Where will homeless go if not to the parks?

I am writing in response to Ron Hebron's letter regarding the repeal of Act 50, the "squatter law." He contends that a repeal would give over the parks and beaches to the homeless. Hebron seems to believe that the homeless should be left to fend for themselves rather than be "provided" the comfort of the beaches and parks. Clearly, he does not understand what it is like to be homeless and that there is a difference between going to the beach and living at the beach. Nor does he seem to appreciate the scope of the homeless problem here; the shelters are consistently full, employment that pays a living wage is a distant dream for many and rents continue to go up with no relief in sight.

Hebron concludes his letter with the question, "If you give the beaches over for people to live, where should tourists like me go?" If my mother hadn't raised me better, I'd tell Mr. Hebron where he could go. Instead, I respectfully ask him (and anyone else, really) for any good ideas about how we can work together to provide for the basic needs of the people of Hawaii while still being able to share our aloha with visitors from around the world.

Tort reform would improve medical care

The recent comments by Timothy I. Mac Master, attorney at law, disparaging the need for medical malpractice tort reform ("Gathering Place," Star-Bulletin, April 26) can be summarized. Basically, his message is: Doctors are plentiful and they make lots of money compared to the general public. He asks, "Why should patients and their families have their constitutionally guaranteed rights to trial by jury taken away in order to enable cardiologists to make more money?"

He misses the importance of trying to balance the costs of continuing a medical practice in managed care situations, like prepaid insurance companies and Medicare, that prevent costs from being passed on to the consumer. Physicians are facing a continued reduction of reimbursement for their services with increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance. Therefore, many doctors are reducing their Medicare and high-risk patients, and that is the truth of the matter.

We were not given the salaries of the plaintiff attorneys to compare with the physicians listed. Nevertheless, there are two suggestions that come to mind. Since physicians are having to reduce their charges to patients to provide medical service, would it not be fair to ask attorneys to take lower contingency fees (rather than the customary 30 percent) so that more money could be passed on to their deserving clients in the settlement of cases? Furthermore, if the attorneys in the United States could accept what is practiced in several other democratic countries, laws could be passed so that the plaintiff could pay all the costs if the case was proved to be without merit. This latter condition would discourage the abundant "nuisance suits" that are settled merely because it is more expensive for the insurance company to fight the cases even if they are not justified.

Suits against Hawaiian programs ignore past

With respect to an April 21 letter to the editor regarding "Why do we give blood so much importance?": An answer might lie with the actions of the U.S. Congress' 66th session of February 1920 to begin the Hawaiian Homes program and address the landless and homeless who were dying off in numbers. Testimony stated that "the United States wishes to care for a certain body of its people whose islands have come to us and for whom we feel a moral obligation to take care of." When the question arose about whether an act of Congress setting apart a limited area of the public lands of Hawaii to be leased to and occupied by native Hawaiians would be unconstitutional, the solicitor of the Interior Department's legal opinion was that "It would not," referring to Indian allotments and allotments to soldiers as an example.

Challenges to the Hawaiian Homes program today are overlooking this early activity and intent when filing lawsuits as being discriminatory.

Why do mixed races claim to be Hawaiian?

I would like to know why people who are not 100 percent Hawaiian are considered "Hawaiians." Suppose a person is 50 percent Hawaiian and 50 percent Japanese. The current thinking is they are "Hawaiian." Why are they not "Japanese"?

I am 50 percent Irish but am not considered Irish. The history of my lineage makes me an American whether I like it or not.

It seems to me if a person isn't 100 percent Hawaiian, there must have been a Hawaiian in his/her past who was OK with not maintaining a "pure culture." For the progeny to take up the cudgel for rights or wrongs done to his/her past ancestors and look for redress does not seem appropriate.

What was done in the past may or may not have hurt the "Hawaiians" of the time (I've heard it argued both ways), but time and history march on.

Persons of 100 percent Hawaiian blood might have a case for redress, but all others should not be allowed to take part in any legal action.

