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
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