• No aloha, not enough parks for our loving dogs • Going by state law • Election or enforcer? No aloha, not enough parks for our loving dogs I have recently returned home to Kaua‘i only to find we have
• No aloha, not enough parks for our loving dogs • Going by state law • Election or enforcer?
No aloha, not enough parks for our loving dogs
I have recently returned home to Kaua‘i only to find we have become an unfriendly community for our loving dogs. The “Humane Society” was building the “dog park” when I left, and I was happy to see that for our pets.
This should only be the first step in the process of making us a community of responsible pet owners, we need more parks (fenced areas within the existing parks) where dogs can interact, exercise off the leash and generally learn sociable behaviors.
As I drive and walk my home I find dogs being neglected and very unstable in behavior. Also to request payment to use the existing park is an insult to all the fundraising and donations given to the “Humane Society” to build this park in the first place.
Let’s become responsible for healthy pets and owners. We need more dog parks.
Terri Tada, Wailua
Going by state law
In Jade Kolo’s letter, (“Learn to love one another,” Feb. 9) she poses the question, “If you witnessed a gay man being beaten up what would you do? What about a gay child? Would you walk away because he is gay, or call 911?”
This shows there is an astounding level of ignorance among people who would pose such a question. This in an attempt to make a point in a way that purposely demonizes people who do not share their lifestyle or agree with their opinions.
What this question does is not so subtly imply that if you are not a proponent of same sex marriage, you would turn the other way and let a man or child be assaulted because of their sexual orientation. It also implies that if you do not support same sex marriage, you hate gays. Very clever. In reality nothing could be farther from the truth.
Regarding your second point, you say that some states allow same sex marriage, others allow civil unions, and ask isn’t this the United States? The way it works is quite simple.
Individual states vote on laws that affect their state. In the states that passed the laws you referred to, the people voted on it and the majority won. Now, what happened here in Hawai‘i was that the people voted against this in 1998 and won.
What happened in 2010 is the House of Representatives went over the people’s heads by pushing a bill through that only they could vote on. The reason the House decided not to vote on this was the overwhelming majority in the state disagrees with it and voted it down in 1998.
The lawmakers knew that going over the people’s heads and not representing democracy would lose them elections, so they made the smart choice.
I take no sides on this issue, I have nothing against gays or civil union. If the people had supported this in 1998, I would support the choice of the people. What I do have a problem with is lawmakers that stomp on democracy and people that seek to demonize others who do not 100 percent support their point of view, by painting them in a negative light.
Overlooking the fact that most people are neutral on the subject and are basing their opinions on Hawai‘i state law. These are good people who have absolutely nothing against gay individuals or gay couples whatsoever.
Dan O’Flaherty, Koloa
Election or enforcer?
The county charter provides for the county attorney to be appointed by the mayor, with council approval, and to serve as the county’s chief legal adviser and legal representative.
The charter also mandates that the Charter Commission “study and review the operation of the county government under this charter” and propose amendments to the charter that it deems necessary or desirable.
Based on my observations of government operations and study of the charter, if the commission honors its mandate, it has two options for proposing amendments regarding the county attorney’s office.
If the commission wants to bring the operations of the office into line with the charter, it should propose that the county attorney, like the prosecuting attorney, be elected for a four-year term, thereby freeing the office from having to serve not one but two political masters who are sometimes at odds with each other.
However, if the commission deems that the proper course is to bring the charter into line with current practice, it should propose adding a phrase to make the charter read, “chief legal adviser, legal representative, and political enforcer.”
For reasons too obvious to require spelling out, I favor a proposal for a four-year elected term.
Horace Stoessel, Kapa’a
Editor’s note: Effective today, The Garden Island respectfully requests that all opinion letters be submitted to us electronically, either via e-mail at letters@kauaipubco.com or through our new Web site, www.thegardenisland.com. Only letters submitted electronically will be considered for print. Please call 245-3681 with questions about this policy. Mahalo for your valued contributions to the Forum.
