Letters for Sunday, July 15, 2007

• Thanks for covering kids’ sports

• Fine for being do-gooder ridiculous

• Leave pavilions and finish construction

• Wrong time to take stand on big box bill

• What’s going on in Po‘ipu?

Thanks for covering kids’ sports

Thank you so much for covering the tournament games in Thursday’s paper. My son plays for the Kaneohe Nationals and I was not able to be in Kaua‘i for the final game. To see photos of the boys and read your articles about the games daily in your paper and on the Internet was a thrill for the boys and especially for parents like me. This would not be the case in Honolulu.

Mahalo to the hosts, the Kawaihau team, parents, and friends. We appreciate their first-rate hospitality.

Gail Camara

O‘ahu

Fine for being do-gooder ridiculous

I realize that the law is the law and that there may be some reasonable rationale for going beyond the limit of making contributions to the community as a government official.

At the same time, if the cup overunneth with kindness, generosity, compassion, financial support and recognition to nonprofit organizations, athletic youth and/or senior citizen groups, cultural organizations and any other entity that is not a for-profit group, I think that the imposition of a fine for being a do-gooder is plainly and simply ridiculous.

Sometimes, in the name of justice and equality for all, we fail to recognize some natural phenomena akin to how well plants grow if the are well-watered and fertilized … and how much sunshine might favor that growth, too.

But, we must strive to live in a perfect world, musn’t we?

Jose Bulatao Jr.

Kekaha

Leave pavilions and finish construction

Pavilion No. 1 is approximated at 60 feet away from the makai end of the Neighborhood Center. There are more coconut palm trees in that area that one could say obstructs the ocean-view. My opinion is that they do not. If and when the center is to extend seaward, the extension will be built over the existing bike path. However, I have not seen the extension plans and cannot verify this.

As I drove towards Kealia recently, I observed just the unfinished roof tip of pavilion No. 2. On my approach, more of the pavilion came into my view. Just right of the pavilion is a tall, dead tree that is taller than the roof tip. As I got closer, having to keep focused on the road, traveling at the 35 mph speed limit, I passed the pavilion in three seconds. I determined that the roof tip obstruction was minimal to the ocean view. I continued on my northerly route and stopped at the scenic look out in the vicinity of the St. Catherine’s cemetery, where I turned off the highway and parked in the new scenic parking area. Here I observed pavilion No. 3. It was an eye sore seeing it not finished. It did not deprive me of the scenic view in all directions.

This project is funded by my and all other Kaua‘i residents’ tax money, both county and federal. Leave the pavilions where they are and finish their construction, including the roofs on all. The bike and pedestrian path project is being enjoyed by many, whether they are on a bicycle, tricycle, wheelchair, just taking a leisurely walk while pushing a baby stroller, or participant of the Great Weigh-out sponsored by the county.

The county had the Gateway Project, Adopt-A-Park — why not Adopt-A-Pavilion?

Queenie Pezario

Kapa‘a

Wrong time to take stand on big box bill

Please, County Council, do the right thing. From the very start you said the “big box” bill was not about Wal-Mart. Now is your chance to prove your sincerity.

Wal-Mart is now providing proof that they have the right to expand. They have a 1994 approval of permits and they believe they have a legal right to put in a 288,000-square-foot building, although they are only asking for an 185,000-square-foot expansion. They want to add 65,000 square feet. I understand they received an approval from the Planning Department in May 2006, a year before the big box bill took effect

Would it not make sense to allow Wal-Mart to build their expansion rather than waste more tax payers money on a lawsuit that Wal-Mart will most likely win? Have you heard the expression, “Is this the hill you want to die on?” In my opinion, it would be a mistake to use Wal-Mart as a test case for the legality of the big box bill. Their claim to be grandfathered in because of the previous approval of permits will be the basis of their legal arguments, and I would think their lawyer will avoid the issue of the big box bill legality, basing his case on the fact that the permit process has been started and approved and the big box bill came later. If Wal-Mart wins their case, we will have to defend the big box bill again solely on its legality.

I would ask to council to remember that when the citizens asked to stop the multiple developments proceeding in Po‘ipu they were told these developers had prior approval and there was no way to stop it. Yet the council takes the totally opposite approach with Wal-Mart. Why would this be? The only scientific poll on the desire to have Wal-Mart expand showed that the citizens wanted an expanded Wal-Mart, yet the council constantly is resisting public opinion and based public opinion on e-mail, letters and the Kapa‘a business associations list of members. With the threat of lawsuits, they are taking a stand contrary to that which they made toward the developers.

Wal-Mart is not the party we should test the legality of the big box bill. It will be better to approve their prior claim to expand and only defend the big box bill if someone challenges it that doesn’t have claims prior to the passing of the big box bill. If you must take your stand on the hill, do it after approving Wal-Mart’s expansion, not before, when your chances of winning are so much lower.

Frank Svoboda

Puhi

What’s going on in Po‘ipu?

We’ve just returned home from visiting Po‘ipu and cannot believe the amount of construction going on there. How did all of this get approved? Surely there will be a huge (negative) impact on traffic, infrastructure, etc. Then we read that the Kaua‘i Planning Commission is worrying about the height of the roof on public restroom facilities. It certainly appears that the Planning Commission has it’s priorities a little confused.

Cam and Pete Trowbridge

Los Altos, Calif.