Letters for Aug. 15, 2015
Kauai should elect by districts
I sent an email to our elected Kauai County Councilmembers requesting that they place the following proposal for Council Districting on the agenda:
“Effective 2016, six of the seven council members shall be elected by districts, with two members residing in and elected from each of three districts that shall initially be established using the State of Hawaii Districts 14, 15 and 16, and one of the seven councilmembers elected at-large. The three districts shall be reapportioned in 2017 by an apportionment commission and every 10th year thereafter shall be a reapportionment year.”
This would be easy to initially implement as it follows the current State of Hawaii Districts 14, 15 and 16. It would ensure that there is representation on the County Council from all three districts. This proposal may need some fine tuning. But I only heard back from one, Councilman Ross Kagawa, who stated, “Kauai is too small for districting, just last year this was the conclusion of the charter commission. Your suggestion has merit, perhaps too soon to be discussing again is my opinion.”
It may be time for the citizens of Kauai to try and move this forward and placed on the ballot in 2016 for a Charter Amendment. Unfortunately the Kauai County Council does not appear willing to place it on the agenda so they can get input and feedback from the residents.
Let courts decide dog debate
Barking dog complaints should be settled in a court of law between the owner of the dog and the neighbor or complainant. Not by the Kauai County Council personnel and Kauai County.
There are more important issues the Kauai Council personnel should be concern with, such as the traffic problems and opening up more haul cane roads for alternative travelling to get from point A to point B.
On another thought, recently there has been very much-needed pavement on Kaumualii Highway east of Waimea Bridge to Hanapepe. Now that most of it is almost finished, why are they cutting up both lanes fronting Pioneer Seed Company close to Russian Fort? Is it part of poor planning on the Department of Transportation?
Barking dog repeal ludicrous
So, once again I find myself writing a letter to the editor about barking dogs.
During the Aug. 5 council meeting some comments were made by Council Chair Rapozo with which I must take umbrage. His comments regarding what constitutes “nuisance” barking tells me that either he does not understand dogs and/or does not understand the ordinance that he was voting to repeal.
Dogs are territorial animals and will bark at things they perceive to be a threat to their territory. Just because a dog can hear or see something does not make that within its territory. Rapozo’s premise that someone walking, driving, or biking on a public road is provoking the animal is ludicrous.
To me, that type of barking is the epitome of “nuisance” barking for which this ordinance was written. Is it the animals fault that it does not know what is right? I have always said that there are no bad dogs; only bad dog owners. If an owner cannot or will not teach Fluffy the difference between its property and the rest of world, perhaps they should be fined. Apparently, even being on your own property is a provocation if you can be seen, heard or smelled by Rover. Do dogs rights now trump humans rights?
Mr. Rapozo also stated that the log provided by the Humane Society was for documenting when the dog was barking at “nothing” and if the dog was being provoked (see above) it invalidated the log entry. I believe he used the word “meaningless” to describe the entry. Pretty sure that was not the intent of the framers of the bill.
In my opinion, the council chair’s lack of knowledge about this issue is shameful and he should have recused himself from the vote. All we can hope is he gets it together before he begins work on his new “comprehensive noise ordinance.” Can’t wait to see him take on the cock fighting cartel. Oh wait; that darn sunrise is provoking those roosters and making them crow.