• Why school uniforms? • $4.09 million shortfall Why school uniforms? Next year at Wilcox Elementary, children will be a required to wear a uniform T-shirt. Why is this needed? The policy claims that it will reduce costs. Not true.
• Why school uniforms? • $4.09 million shortfall
Why school uniforms?
Next year at Wilcox Elementary, children will be a required to wear a uniform T-shirt. Why is this needed?
The policy claims that it will reduce costs. Not true.
Parents will have to purchase clothes for home and the uniform. The vendor sets the price, and we pay.
They say other schools are doing it — as you say to a child, “Just because others jump off a cliff, would you?” How ironic that one of the reasons for this is to decrease peer pressure.
Children should learn how to resist peer pressure, like when administrators say, “Come to school and wear the same clothes as everybody else.”
Teach them to say, “I’ll come to school, I’ll study and learn. I won’t wear the same clothes as everybody else.”
They say it will increase school morale and pride. Teamwork and commitment to a mutual goal builds morale and pride, not a uniform.
Will teachers and staff be wearing the uniform? Or will this be a lesson for the children that those in power make the rules, but don’t have to follow the rules?
I learned there will be no action taken against those who refuse to participate.
I urge all parents to allow their children to not wear the uniform.
I urge all parents to write to the school and tell them that this is not a good policy.
This is not what our country stands for. This is not freedom and individuality. It’s conformity, control and money for the vendor.
Carl Ross, Lihu‘e
$4.09 million shortfall
This author’s first question after reading The Garden Island article, dated Jan. 13, entitled “Multi-use path cost $30M so far,” is where did the “shortfall” dollars go?
The article points out the “path has been built with $29.61 million in federal dollars and $569,183 in county funds.”
The article goes on to point out that “there was an estimated $4.09 million shortfall in the estimated county contribution.”
To repeat: “Where did that shortfall go?”
The article then states; “But the county share may be reconciled after the 138 acres of land in Ahukini acquired by the county in 2010” is appraised by the county.”
Pending a county appraisal, those lands “could potentially add another $4.09 million to the county’s contribution, according to Council Chair Jay Furfaro, the article stated.
One big problem: The 138 acres referred to in the article as reconciliation for the shortfall is, in reality, a wasteland of shoreline property directly adjacent to the Lihu‘e Airport’s runway. It is also a site that is bursting at the seams with restrictions.
Prior to 2010, this site was dedicated to conservation, open and agricultural zoning and contained 22 residential building sites within the 138 acres. With those property assets affecting these 138 acres, the County of Kaua‘i’s own real estate tax office appraised this property at $580,000.
After 2010, this 138-acre site is now dedicated to agricultural and conservation use only. It has no 22 residential building sites, which were stripped from the 138-acre site and transferred to the Marriott Kaua‘i Lagoons (MKL) property prior to closing of the property trade, awarding billions of dollars in added assets to MKL.
This “trade” also enlarged MKL’s potential “total of 750 to “772 dwelling units or hotel/motel rooms” to be built in their resort.
Also, as verified by this author, the FAA confirmed that, “There are no agreements to cross any of Lihu‘e Airport’s runways.” This site has no access.
How does the council expect an increase in appraisal by $3.5 million with the assets stripped and no access to the site?
Continuing, the State Department of Transportation (DOT) answered this author’s question in 2011 as follows: “Your question asking for the public/private use of the airport’s perimeter road on a 24/7 basis (around the clock) for vehicular and pedestrian access to that private 138-acre parcel between the Lihu‘e Airport east boundary and the Pacific Ocean is clearly no.” (Roy K. Sakata, airports operations officer).
The Honolulu FAA office confirmed this statement.
Asking again, “Where did that shortfall go and how will Kaua‘i’s $4.09 million “contribution” for the “multi-use path” be redressed — by raising taxes again? Will not the cost of the total bike path climb to $104.7 million, not $53.25 million?
Where are these numbers coming from? Who’s cooking the books? Utilizing those 22 R-2 sites as timeshare units, the developer was awarded $88 million in future sales (added assets).
Would not the likelihood be that the $580,000 county property appraisal for that site be reduced for such a fruitless parcel of land since 22 lot sites were awarded to the developer?
And who gets to maintain this barren acreage —taxpayers.
Is anyone listening?
John Hoff, Lawai
