• The opposition’s hyperbole • Let’s look at alt energy • Protection of agricultural lands at stake • Dogs running free The opposition’s hyperbole Mr. Griffen of Kapa‘a wrote a letter opposing the Kilauea amphitheater, because of his experience with
• The opposition’s hyperbole • Let’s look at alt energy •
Protection of agricultural lands at stake • Dogs running free
The opposition’s hyperbole
Mr. Griffen of Kapa‘a wrote a letter opposing the Kilauea amphitheater, because of his experience with the Sleep Train Amphitheater in the small town of Wheatland, Calif. This is another example of the hyperbole the opposition has been using to try to rally people against this project.
A quick check of the website for the Sleep Train Amphitheater is all one needs to do to expose the misleading nature of Mr. Griffen’s letter. That amphitheater serves the greater Sacramento Valley and all of Northern California. It has 8,000 reserved seats and room for another 10,500 people on the festival lawns. To compare that facility to a 250-seat amphitheater is ludicrous and a direct attempt to mislead the reader.
Jonathan McRoberts, Kilauea
Let’s look at alt energy
In the old days we wanted to live in what it is today.
We wanted a portable communication system like the one in the TV series “Star Trek.” Today it’s called a cellular phone.
We also wanted a car that flies and a car that don’t run on gas and all the modern day’s electronics as the “Jetsons” (cartoon show) had. Today we have a car that can fly and we have electric cars that can be plugged in and be good to travel at least 100 miles at 50 mph.
We have microwave ovens, DVD players, flat screen TV with remotes, video game machines, and so on. To power up this future that we wanted we now need more and more fossil fuel at $100 plus a barrel today.
Now that we are here today, “when will we start looking at alternative energy to power up?” Last thought for this letter, with all these luxuries (everything mentioned above) we wanted in the old days that we now have today. Did we create obesities of today?
Howard Tolbe, ‘Ele‘ele
Protection of agricultural lands at stake
The headline of The Garden Island’s April 22 article (“Sierra Club takes stance against Anaina Hou permits”) does not convey the very important distinction between process and project that the Kaua‘i Group of the Sierra Club made in its letter to the Planning Commission.
In that letter, the Sierra Club clearly stated that its testimony “does not take a position in opposition to, or in favor of, the project per se.” The letter’s clearly stated concern is the county’s misuse of the special permit process to authorize non-agricultural commercial uses of agriculture- zoned land.
That misuse undermines the protection of Kaua‘i’s agricultural lands, setting a precedent that will threaten agricultural lands throughout Kaua‘i. The appropriate process for considering applications for commercial uses that have no relation to agriculture on agricultural land is to apply for a variance or a rezoning, and to make the showing that the proposed uses would strictly meet the standards associated with a variance or rezoning.
We are very concerned that the Anaina Hou decision will have far-reaching, long-term negative consequences for agricultural lands throughout Kaua‘i. In that decision, the Planning Commission “lowered the bar” for all future developers who want to use agricultural lands for non- agricultural purposes.
Developers will cite requirements for equitable treatment and consistency of decision-making when they threaten the county with lawsuits if their projects are not also granted “special permits.”
The protection of Kaua‘i’s agricultural lands needs to be strengthened rather than weakened. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission’s decision declares that it is “open season” on the conversion of those lands. Process, precedent and principle do matter.
Judy Dalton, Sierra Club Kaua‘i Group Executive Committee
Dogs running free
I would like to congratulate Shauna Griffin on her article about animal cruelty in The Garden Island paper of April 19. However, I would like to mention in this connection that unless there is a law to this effect there will be no changes made and life will just go on.
We have seen for ourselves where dogs are ill treated but we are forced to put up with it or confront the owner and end up with one less friend. On our street I often see dog owners walk their dogs only because they would like their dogs to keep their own property clean while they dirty others’ along the street.
The only one that I have seen with a plastic bag in hand is my 82-year-old neighbor. Every other day we are scooping the dirt from our lawn rather than confronting the owners. In Toronto there is a heavy fine for owners who fail to stoop and scoop.
Special garbage bins are provided at parks for dog excrement and at some parks they even provide plastic bags. We pay so much importance over people strewing the beaches with garbage and yet we let the dogs run around messing up the beaches. It is no longer just one dog.
The beaches are like a playground for dogs, just like the bicycle path is pretty well a place for the dogs to do as they please. Even if the county is unable to provide officers to enforce the law, the fact that there is a law in effect will enable others to point out to the dog owners that they are breaking the law.
Syd Jacobs, Kapa‘a
