Sunday, May 22, 2022 |
Share this story
• Aliomanu Sea Wall
• Chicken epidemic
• More on Moore
Aliomanu Sea Wall
Planning Commission regarding damage to our property caused by the sea wall. We urged the Commission to take action as the County issued the SMA permit and are, in a sense, responsible for what transpired.
In 1981, 1 was approached by Pico Morgan who asked me if my family wanted to join a group of neighboring property owners who planned to construct a sea wall. I refused as there was plenty of sand fronting our property, 100 feet of beautiful, sandy beach. Why build an ugly sea wall when it was not needed? There was never any erosion on our or Morgan’s property.
The hearing took place during my absence, and my wife and Elsa Holtwick spoke against Morgan and his hui’s request to build the structure, but to no avail as the SMA permit for a rock revetment was granted. However, instead of the specified rock revetment, a solid, upright rock wall was built. It did not conform to specification and was placed on the high water mark, as much as thirty feet beyond the property boundary and onto the public beach. No disposition of land rights was ever recorded. In actuality, the wall sat on state land—our public beach.
The erosion was slow at first but as the years went by, it escalated to an average of 10 feet yearly and up to 16 feet this past year. It’s getting so bad south of the wall that it is now undermining Aliomanu Road, the only access to the area.
The Lizama’s home has buckled and is now supported by huge timbers. At high tide, the seawater is under the house. We were able to move our cottage to higher ground, anticipating the loss of beach frontage.
The Lemke and Lizama family cottages were built and in place in 1937. Over the years there was never any loss of beach or property. The only sand movement was the seasonal shift that would come and go.
We have lost one half of our beach property of 13,027 square feet. The Lizamas have lost more. The 100 feet of sandy beach fronting our property is long gone.
Most wall owners converted their beach cottages into vacation rentals. There is no safe access fronting the seawall, as is required, for beachgoers. Who is responsible if liability comes into play—State, County, or wall owners? I wonder…
Dr. Fletcher, Professor of Marine Geology at the University of Hawaii, testified under oath that “the existence of the sea wall is the sole cause of the accelerated erosion rate at Aliomanu Bay.” Dr. Noda, an expert in coastal and ocean engineering, charted the shoreline changes at Aliomanu Bay from 1962-1988. He stated “approximately 20 years prior to the sea wall being constructed, the area south of the sea wall did not sustain the magnitude of variations to the shoreline as it did after the sea wall was built.”
The illegality, damage to our environment, the stress, the hardship, the contested case hearings that our family have had to endure have been traumatic. In addition, the expert assessments by Dr. Fletcher and Dr. Noda are more than enough reason that the ugly sea wall in the middle of Aliomanu Bay be removed.
Paul D. Lemke
More frequently, the comment is being made, that there is an over population of chickens. How long will we wait, before there is an epidemic?
It is not only the tourists that complain about the noise and nuisance of the birds, but also the locals that are having their gardens destroyed. It also affects the quality of life. The fowl does not know the difference between day and night. The loud, shrill sound can be heard at all hours.
According to the Planning Department, a Comprehensive Ordinance was created in 1972, to control chicken population, but it was never enforced. Would it not be a good time to start now? Is it ethical for a residential community to raise 35 chickens on their property, when only three or four are allowed?
Let’s call the Planning Department (241-6677) and ask them to enforce the law.
More on Moore
I recently learned of the decision by the Walt Disney Company to to block its own film company, Miramax, from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore, “Fahrenheit 911”. Disney executives reportedly made their decision because they felt the film was too partisan. The documentary traces the links between the Bush family and prominent Saudi Arabian families.
Not everyone agrees with Michael Moore’s politics. And this documentary certainly is controversial. But no corporation should have the right to tell me what films I can see. Disney has this power because it owns ABC, film studios, TV and radio stations, and cable channels. I am concerned that this is yet another example of the dangers of media consolidation, as corporations decide what people should and shouldn’t see.
There are other examples. Last week, Sinclair Broadcasting decided that “Nightline’s” tribute to the dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq was too partisan, and pulled the program from its ABC affiliates. What will be the next issue too controversial for us to see?
Congress must act to stop the growth of giant media corporations that can control our access to information and entertainment. Call your member of Congress and ask him or her to prevent the growing concentration of the media.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
By participating in online discussions you
acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful
discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments
are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines,
send us an email.