• Real issues • Speed up the Wailua project • The economics of a hybrid Real issues Mr. Walter Lewis insists in his column of Jan. 9 (“Real issues with the county manager proposal,” A Better Kaua‘i) that the real
• Real issues
• Speed up the Wailua project
• The economics of a hybrid
Real issues
Mr. Walter Lewis insists in his column of Jan. 9 (“Real issues with the county manager proposal,” A Better Kaua‘i) that the real issue with the county manager issue is whether it is the “better choice” rather than my “sophisticated” position of “whether the flaws in the current government methods are sufficient to justify any change.”
How one can determine the “better choice” without comparing it with “the other choice” is beyond me.
The column is replete with statements I would love to discuss in detail. I am satisfied, however, that my “persistence” has yielded the answers I have been seeking to my question: What are your reasons for wanting a change? I expected identification of flaws in our Charter and since none was offered, my question shifted to “What are your real reasons?” (“Real reasons,” Letters, Jan. 14).
The “real reasons” became apparent from a reading of the letters of Mr. John Hoff (“Persistence,” Letters, Dec. 30) Mr. Glenn Mickens, (“Ignoring the reasons,” Letters, Jan. 4) and Mr. Lewis himself who summarizes it all as follows:
“Mr. Mickens in his straight forward style has written about his personal observation through his attendance at County Council meetings and other meetings for many years of the flaws, inadequacies and inefficiencies in the operation of our county government…”
I would like to emphasize the word “operation.”
There is no reference to, or mention of, any chapter, section, or subsection of the County Charter to blame for the “flaws,” “inadequacies,” and “inefficiencies.” Mr. Lewis, however, specifically pinpoints the blame to “the operation” of our county government, which, by any definition one chooses, the word “operation” means “the doing or performance of work” and which as applied here means work by people engaged in government — not by an inanimate document labeled “Charter.”
Accordingly, as Mr. Lewis would put it, looking at it from my perspective, the problem is with people — not the system — and that is the real reason for wanting a change.
In his criticism of a “less than enthusiastic commission,” Mr. Lewis, surprisingly, provides an explanation for all the commotion raised by the advocates of a county manager system.
In a quiet corner of his column and in his usual sophisticated manner, there is this very meaningful phrase: “depending upon your perspective.” Is it not possible, Mr. Lewis, that in reality, the council, the mayor, boards, and commissions from which were experienced the “flaws,” “inadequacies,” and “inefficiencies,” may or did look at matters from their own perspective or point of view, that was different from yours, Mr. Mickens’, Mr. Hoff’s, et al.?
Is it possible too that the commission, by majority or consensus express, by action or inaction, their point of view from their perspective, what they believe reflected the will of the people? Again, are you not blaming the people in government who, perhaps, look at matters differently from your perspective and yet persist in wanting a change in system contrary to other local, state and national methods: Elect the right people and get rid of the problems! Or is this a problem, too?
Alfred Laureta, Lihu‘e
Speed up the Wailua project
Having spent many years involved in government in California, watching roadwork take years to fruition only to be destroyed by yet another earthquake, I was appalled by the lack of police assistance to the current Wailua Bridge project until last Wednesday.
And even then, later in the week some folks had a two-plus hour commute from Wailua-Kapa‘a area that could have been deadly should one thing have gone wrong. Hopefully these very well meaning workmen will be working throughout the weekend hours to get this project done so that folks can get back to normal and maybe even some tourists will want to return to help with our sagging economy.
Thanks to the guys working so hard, along with the officers who are finally there.
Su Haynes, Wailua Homesteads
The economics of a hybrid
I appreciate all you who, as pioneers, have bought hybrid cars. My criticism was of the proposed 50 cent tax to subsidize hybrids. For those who think I was off base in my analysis of hybrids on Kaua‘i, here is an example:
A 2010 Camry hybrid costs about $7,000 more than a 2010 Camry non-hybrid. The mileage from fueleconomy.gov shows the regular Camry gets mileage of 22/32 (city/highway). The hybrid Camry gets 33/34. Using an average auto interest rate of 5.75 percent, amortized over 10 years, the hybrid portion would cost you $77 per month. Using a national average of 1,000 miles per month, driving half city and half highway, you would save 8.5 gallons per month or $28 per month in gas.
If only 25 percent of your driving is in the city (which is more like rural Kaua‘i), you would save only about 5.2 gallons or $17 per month. You would be spending $77 to save $17, losing $60 every month.
Mark Beeksma, Koloa
