• KIUC old boy structure in evidence • Put it back in perspective • Win-win plan for Kilauea dilemma KIUC old boy structure in evidence I wouldn’t ordinarily waste time responding to a childish ad hominem attack such as the
• KIUC old boy structure in evidence
• Put it back in perspective
• Win-win plan for Kilauea dilemma
KIUC old boy structure in evidence
I wouldn’t ordinarily waste time responding to a childish ad hominem attack such as the one given by Bobby Morris of West Sacramento in Monday’s paper (“Vote for getting the job done,” Letters, March 10). But the position of someone from California, with insider knowledge of the unpublished workings of KIUC’s nominating committee writing to promote KIUC status quo is interesting.
First, we have personal attacks before any discussion of issues. Second, why should Kaua‘i citizens get their advice from someone who lives in California where power is half what we pay? And who might be feeding this person insider information? Could it be the old boy structure getting a bit nervous about losing total control of KIUC? I guess gag orders for insiders have different meanings depending on the goals.
KIUC has been a secretive organization from the beginning. On that front I’ve been a critic from day one, but I still support the co-op structure as I’ve also done loudly since day one. I’ve written nearly as many letters in support of KIUC as against and always the negative ones relate to lack of progress and reliance on secrecy to protect the vested interests of Kaua‘i. Obviously as time goes by and virtually nothing actually gets done, the criticism mounts.
This board and its predecessors have let us down. They’ve maintained air tight secrecy, muzzled their own members and ignored public input in favor of protecting large land holders, vested political power structures, and the biggest businesses who pack their nominating committees and secret long term capital review committees.
They’ve dragged their feet on alternatives projects by going the easy route of simply dumping the problem on outside companies through an RFP process for purchase power agreements (PPA). They’ve kept our financial impacts hidden by requiring the PPA bidders to keep all rate information top secret. We still have no idea what we will pay for Green Energy’s wood chip power nor what the proposals are for power from ethanol production byproducts or from secret garbage incinerator discussions.
Ethanol is proving to be a dog in terms of the environment and the cost implications to food supply. It’s just another hidden farm subsidy that will do little to really help us on transportation fuels. Why tie power production to such an “iffy” enterprise unless your priorities are skewed by old time relationships?
It’s nice that a windfarm is under discussion. But why has KIUC failed until now? Could it be that the best sites are too near development opportunities or compete with liquid fuel ethanol boondoggles? And why should we spend money for developer profits rather than do such a simple project in-house? As late as 2005, KIUC and this newpaper were pooh poohing wind power as unworkable (“Local alternative-energy development needed,” In Our View, May 4, 2005). Better late than never, but why reward people who’ve been weak in the past with new terms?
All of these newly proposed projects may be great, but if they are, daylight will show that. There is no critical need for secrecy from the members. We need a few outsiders on the board to bring this decision making out in the open where we can all have a look and a say.
Therefore, I cannot agree with the outsider advice from Morris. We need to vote in some new blood.
Dave Camp
‘Aliomanu
Put it back in perspective
If you’re not with us, then you’re against us. That seems to be the predominant thinking about this whole Koloa development/monkeypod debacle. Is boycotting the businesses in the Koloa area the right thing to do? Is destroying equipment to make a point going to look favorable on your quest to “save” the trees? Does it send the right message to the community, the developers or the property owners?
Somehow, I don’t think so.
Many of these businesses employ your friends and neighbors; it gives them the means in which to make a living. So some of the local business tenants did not pressure the property owners to “save” all the trees? Maybe they had to remain neutral. Perhaps it was right for them to remain neutral. But why focus your anger on them? Do they really have to be the enemy? It makes no sense to me and I don’t think I’m alone on this.
Now before you think I’m pro-developer this is not the case. A few months ago I was in Koloa, for the first time in a while, and saw the extent of the development. I was shocked and saddened at how bad the area looked. My comment to my wife was no wonder the community is outraged. What an awful, awful sight. We feel for the long-time residents of the area.
Up until now, however, I thought the resistance to this project was dignified. But the recent vandalism on the developer’s equipment and the resentment toward the local shops may change all that. As much as the protesters hate the Koloa project, the developer and property owners were working within the law. The vandals clearly were not. They should be held accountable for their actions. This is not the local way. I do realize that this is a hugely emotional issue but at times taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture helps to bring things back into perspective. If you disagree with me then that’s okay too. This is just my humble opinion and in the grand scheme of things really doesn’t matter anyway.
Stephen Shioi
Kapa‘a
Win-win plan for Kilauea dilemma
I found the front page article March 9 titled “Scale of proposed Kilauea home concerns residents” of particular interest. Upon reflection I have come up with what I feel to be a win-win for all concerned.
I was also taken by Emery Noyes and other concerned citizens great respect for the beauty and health of the land, as well as the public good in general. And as a result of their altruistic concern have actually taken time to make recommendations about what their neighbor, Mr. Somers, should do with his property. I applaud them for their ethically motivated stand. As such, I would like to contribute what seems to be a very simple plan so that all concerned will get what they want.
First, Mr. Noyes, and the other residents could in fact, give their property to a public trust, with the stipulation that it would be allowed to return to its natural state. This would allow them to follow their heart and conscience in terms of their love for the land, as they wish for Mr. Somers to do. The benefits to the public good, as well as the land, are self-evident, and at the same time allow Mr. Noyes and his fellow residents to follow their convictions and a value system. A true win-win proposition. I wish to thank Mr. Noyes in advance for his magnanimous contribution.
Second, this new property that is being allowed to “go back to nature” would be more than enough to make up the difference, thus allowing Mr. Somers to build his house and barn. Yes, Mr. Somers does hold to the bizarre thought that he has the right to build a house on his own property, that’s true. But with free speech and all, every citizen has a right to their misconceptions.
What’s truly great about this plan is that not only Mr. Noyes but all those people walking around on Mr. Somers property can in fact get in on the contribution of their property as well. A true win-win-win.
Robert McFadden
Koloa
