• The price we pay • Surge protector explanation needed • The ‘will’ of who? • Please, just enforce the law The price we pay As a subscriber to the Hawaii Superferry Web site, on Friday, June 29, I received
• The price we pay
• Surge protector explanation needed
• The ‘will’ of who?
• Please, just enforce the law
The price we pay
As a subscriber to the Hawaii Superferry Web site, on Friday, June 29, I received an “Announcing the June 30, 2007 Arrival of the Hawaii Superferry to Hawaii and Early Reservation Invitation” via e-mail. This invitation gave me a chance to make reservations before the general public would be allowed to.
After selecting several different dates (there’s no timetable available on the Web site), I kept receiving no trips available on those dates messages. Eventually, I concluded that the Hawaii Superferry will depart Nawiliwili on Friday afternoon and return on Sunday evenings.
All right, let’s get down to business now; I chose to depart Nawiliwili on Friday, Sept. 14 and return on Sunday, Sept. 16. The next screen shows you your travel time, which they list as three hours from Nawiliwili to Honolulu. Next you get to see how much this trip is going to cost … Warning: prepare yourself for sticker shock.
A Hawaii Superferry adventure for a family of three, including the family van, will set you back $671 (the same amount we spent a few weeks ago for an Air/Room/Travel weekend package to Hilo). Did I mention the discount they’re giving you for using this “Early Reservation” invitation and using their online reservation service? The price does include fuel surcharges of $93 (each way) for the van, $17 (each way) for adults, $14 (each way) for children, and all other fees and taxes. If you want to continue on to Maui, just add another $300 to the above package price. Guess we’d be wise to pack some blankets, pillows and bologna sandwiches (no money left for a room or meals).
I guess all of us who were against the “Big Box Bill” can forget our dream of hopping the Hawaii Superferry and stocking up on O‘ahu. We’ll still be forced to pay the (highway robbery) prices our “local grocers” charge us; thank you very much members of our County Council.
But there is an upside to this all, the homeless people of the outer islands won’t be packing up their cars and moving to our beaches (as everyone was so worried about) any time soon; as I’m sure they won’t be able to afford a trip on the Hawaii Superferry either …
Luckily, we still have go! Airlines’ ridiculously low airfare for all our Neighbor Island travel needs.
Francine M. Grace
Kalaheo
Surge protector explanation needed
I sent the following e-mail to KIUC, but have had no response. I just think consumers really need to have more info to make a wise decision:
Aloha,
Thank you for hosting the informational meeting, “Home Residential Surge Protection.” I learned a lot about surge protectors and the difference in those sold in retail stores versus those provided through KIUC.
I’d like to address an issue which occurred to me after I left the meeting. I think KIUC should be installing the meter base surge protector on all residences. If I pay $40 to have it installed and then $5/month, after only one year, I’ve paid $100. Thank heavens I’m not on a fixed income as I suspect many of the attendees were. If a surge damages any of my major appliances, then KIUC would replace that appliance if the surge were not from an outside source such as a lightning strike or a “loss of neutral.” (Pete explained this very well.)
Now, what if I didn’t spend the $100 for that first year and there was damage to my appliance caused by a surge (once again not due to outside sources)? KIUC would be replacing that appliance as well.
Basically, I’m paying insurance to protect the utility provider from itself. This is my interpretation of what I understand after having left the meeting. Please have someone clarify for me if this is incorrect. I’d really like to believe that I’d be paying for something that would protect me. I have surge protectors and an UPS, but after the presentation, I’d be interested in those provided through the program; however, if what I understand is true, then I would not be eligible for the surge protectors unless I had the meter base surge protector installed, and based on my interpretation, I would not participate.
Teresa Makinney
‘Ele‘ele
The ‘will’ of who?
This is in reference to an article on A3 of the Friday edition of The Garden Island in which an Associated Press article, out of Honolulu, having to do with the Democrats’ plans relative to overriding the governor’s anticipated vetoes.
In this article, Senate President Colleen Hanabusa was quoted as follows — “We’re not going to ignore what we see as the will of the people.” It appears that Ms. Hanabusa has forgotten that Gov. Lingle was elected to the governor’s office twice, by the “will of the people,” and the second time by a margin substantially larger than that of her first term.
Ms. Hanabusa, and the others in the Democratic Party, must be clairvoyant in determining the “will of the people” for it seems that they have already decided, in advance, that overriding the vetoes is the thing to do.
It is not my “will.”
Is it yours?
Joe Stoddard
Kapa‘a
Please, just enforce the law
I have to strongly disagree with Michael Wells (“Traffic more of a problem than vacation rentals,” Letters, June 28) on his recent characterization of the vacation rental issue.
First, he claims that the traffic issue is more of a problem than the vacation rental issue, thus the Council should be working on traffic (exclusively, I guess). While traffic is definitely a problem, and one that has more immediate impact on most people, there is nothing that says the County Council has to work on issues in a “worst problem first” manner. If you read Council meeting minutes or view the taped broadcast, you’d see that they concern themselves with multiple community issues at any given time, including traffic. So this complaint really has little merit.
Second, while I agree that many issues on this island are viewed through this “us vs. them” attitude, at its heart, the VDA issue is about failure to follow and enforce the law. We have zoning ordinances. Those zoning ordinances were put in place for a reason. We want to have commercial areas, we want to have residential areas, we want to have mixed-use areas. We want to have visitor destination areas. If you don’t follow the law, you create more unnecessary problems. By Mr. Wells’ misguided libertarian logic (i.e., let me do whatever the heck I want…ainokea what you want), an individual should be able to put anything they want anywhere they want if they own the property, regardless of community needs or feelings. So, as long as I own the property, I should be able to put a gas station on Laulea street in Ele’ele and have gas tankers rumbling through the neighborhood on a regular basis. As long as I own the property, I should be able to plop a 1,000-room resort hotel in the heart of Kilauea town. If I own the property, I should be able to put in a gated community in Waimea. I should be able to erect 15 feet high walls around my property on Kawaihau Road and top them with razor wire, motion-activated flood lights, and a guard tower. I can build a small theme park if I own a few acres of land in Anahola. If I can envision it, I have the means to do it, and I want it, I should be able to follow through with the government’s blessing regardless of what the law actually says, right? This is pure, unadulterated selfishness, and it has become tiresome.
Not to let the county off the hook … you created this problem by not enforcing the law in the first place … dumb.
Michael Mann
‘Ele‘ele
