Q: I received an email from a Senator, that told me the majority of people want the Super Ferry for Hawaii, and only a small group of protesters want it stopped.
Let me make it clear, I don't support the ferry, BUT if a majority of the people of Hawaii want it, then I'm afraid we are going to get it, because we do live in a democracy, and the majority wins, not the minority, unless something can be proven, or shown very good reason of doubt to take sides with the minority.
A: The polls you are referring to were conducted by the Superferry PR firm and the newspapers who are receiving big bucks for all the HSF PR. HSF refuses to disclose the questions.
As you know, the way questions are phrased can determine the outcome of a poll...especially if you ask the question like this:
Should the Legislature help out the Superferry?
instead of this:
Should the Superferry obey the law?
Both of these questions are loaded (on different sides) and if we ran both questions most people would say yes to both and then we could come back with 2 diametrically opposed results and say, "The majority want the legislature to set aside environmental law for the Superferry" or conversely "The majority want the Superferry to cease operations until the EIS is finished"
But both statements would be misleading. Like the Superferry's polls.
However, I do believe that a fair poll would show that a majority of Hawai'i citizens favor the Superferry -- possibly even to the extent that they would want to gut the environmental law for them.
BUT! I can categorically state that the majority of people on Maui, Big Island and Kaua'i do not want the Superferry to run until mitigation measures are in place for the impacts. The EIS process is designed to do this.
Why can I say this? Because the County Councils of all 3 Islands passed resolutions requiring an EIS prior to Superferry commencement of operations.
Why the discrepancy? Over 70% of the population lives on 'Oahu and less that 30% live on the neighbor islands.
So we have a classic case of majority rule vs minority rights...ah yes...not JUST majority rule but the US is also founded on minority rights.
The neighbor islands who will bear the negative impacts don't want the project without safeguards in place. Also, HSF doesn't have many benefits to them.
There is not much allure to driving your car to 'Oahu where they have freeways and there is not much in the way of camping and fishing because 'Oahu has already been gutted of its natural resources. And we on the neighbor isles can't go to another neighbor isle from here on HSF...only 'Oahu.
Also the neighbor islanders have become much more informed. They know that the real ticket prices make the HSF too expensive for the average family (check out the 30+% fuel surcharge). They also saw all the seasick passengers on what was the flattest most calm day we had all year.
And we are closer to our environment and value our whales, fish, maile and yes, even our rocks.
You heard that the very first day of operation 3 guys in pickup trucks came over, filled their trucks with rocks taken from our streams -- illegal for anyone -- and then got caught because someone saw them and called the Sierra Club who called the DLNR who confiscated the trucks and rocks (which were in the HSF yard stuck due to the TRO) and are trying to find the drivers to charge them.
We're saying, "Gee we thought they would come strip our island of fish or maile leaves but ROCKS?! 'Oahu must really be depleted if they don't have any rocks left!
All joking aside, these were special rocks used in imu.
So back to your question. When you ask about the majority it bears directly on the issue of passing a special law favoring one particular business. The majority has a responsibility to craft laws which are applied fairly across the board.
We pass our laws (all our laws not just environmental law) to be fair and applied to everyone. (I'll get to the HSF claims they were singled out in a little bit) If it is a good law, it works well to be applied to everyone equally. So far the EIS law has been a good law that has resulted in better projects and fixed problems before the project started, which is the intent.
If it were a bad law, then it should be repealed for everyone. And if the majority of Hawaii residents feel the environment doesn't need this particular law for protecting it, then by all means repeal the law and don't make ANYONE do an EIS. (Actually I'm choking as I blithely type that! :-) )
But to pass a law whose intent is to make an exception for a single private (out-of-state) startup business is a misuse of the legal system.
In this day and age, when corporations have the big bucks to influence legislation, do we really want to open the door to laws aimed at letting one particular business impact the environment negatively?
HSF is telling everyone that it has been "singled out for an EIS" and that the freight guys and cruise ships didn't have to do one.
Actually YB and Matson et all, are put through an EA and EIS process every 5 years or so as part of harbor planning.
Now cruise ships are another matter and probably one of the reasons that everyone is up at arms about HSF. American Hawaii Cruises got a big MARAD loan (just like HSF -- in fact HSF VP Terry White was a VP at American Hawaii Cruises). They defaulted big time.
A back room deal was crafted to bail them out which involved letting NCL take over the loan and the boats in return for hugely discounted dock fees and the right to dock at Kahului and other neighbor island harbors.
That decision brought many, many problems to our island and people really resent the cruise ships and particularly resent that they dock at Kahului Harbor where now we have our freight ships waiting outside sometimes 4 days because the cruise ships are hogging the docks for a day at a time...kinda using our working docks as free ocean front hotel property -- without paying accommodation taxes or even their fair share of dock fees)
So yes. Cruise ships should have done an EIS but in a deal reminiscent of the HSF deal, 'Oahu DOT pushed them onto us without any mitigation for the problems they brought. Now we are determined that will never happen to us again.
Back to the majority opinion.
Sad to say the people of 'Oahu have let themselves be swayed by the Superferry PR (which IMO is really excellent). They really have no clue what the issues are, how expensive it really is and what a pain the security, unloading and long trip are. It was a big shock to them when some wanted not to take their cars and found that there was NO PARKING!
That's the kind of detail (ha, detail?) that an EIS would address. In interviews, the passengers said they parked their cars on residential streets nearby...not a happy situation for the residents since the HSF was to operate 7 days a week.
Well. I'm sure you wish I'd been a little more concise here :-)
Bottom line: Majority Rule, Minority Rights.
thanks for your open mind,
Karen
PS - What Senator Senator wrote this? You know, of course, that Lingle is dealing like crazy to line up the support - promising extra money to a legislator's district (money the legislature appropriated but she was holding back). And the HSF lobbiest who have a lot more money than we do are visiting the legislators promising campaign donations etc.
`