Drunken drivers' cars should be destroyed

How hard is it to seize vehicles from repeat drunken-driving offenders ("Gov weighs car-seizure bill," Star-Bulletin, April 23)? Stop studying the issues already and take action. You don't need to deal with storage costs, because I have a better plan that will make drunken drivers think before getting behind the wheel.

A drunken driver slammed into and destroyed my grandmother's parked vehicle one morning last month and fled the scene. It happened in front of our house.

My aunt and neighbors are credited for apprehending the suspect quickly. The suspect was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident.

I urge the state to pass House Bill 919 SD2. I would like to see the vehicles of drivers arrested for DUI get seized and destroyed at the nearest metal scrapyard.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. If drivers know that their investment can be reduced to scrap metal as a result of drinking and driving, then so be it. We need to be proactive in incident prevention and not reactive to people's cries of unfairness, because only drunk people put themselves into situations like this.

Long-term care bill should be passed

My parents are 84 and 85 years old with chronic illnesses that might necessitate the need for long-term care. They were smart -- they purchased long-term care insurance when they were younger. I haven't done so for myself. The cost of living in Hawaii makes it hard to make one more payment each month. However, there is a bill before the Legislature that can help.

The Lingle-Aiona administration is proposing measures to help citizens and employers (for the benefit of their employees) obtain long-term care insurance at more affordable rates.

Legislators such as state Rep. Bob Nakasone share Governor Lingle's concern. His measure, House Bill 97, now incorporates some of Lingle's proposals. It is in conference committee now, where the House and the Senate are working toward agreement on the details of the long-term care tax credits.

Hawaii has the longest-living population of any state. About 127,000 of our residents are 70 years old or older. By 2025 that number is expected to grow to about 209,000.

We all age. The Legislature should pass this important proposal. We can't afford to put this off.

Killing UARC proposal is still the goal

The week-long sit-in at Bachman Hall ended Wednesday with the Save UH/Stop UARC Coalition asserting a crucial gain. This was an important step in the process to kill the proposal to establish a University Affiliated Research Center at UH. I have been involved in the movement to study and halt the project since early this year.

A main reason for the occupation was the consultation proc-ess has been seen by many as flawed and insufficient. Interim UH President David McClain has admitted that the provisional approval of a UARC by the Board of Regents last November was insufficient and premature. He has agreed to most of the coalition's demands.

Time constraints with the end of the semester and the possibility that a UARC contract could have been approved during the summer also contributed to the urgency to act. The coalition felt the only alternative in demanding accountability was to take tangible nonviolent action to publicize the issue.

Those involved remain steadfast in their resolve to end the UARC and bring real peace and justice to our university.

UARC protesters don't speak for all

The protesters who interfered with the operations of the University of Hawaii system do not represent the opinions of all UH-Manoa students. They are a minority whose opinions differ radically from those of the majority of students. Many students either do not know or care about the proposed University Affiliated Research Center. With the support of individual faculty members, the Stop UARC coalition is able to misinform students about the negative aspects of UARCs, and fails to mention the benefits that a UARC offers.

I support a UARC. Although I will not benefit directly from it, I know many students and professors of science who will. A UARC will provide them with the opportunity to extend their research and the academic freedom to take further advantage of their education. Their research will benefit our university fiscally and improve our national security.

This is a nonpartisan issue. It is about the freedom of students and professors to do the work that they are educated to do. It is about the future of our university. The opinions of the Stop UARC Coalition, although valid, do not coincide with those of many individuals at UH-Manoa.

The Board of Regents should support UARC and should not be intimidated by the demands of a radical and unreasonable organization. UH-Manoa students: It is time to speak out against the Stop UARC coalition.

How to write us The Star-Bulletin welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point (150 to 200 words). The Star-Bulletin reserves the right to edit letters for clarity and length. Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published. Letters must be signed and include a daytime telephone number. Letter form: Online form, click here E-mail: letters@starbulletin.com Fax: (808) 529-4750 Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210, Honolulu, HI 96813