• It’s about laws, not coconuts • History has its traps, too • How to reduce drug use It’s about laws, not coconuts The issue of Eastside development is more than “a coconut tree dropping its nuts” or “inevitability of
• It’s about laws, not coconuts
• History has its traps, too
• How to reduce drug use
It’s about laws, not coconuts
The issue of Eastside development is more than “a coconut tree dropping its nuts” or “inevitability of change” or “we will all eventually adapt to the passage of time.” It involves two massive developments, monstrosities. (“Developers and coconut groves,” Letters, Jan. 26)
Ann Broadbent Leighton also states, “… keep in mind … it was zoned and taxed … in the early 1970s.” Now, 40 years later and a bigger population, doesn’t she suppose a few things have “inevitably changed” since then?
They have, dramatically: new laws regarding cumulative impact which encompass traffic, wastewater, protecting the ocean from the pollution and loss of fish from these developments, healthy environments and unreasonable and overbearing encroachments on residents (and visitors) so that a developer can extract his wealth from the beauty of Hawai‘i.
It’s about an application going through the Planning Commission numerous times, then to court to remove the conditions of approval imposed by Planning. It’s about the court sending it back to the Planning Commission after not striking the conditions and giving Planning Commission the opportunity to “save” the conditions, specifically ordering the Planning Commission to “focus on proportionality and nexus” and to make determinations/findings of “rough proportionality” because the Planning Commission is the agency with the expertise to make such findings.
The court upheld the conditions. The developers, by taking it to court to remove the Planning Commission’s conditions, have delayed their own project, causing themselves added expense.
So, the issue is not coconuts, but specific findings as to rough proportionality by our Planning Commission.
• Elaine Dunbar, Lihu‘e
History has its traps, too
Mr. Walter Lewis gives a few historical facts in legalese that the average Hawaiian would have difficulty understanding in his recent column. (“History helps to illuminate Hawaiian ceded lands case,” Forum, Jan. 24)
On the surface it may look fine as a historical overview, but if we scratch the surface we may unearth a few disturbing facts.
Mr. Lewis mentioned that “Amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of the petition by the State by more than 30 states or state entities and by a number of private organizations.”
Well, for the average reader amicus curiae brief means nothing, but if translated into everyday English, it means a statement submitted in form of a letter to the court by an entity or individual as “the friend of the court” in support of one of the parties involved in the case.
My first reaction was that the State of Hawai‘i must have felt that their case was quite weak if they went through the efforts of requesting (and probably paying) 30 some states or state entities to write those lengthy briefs in their support.
Why in the world would get other states involved in the affairs of the State of Hawai‘i when they do have their own problems, unless they are the home of or connected to those mainland developers who can hardly wait to get their hands on parts of the ceded lands to “develop” them, that is to convert them to their own taste? I decided to read a few of these briefs.
All of them concluded that the Apology Resolution has no legal force or effect whatsoever, in other words, that it was only symbolic. But, pardon me, if it were so, why don’t they ask former U.S. President Bill Clinton to make a public statement saying that his apology to the Hawaiian nation was only symbolic. He should be the one who knows best what he meant. Are they afraid that he wouldn’t do it?
The 35-page amicus curiae brief No. 037-17232 submitted jointly by the Grassroot Institute of Hawai‘i and Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. of Atlanta contains some troubling statements.
For example, Chapter 5 — “Victimhood claims unjustified. U.S. a success story for Hawaiians.”
Surprisingly this chapter does not list statistical figures of Hawaiians living in Hawai‘i, but of those living in California. Perhaps the “success story” here would be less convincing to the court.
Furthermore, to tilt the emotional scale, on page 33 the brief states “Over 1 million American citizens in Hawai‘i are under siege by what can fairly be called an evil empire dedicated to Native Hawaiian Supremacy.”
Is it not interesting that we don’t read, hear or see complaints here about this evil empire?
To further stress their arguments and to confuse the public, the supporters of the State in the brief describe the “cruel” kapu system of Hawaiians even if there is no normal Hawaiian today who would be inclined to restore it or any of the outdated traditions.
Isn’t it ironic to mention the old kapu system as a deterrent or condemnable fact, when in the USA between 1890 and 1960 nearly 5,000 black Americans were lynched (out of those, 458 occurred in Georgia, the state of the co-authors of the brief), and American women were not allowed to vote till 1920?
The use of these tactics must be a sign of utmost desperation to find faults in the other party’s actions.
Perhaps it is time to look at the case differently and sit down with the Hawaiians to discuss and settle the ceded land and other issues amicably to the benefit of all. Perhaps this would even be less financial burden on the Hawaiian taxpayers than the expected legal fees in the Supreme Court appeal case.
• János Samu, Kalaheo
How to reduce drug use
The importance of parental involvement in reducing adolescent drug use cannot be overstated. (“Team fights substance abuse,” The Garden Island, Jan. 25)
School-based extracurricular activities also have been shown to reduce use. They keep kids busy during the hours they’re most likely to get into trouble. In order for drug prevention efforts to effectively reduce harm, they must be reality-based.
The most popular drug and the one most closely associated with violent behavior is often overlooked by parents. That drug is alcohol, and it takes far more lives each year than all illegal drugs combined. Alcohol may be legal, but it’s still the No. 1 drug problem.
For decades, school-based drug prevention efforts have been dominated by sensationalist programs like Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Good intentions are no substitute for effective drug education. Independent evaluations of DARE have found the program to be either ineffective or counterproductive.
The scare tactics used do more harm than good. Students who realize they’ve been lied to about marijuana may make the mistake of assuming that harder drugs like crystal methamphetamine are relatively harmless as well. This is a recipe for disaster.
Drug education programs must be reality-based or they may backfire when kids are inevitably exposed to drug use among their peers.
• Robert Sharpe. Policy Analyst, Common Sense for Drug Policy, Washington, D.C.
