21st century still in the wings

Everybody is wrong! The year 2000 is not the beginning of the 21st century. It

is the beginning of the last year of the 20th century. When the year ends, then

and only then will the 21st century begin.

Prove it to yourself. The first

year of the first century was the year 1, right? Then, at the end of the 99th

year of that century , only 99 years had passed, right? But every century must

have 100 years, right? So the year 100 would have had to be over and done with

in order to complete the first century, right? So then, the 2nd century could

only have begun when the year 100 had ended, and 101 had begun.

Right? Now

move forward to our time. When 1999 became 2000, the first two digits of our

yearly date changed, true. But that only means that the year has changed, not

the century. Not until the stroke of midnight on Dec. 31, 2000, when the old

man with the scythe says “Aloha,” and the new baby cries out amid the sound of

fireworks — assuming they’re still legal — can we honestly say that we are in

the 21st century.

My apologies for busting your bubble. Some people got

married at midnight, but they were a year early. And all the babies born that

night were, in a manner of speaking, born before their time.

But your

oversight was only human, after all. Not so the highly-trained media people,

CNN and the like, who persistently refer to the present time as “the new

millennium.”‘ For them, there is no excuse. Auwe!

Ernest

Perry

Kapa’a

Working together brings results

To the

Forum:

For all the happy Kauaians who use Lydgate Park to picnic, swim,

sun, snorkel and just enjoy, please notice a new structure that has been built

beside the main pavilion.

This storage shed was specifically erected to

house a donated golf cart and other equipment needed and used by two very

hard-working county employees, Clayton Cataluna and Jules Ventura.

These

two dedicated individuals must maintain over 50 acres of park area which

includes daily cleaning 8 restrooms, cutting, watering, weedwacking, and a

myriad of chores too lengthy to list.

The shed was built by a group of

volunteers who, as Dennis Fujimoto so wisely said, rarely get credit for what

they do.

I wish to extend a very special mahalo to these volunteers: Doug

Nielson, Bruce Netzer, Ray Carpenter (who also keeps the golf cart in good

repair), Don Aslett, Steve Glass, “Frenchy” Degracia and last, but certainly

not least, Jimmy Rosa and his crew for supplying the material and labor to roof

this structure which will last for many years.

Many may not know that Jim

Rosa has done more volunteer work than probably anyone on this island from

roofing jobs to building fences at our Little League Parks and his efforts

cannot go unrecognized.

For supporting and supplying most of the building

materials, mahalo nui loa to Ian Costa, Pat Ferrara and Doug Haig.

Lydgate

Park is the most used park on our island and these dedicated volunteers have

made the tireless task of maintaining it more manageable for these two

workers.

Glenn Mickens

Kapa’a

Shame on you, Sierra Club

To

the Forum:

After an extended painful downturn, tourism has finally

rebounded and is starting to resemble the healthy numbers of over a decade

ago.

Many are not aware that tourism is responsible for one out of every

three jobs. Nor are they cognizant that tourism directly accounts for $150

million in TAT taxes, $400 million in GET taxes, and $33 million in Rental Car

taxes.

And more amazing is the $1 billion generated in federal and state

taxes. Tourism is responsible for 26 percent of the state’s total GSP. Over

the past year, this increase has certainly helped the neighbor islands

immensely.

If the Sierra Club has their way, tourists will once again

become Hawaii’s endangered species.

In the past the Sierra Club has tried

to identify and protect things that are endangered but now it seems as if they

are charting an entirely new course for themselves, elimination of the engine

that drives our state’s economy.

The Sierra Club’s aim is to stop the

growth of tourism dead in its tracks. The lawsuit filed in state court

contends that the authority ignored existing state laws by not conducting

environmental impact assessments before awarding the contract to market Hawai`i

tourism to HVCB.

Clearly, this is a sign that this very special interest

group has gone way out of control and diminishes the good things in the past

that the Sierra Club may have done.

Granted, the Sierra Club has always

been outspoken, but usually there has been some merit to what they have been

trying to put forth. In asking for additional environmental impact studies by

HTA, one must wonder why do we force developers to do either EA’s or EIS’s

before they build hotels and golf courses and before roads are built.

Once

we give them the authority to develop their properties and build roads it seems

to me that we also give them the ability to use them (there’s a concept). It

leaves you to scratch your head and wonder.

Certainly, when the

Legislature created HTA it was not in their design that the HTA should be tied

to more unnecessary, costly, painful, and redundant environmental impact

studies when already so many studies and permits are in place.

It’s clear

to me that what the Sierra Club would like to see is for our economy to grind

to a halt; that we label all future tourism as an endangered species; that we

treat them as such and tell them as endangered species, for their own good and

their own protection, that they not be allowed to come to Hawaii in the

future.

Last year I did not renew my membership in the Sierra Club and

after reading what they are attempting to do this year, I’m certainly glad I

didn’t.

I hope that the withdrawal of my membership from this

organization sends a message and that they now know that instead of the

subscriber and an advocate, that they now have an adversary.

When special

interests groups push the envelope to this level, they lose all credibility and

that is just the case with the Sierra Club and their recent attack against HTA.

Shame on you Sierra Club!

Gregg Gardiner

People should have voice

in development issues

To the Forum:

Recently, TGI published a letter

from R. E. Weir which opposed a suggestion made for a public election to occur

for approval of major developments. This letter fails to address the realities

which generated the proposal and his objections do not bear analysis.

At

present Kaua’i’s zoning laws are permissive of developments. In substance our

Planning Department and Planning Commission are simply the vehicles in which

the processing of approvals for proposed developments occurs.

For

developers and others who support unlimited development of Kaua’i this legal

environment is idyllic. It is also necessary to recognize that developers are

well financed and persistent and they offer attractive arguments that their

developments will generate jobs and additional property tax revenues. And

developers make generous campaign contributions.

Our County Council has a

history of finding these factors controlling. If the proposed development

enjoys public support the climate is benign.

However, many of our citizens

looking at urban sprawl and the threat to a rural lifestyle believe that

Kaua’i’s growth should be more controlled. When a project does not have public

support and our elected and appointed officials fail to accept the public will

there is a need for a means to control unwanted developments.

Perhaps Mr.

Weir has a better suggestion, but the imposition of the requirement in these

situations of a public vote is a reasonable one.

Mr. Weir says that the

requirement is “silly” and raises questions about the frequency, costs and

criteria for elections.

The frequency of major developments is limited –

there have been less than 10 over the last 20 years. If the election were to be

held as part of a general election its cost would be minimal.

If the

developer wished a special election it should be paid for by the developer. In

neither case would there be a taxpayer burden.

Mr. Weir then suggests that

voter turnout is “notoriously” low and submits that approval of a project could

depend on the “whim” of a small number of voters.

Fortunately voting on

Kaua’i substantially exceeds the 36 percent rate he cites. As has been said,

democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest, but it

cannot in good conscience be urged that elections should be invalidated because

of limited voter participation.

Finally he asserts that such an election

would be straying from the principles on which America was founded. It is

certainly true as he states that the inalienable rights specified in the Bill

of Rights should not be matters subject to public elections, but the

opportunity of a corporate enterprise to make a commercial development is

clearly not in the same category as freedom of speech, press, worship or

assembly.

If the system currently in place does not carry out the public

will we need a mechanism to correct it. Requiring a public expression in cases

of major developments is such a means.

Walter Lewis

Princeville