• Government restricting liberties needlessly • Aloha and mahalo • What will the judge’s next target be? Government restricting liberties needlessly In an attempt to clarify his testimony before the County Council regarding dogs on the path, Mel Rapozo’s recent letter to
• Government restricting liberties needlessly • Aloha and mahalo • What will the judge’s next target be?
Government restricting liberties needlessly
In an attempt to clarify his testimony before the County Council regarding dogs on the path, Mel Rapozo’s recent letter to The Garden Island states “the current ordinance requires an 18-month trial period, followed by a report to the council by the administration. This new bill is premature and defeats the purpose of the existing ordinance. It attempts to circumvent the existing ordinance.”
It is surprising that Mr. Rapozo is not more familiar with the actual content of the ordinance, since in August 2008 he voted on Bill 2265, Draft 3 as a council member. In compliance with and as specified in the County Code Section 19-1.4(a)(21)(B) Trial Period Evaluation, the Director of Parks and Recreation established a committee of stakeholders. Each of the undersigned stakeholders is currently on that committee. We have been members since its inception, and we have carefully studied the terms of the ordinance.
The ordinance unequivocally states “An evaluation period shall be established by the committee of stakeholders providing ample time for the consideration of outcomes PRIOR to the end of the eighteen (18) month trial period.” The ordinance further requires that measurements (such as surveys, questionnaires, assessments and reports) be done by the Department of Parks and Recreation in consultation with the committee of stakeholders.
Accordingly, responses from park users were gathered based upon the overall purpose of allowing dogs on the path. It is completely appropriate and in compliance with the letter and intent of the law that the administration compile and submit a comprehensive report to the council for consideration prior to the end of the 18-month trial period.
Allowing the accommodation for dogs on the path to sunset would result in reversion to the status of dog walking on any portion of the path being a violation. That would clearly be an unfortunate regression. Therefore we believe that the Council needs to be informed, have discussion, and take action prior to the expiration of the 18-month trial period.
Mr. Rapozo wrote “I do not support the county’s intentional circumvention of local, state and federal laws to get it done.” Strong words. Are they unfounded accusations? Perhaps Mr. Rapozo should provide specifics about where the current administration and council are “intentionally” circumventing the law.
This debate is a regrettable waste of valuable time and resources, since on-leash dog walking is the norm. Owners are responsible for their pets. Government should not restrict liberties needlessly.
Dr. Randall C. Blake, Sue Hansen, Thomas Noyes, Dr. Becky Rhoades
Members, Stakeholders Committee
Aloha and mahalo
When I stepped off the plane two years ago, “aloha” and “mahalo” were the only two Hawaiian words I knew. While my vocabulary has expanded since then, I’m far from fluent. But where my language studies have faltered, my education in other areas has thrived.
To my coworkers and colleagues at The Garden Island, who have taught me how to be a professional journalist, how to write and edit, and how to enjoy a job and love a newspaper;
To my sources, who spent countless hours tutoring me on the subjects they have devoted their lives to, topics as diverse as politics, criminal law, the environment, Hawaiian soverignty and too many other fascinating fields to list now;
And most of all, to my friends and readers, who taught me what it means to be part of a community and made me feel that even though I wasn’t born or raised here, this was my home and will always have a special place in my heart.
Aloha. And Mahalo.
Michael Levine, Wailua/Honolulu
What will the judge’s next target be?
The matters that trouble Alfred Laureta seem endless.
In his letter to the Forum (“Why the inconsistency?” March 14) he professes his lack of understanding of two points made in TGI editorials. These editorials had suggested that the present system of appointment of certain county officials like the police and fire chiefs remain in the hands of the respective commission as a change to direct appointment by the mayor would be more politicized and that the people be allowed to decide whether they would like to have a county manager system.
Mr. Laureta brings to his examination of these opinions his oft-stated view that the county manager system will not solve the “pages of problems” in our county government and that, therefore, the proposal should not be presented to the electorate. He is entitled to his view, but in a democracy decisions are made by a majority not by one person.
Mr. Laureta then incorrectly finds an inconsistency in The Garden Island position when there is none. TGI neither endorsed nor opposed the manager system, but it expressed reservation about direct mayoral appointments. While TGI suggested that the people should decide the county manager question they did not oppose submission to the voters of direct mayoral appointments only their reservation about its desirability.
We wonder what will be the next target for the judge’s fancy.
Glenn Mickens, Kapa‘a
