• Put the landfill in a canyon • Help us help you • Ethical dilemmas • Yukimura sited a landfill Put the landfill in a canyon As Mr. Nick Galante of ‘Oma‘o suggested in Tuesday’s Talk Story, I contend that
• Put the landfill in a canyon
• Help us help you
• Ethical dilemmas
• Yukimura sited a landfill
Put the landfill in a canyon
As Mr. Nick Galante of ‘Oma‘o suggested in Tuesday’s Talk Story, I contend that the landfill should be located in any one of several canyons on the Westside.
In particular are the following: Hoea Valley, Kuapa‘a Valley, Wailau Valley and Niu Valley. More distant sites would be Ka‘awaloa Valley, Nahomalu Valley and lastly, Kahelunui Valley.
I am not at all familiar with the geomorphology of these valleys, nor what is required for refuse landfills, but if one on O‘ahu can be sited in a valley (Waimanalo Gulch), I think one could also be sited here.
Furthermore, each of these valleys are farther away from residential sites than our current landfill known as Mount Kekaha.
William Null, Kapa‘a
Help us help you
There has been a sudden rash of break-ins in Hanalei in the last month and I am curious as to why these go unreported to the public.
My assumption would be that reporting these spurts of break-ins would help community members to be more cautious. Shining a spot light on the problem gives community members a chance to safeguard their belongings and may even deter thieves.
I think that it takes a minimal amount of effort for our fine KPD officers to monitor these spurts of break-ins and a minimal amount of effort to inform the public through whatever medium necessary if the spike continues.
Help us help you to protect and serve.
Noelle Barnes, Hanalei
Ethical dilemmas
Mattie Yoshioka has a right to be angry with the Board of Ethics (“Ethics Board’s opinion may set precedent,” Sept. 8).
She informed the board in her disclosure statement that she represented her employer before county agencies, an activity that violates the plain language of Charter 20.02D, but was not told up front that such activities violate the charter. Months later, in response to her request for an advisory opinion, she was told to stop until the board receives further clarification from the county attorney, and she resigned from the Charter Review Commission rather than be derelict in her duties as president and CEO of Kaua‘i Economic Development Board.
I respect Mattie’s position. However, her case must be understood in light of the board’s actions extending over the better part of two years, beginning with the mistaken advisory opinion the board issued to Jonathan Chun in early 2008 and the “fatally flawed” legal opinion used by the board to justify its decision.
I have no space to re-hash the details, but I do want to comment on one question that has received too little attention: Is it okay to violate the charter if one does so in a good cause?
According to the article, Mattie seems to think it is okay. She is quoted as follows: “Essentially I am (in violation), but for the benefit of the entire island of Kaua‘i,” she said. “I think (the Board of Ethics) didn’t see that.”
This line of reasoning has deeper roots that find expression in a letter to the Charter Commission written by Board of Ethics Chairman Mark Hubbard in April 2008, which says in part: “The Board of Ethics also recommends that the Charter Commission look into clarifying Section 20.02F as it has the same problem (as 20.02D), i.e. that the literal interpretation of the section does not match the current practice.”
The logic is plain: If the charter conflicts with current practice, it is the charter and not current practice that must be changed. In practice, this logic leads to the proposition that officials should follow the charter when it is convenient but are free to disregard the charter for what they deem to be good cause and they — particularly the Board of Ethics and the county attorney — decide what is good cause.
This line of thinking negates the people’s right to adopt an authoritative charter and exclusive right to change the charter. I hope the board deals forthrightly with this issue on Thursday.
Horace Stoessel, Kapa‘a
Yukimura sited a landfill
In your Sunday editorial, “Carvalho comes through,” you criticize previous administrations by saying that the siting of a new landfill was a decision that none of the other administrations, including the Yukimura administration, had the guts to make.
That statement, as applied to the Yukimura administration, was simply not true. Not only did the Yukimura administration determine a location for a new landfill, it constructed and completed a state-of-the-art landfill in a little over a year — record time, especially when done in the midst of post-hurricane recovery.
When Mayor Yukimura left office in 1994, the county had a new landfill in place with at least 15 years of life. It was the next two administrations that frittered away 14 years without determining the next landfill site.
In addition, when the Yukimura administration left office, it had completed, and the council had unanimously adopted, a solid waste plan, which if implemented, would have given more life to the new landfill, and set Kaua‘i on its way to becoming a sustainable “zero waste” community.
Unfortunately, implementation efforts have been half-hearted through the present day when the county still has not filled its recycling coordinator position — key to becoming a maximum recycling community.
Mayor Carvalho is to be commended for aggressively pursuing the siting of a new landfill, but The Garden Island needs to get its facts straight about the responsibility and performance of previous administrations.
Connie Clausen, Lawa‘i
