• Still wondering why coastal path is being built
• Timing can be everything
• Warriors did ‘magnificent job’
• Evolution is outdated theory
• Real science over blind faith
Still wondering why coastal path is being built
Lester Chang’s two-part article on the Coastal-Path route (9/4-9/5) was very interesting. Of particular note is that a portion of this once-called “bike path” is now a controversial five-foot wide walking path infringing on some beautiful private property.
Before the Lydgate section of this path was built, the question was asked why it had to be asixinch cement slab that was 10 to 12 feet wide. The answer from the Administration was that it had to be that wide and that thick to be ADA accessible and so that emergency vehicles could drive on it.
Now, our same county officials are saying that only a five-foot path is needed in this controversial area. Do we just change the regulations to fit the need or are our officials simply playing games with the public?
Having read the 100-page booklet put together by the learned lawyer, Bill Sweeney, giving factual evidence of why this path is not only illegal in this condo area but violates many Federal laws. Under TE 23 U.S.C. 217(i) it states, “No bicycle project may be carried out under this section unless the Secretary has determined that such bicycle project will be PRINCIPALLY FOR TRANSPORTATION RATHER THAN RECREATION PURPOSES”. We have to wonder why this “path” is being built since, by no stretch of the imagination will it ever be used for transportation. In fact, over and over this administration emphatically makes the point that (1) It gives “increased opportunities for recreation and physical fitness.”—Draft EA paragraph 2.2 Project Purpose and Need page 2-2. (2) The East side tourist market would also benefit from an attractive outdoor recreation amenity.” (Draft EA page 4-86). For further examples of what this “path” is truly for, please read Mr. Sweeney’s booklet, particularly pages 79 through 82. He has spent a lot of time-consuming work in compiling this booklet and if our elected officials will carefully read it they will have a hard time justifying proceeding with this project.
The County leaders and the consulting firm working for the county continually say that the planning of this “path” was done with community input and and was not done in a “vacuum”. The only people involved in this project are a few citizens from the East side of the Island—maybe not a “vacuum” but sure not involving the masses of the people!
1) We don’t need this multi-million dollar white elephant.
2) We are violating Federal statutes by calling it something it is not.
3) As Mel Rapozo said, we will NEVER be able to maintain it properly.
4) Security along it will be intermittent or nonexistent at best.
5) The head of our building division is spending more time on this “path” than in getting building permits out to contractors which is his primary job.
6) Roadblocks and logistical problems are glaringly prominent in this project; money will run out in the near future as Jay Furfaro has said; and, at best, a segmented “path” may get built —- bike, pedestrian or horse but WHY?
- Glenn Mickens
Timing can be everything
Mr. Bush is an expert in timing – trying to sneak this by while Hurricane Katrina’s devastation and the government’s abysmal response is occupying our attention. Please don’t let him get away with this tactic yet again.
- Dr. Lucy Miller
Warriors did ‘magnificent job’
In the sports page on Sunday, the day after “the” game , the headline was “Trojans trash the Warriors”.
I have two degrees from USC and I am a diehard fan of the “Trojans.” But the Warriors and coaches, Jones and Glanville, don’t have anything to be ashamed of. The Warriors didn’t get trashed! They did a great job of defense and offense as they got two touchdowns and a field goal against an undefeated team for two years running. I’d say they did a magnificent job, especially for such a young team. Hawaiians should be proud of these guys and their coaches. Great things are in store for them.
I’m proud of the “Trojans,” but playing against this young team , the score should have been 63 to nothing. So “Go Warriors.” You have a great future ahead for you.
- Dr. Gordon Smith aka “Doc”
Evolution is outdated theory
I agree with Bettejo that evolution should be taught in our science classes but as what it truly is: an outdated theory. The theory should be taught using current scientific facts and not the ancient literature which is used in the text-books of our children’s classes which still have the early earth’s atmosphere as a hydrogenrich mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor.
By the 1960s, scientists agree that the true atmosphere had little hydrogen, as it would have escaped into space, but consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. The organic molecules created in this mixture would be formaldehyde and cyanide. Hardly an atmosphere that would initiate life. Darwin’s tree of life which also appears in text books has been proven through fossils to be upside down!
The example of the eohippus horse Bettejo gave was like comparing house cats to lions. If evolutionists claim to be related to apes that’s their right, but I’m proud to tell my kids there’s no monkeys in their family tree.
- Tim Uno
Real science over blind faith
I am responding to a letter printed in The Garden Island dated Sept. 2, 2005. I just want to say that I am so proud of the writer’s “blind faith” to believe that eohippus evolved into a horse. Who was there to observe this “evolution”? Real science does not back this up. Scientists have never observed at the molecular level even one example of an increase of information within the genetic code within a species. Real science observes in every case of point mutations a loss of information never an increase.
Microbe resistance to medications at the molecular level is never due to an increase of information in the genetic code. It has only been observed that this resistance is due to a loss of information or genetic variability already within the microbe population.
An increase of genetic information within a kind is an absolute must for evolution to be possible yet this has never been observed. Intelligent design has real observable science to back it up, evolution does not.
So which belongs in the classroom? And which is the religion? That which can be proven with observable real science or that which takes “blind faith” to believe.
I’ll stick with the real science of intelligent design rather than believing evolution by “blind faith”.
- Dr. Peter R Saker