My Turn: Making decisions on hypothetical reasoning

Sometimes I think that WHT should keep us better informed as to what goes on in our legislative and council meetings. It seems that some of those who have been elected to make decisions for us are themselves clueless as to what is going on. It seems that some of them have had no experience in living a real life and therefore make decisions on hypothetical reasoning.

For instance in the Saturday, Jan. 25, WHT paper, the front page carried a story of two Honolulu legislators who have introduced a bill that would make the developer responsible for 50% of the cost for police services involving their project. Basically, they were targeting the TMT project.


When the Maunakea protesters first began their stunt, they laughed about holding on until the county or state went broke. We, the rest of the citizens, comprise the bulk of the state and county that are paying the costs for the police services as the state does not print money!

We live in a screwed up system. When an individual commits a crime and gets caught, he is taken to court. At the first hearing, the criminal is offered an attorney free of charge. Free in this case means that we, the citizens, will pick up the attorneys’ fee. Being assured of a guaranteed payment, the attorney will encourage his client to plead “not guilty”. This now guarantees a few more weeks of work with guaranteed payment. If after a trial and the criminal is found not guilty, it is reasonable that we pay the cost for the attorney. However, if after a few months of trail and the evidence overwhelmingly proves the criminal guilty, we still pay the attorneys fee. That is totally crazy! When first appointed, the attorney should look at the evidence, question the client, ascertain innocence or guilt, then plead accordingly. Pleading not guilty in every case and demanding a trial should place some responsibility on the defense attorney. If he looses the case, he shouldn’t get paid for making the not guilty plea. As is, pleading not guilty only guarantees his income so why not?

Now back to TMT as a developer being responsible for 50% expense acquired in police services. In this last incident, the police did nothing because the persons in charge of the agencies (politicians) chose to have the police stand down as they talked and talked with a group of protesters who had already expressed hanging on until the state and county went broke. Why should the developer in this case pay for services it never received? TMT had a permit to begin construction and were denied that opportunity because the politicians did not honor the building permit already issued. The state and county had an obligation to make access for construction available.


If anything, TMT should sue the state and county for not not permitting them access to the construction site. Trying to pass a law that would penalize TMT for something the state and county failed to do is ? progress??? No, it is stupid! Just like allowing an attorney to coach his guilty client into pleading not guilty for his guaranteed attorney fees is stupid.

Leningrad Elarionoff is a resident of Waimea.