Letters | 6-6-15

Not all development is bad for island

Not all development is bad for island

Dennis Gregory’s letter of May 23 predicted that the proposed Thirty Meter Telescope will not be built on top of Mauna Kea because, like the Superferry, it is too big. The Superferry failed because it did not comply with all of the required approvals required for a permit. The TMT project has met all of the required approvals and does have a permit for construction.

As a Boy Scout, I hiked up to the summit of Mauna Kea and viewed Lake Waiau but did not know that it was considered to be a sacred mountain. Mauna Kea had a quarry which produced the finest basalt for stone axes.

I am not aware of the “sacred bond” that runs through every kamaaina resident with a limit to development here in Kona. Kona kamaaina residents may not approve of all development but are appreciative that Kona has survived from a purely agricultural district to the present state. At age 18, in 1958, I left Kona with its 8,000 population, coffee farms, catchment water tanks, burning coffee sticks to heat the “furo” (bathtub) water, outhouses and a bleak future.

I returned 22 years later in 1980 and found a thriving Kona with jobs, hotels, residential developments, houses with running water, indoor toilets and hot water heaters. I believe the primary reasons for these changes were the availability of county water and development.

We may not approve of every proposed development but I think that the majority of the “locals” would be for the TMT. Personally, the only development I disapprove of is the county allowing the construction of residential construction on the makai side of Alii Drive. Imagine having a panoramic view of the ocean instead of houses as you travel along Alii Drive.

Burton Y. Ito

Kealakekua

Only one to add up states requesting conventions?

In order for “We the People” to convene an Article V Amendment Convention, Congress, after considerable badgering, has deigned to assign a single member of the House Judiciary Committee to add up the states’ requesting conventions.

All states have applied and many have multiple applications for different amendments, adding up to more than 100, but the first 34 states are supposed to trigger the event. You wouldn’t think counting to 34 would be that difficult, but that’s congressional efficiency for you.

There have been applications for an Article V since the 1790s and they do not expire. Many believe the amendments must be identical, such as a balanced budget, which is false.

After the convention has convened, it takes 38 states (three-fourths of 50, rounded up), or conventions in which a minimum of 38 states ratify, so there must be considerable compromise. Our problem is that the solitary member of Congress tasked with the count appears to be encountering considerable difficulty achieving this goal all by himself, which prompts me to wonder how many members of Congress does it take to count to thirty four, with or without their shoes on?

Article V states: “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may he proposed by the Congress; …” The rest expired in 1808 and deals with the Senate.

Dave Kisor

Pahoa