heard a lot of other people comment about the same problem, it would be nice if your paper could get the Hawaii tourism bureau to fix this problem. It would be nice to see this state take care of the junk and junky houses along the roadways. It is a beautiful place to visit. I will be coming back again in the future.

Rail tax unfair to nonriding taxpayers

I strongly oppose the current, very costly proposal for rail transit because it benefits only a small segment of the state population. It is absolutely unfair to force increased taxation on all state residents for the benefit of a few.

Almost daily, our local media speak or write about different avenues of possible taxation to finance the Oahu rail transit; e.g., increased tax on automobile weight, gasoline, sales tax or drivers.

This is unfair to residents on outer islands, as well as those of us who will never utilize the rail transit for various and valid reasons. Some may drive as one occupant per automobile because they have personal, family or medical needs such as handicaps, appointments, and other commitments that don't fit bus schedules. Some people may be physically unable to walk, sit for long periods, stand up when seats are unavailable, unable to balance in a moving vehicle, and/or live in areas that don't have public transportation.

I also oppose rail transit because it would negatively impact the aesthetic beauty of Oahu.

'Great Mahele' has run out of fuel

Your editorial of March 1, "Don't strip homeowners of the power to buy their lots," encourages opposition to repeal of Chapter 516, yet misses the reality of the situation. The Land Reform Act of 1967 permits condemnation of residential leasehold lands, and by your statistics has resulted in 14,600 properties being converted. You characterize this situation as the "Second Great Mahele," yet you fail to mention that this Mahele has sputtered to a stop. The fuel for this engine -- lease lands available for condemnation -- has dried up, particularly so with the repeal of Chapter 38, which you did not mention in your analysis. Since enactment of Chapter 516, no further lease-land developments have entered the residential market, and this for obvious reasons. The chilling effect of leasehold condemnation has in essence eliminated this pool of affordable housing.

With land value being the most expensive component of residential home sales, the removal of land ownership from the price calculation -- via the leasehold arrangement -- would again put affordable housing on the market. But not to worry; fears of leasehold again "skewing the market" would seem to be ill-founded. It would be a very naive or trusting landowner that would commit their land assets to long-term residential lease, when a future Legislature might well decide to resurrect the corpse of Chapter 516 as the new engine for a "Third Great Mahele." That, unfortunately, is the reality.