Outsider’s point of view falls short
It is always nice to get an outsider’s point of view, but many times they are not thought-out in depth and with little experience and usually spur of the moment.
The woman from Vermont has all of the answers to the vacation rental Bill 108. She spends a little time here once in a while and is oblivious to our daily problems and then goes back to Vermont to sit in her easy chair to solve all of Hawaii’s problems.
How can someone who does not see the daily, weekly and yearly problems except from afar ever think of being able to dictate to us how we should be doing things in Hawaii? She was in Vermont when the rest of us were going through the start-up of Bill 108 and now, months later, she wants to change it.
If these people really wanted to voice their opinion, they should move here and get involved to see what goes on all of the time and help pay our ever-rising taxes. Most outsiders think that they know everything about Hawaii after spending a few days or a couple of weeks here. Try 52 weeks of living here.
Vicky Halquist
Kailua-Kona
Reporter digging up real dirt
I know I speak for the 90 people who attended the DEM information meeting when I praise Tribune-Herald reporter Tom Callis’s coverage of the recent waste water treatment plant machinations in Naalehu and Pahala.
With his first-hand experience and the time he takes to talk with people like me, I predict he will win you a Pulitzer for uncovering the fraud perpetrated on my community. His probing question led to DEM manager Kucharski putting in print the Naalehu LCC “percolation test” problem which led to “abandonment” (the DEM word used at the meeting) of the 2007 FEA/FONSI plan.
Thank you for supporting your terrific investigative reporters. We promise to keep reading!
Sandra Demoruelle
Naalehu
Unfortunately, surveillance intrusion needed
Mikie Kerr is right to point out the dangerous threat to our 4th Amendment rights in the government’s surveillance of our personal data. However, Kerr fails to suggest any way that the government can protect us from terroristic activity at home and abroad without this kind of surveillance.
Both political parties and the courts have reluctantly acceded to this intrusive activity in the name of greater security for the population. No one has yet come up with a way to honor the 4th Amendment as well as protect the public.
I, too, deplore that the government is reaching into the granular details of our daily lives, but modern technology seems to be in conflict with the 18th century amendment. Perhaps some new technology now in the works will rescue us from this conflict.
John Sucke
Waimea