Musings: Gambling on Coco Palms

As Councilman Tim Bynum sees it, the question is, “Are we going to give Coco Palms another chance or not?”

But it seems the more pertinent questions are, does it make sense in 2014 to re-build a 350-room, four-story hotel in the flood zone at the most congested intersection on Kauai — and have the public subsidize it, to boot? By which I mean allowing the developer to possibly skate on requirements to pungle up employee housing, road improvements, impact fees and other exactions that would be assessed of someone building a new resort.

And why does the Council believe this developer can be trusted when all the other shuckers and jivers who had lofty plans for the site never did nuttin', despite being given chance after chance after chance for the past 20 years?

I mean, aside from Bob Jasper's vote of confidence, which meant an awful lot to Bynum, and Councilman Ross Kagawa's “special feeling” that the newest starry-eyed developers — Chad Waters and Tyler Green of Coco Palms Hui LLC — “are the guys to make it happen.”

The developers and their lawyer — former county attorney Mike Belles — were before the County Council's planning committee yesterday supporting an amendment to keep the “Iniki ordinance” in effect for another two years. That way they can rebuild the iconic resort without having to comply with laws adopted since it was trashed by Hurricane Iniki in 1992.

It's unclear just what requirements the developers will be allowed to skirt. Belles said the main deviations would pertain to setback and height, and some construction standards, such as hurricane clips. In order to comply with federal flood laws, the ground floors of the buildings along Kuhio Highway would be used as parking structures, rather than hotel rooms, and some of the mauka buildings, including the chapel and “Elvis Presley's cottage,” would likely need to be elevated or moved.

Planning Director Mike Dahilig said the county won't know exactly what requirements the developer will have to meet until plans are submitted. But he said the project will have to secure a special management area permit, which requires a public hearing.

After the last developer failed to perform, despite repeated extensions, the state allocated funds to pursue acquisition of the land for public purposes. But when Mayor Bernard Carvalho moved to end the Iniki ordinance, Waters and Green suddenly stepped forward with a grand plan to bring the resort back to its former glory. Coco Palms can only be rebuilt if the ordinance is allowed to stand, Belles said. If they have to go through the regular approval process, it would result in a different type of project.

In response to questioning from Councilman Mason Chock, who had a private meeting with the developers, as did Councilman JoAnn Yukimura, Waters claimed “we have absolutely zero intention to sell the property.” But Waters added the caveat that “life has interesting twists and turns and you never know exactly what the future will hold.”

Green said he views rebuilding the hotel as “my chance on a personal level to feel connected, to feel like I belong.”

Belles, by way of offering further assurance that the developers aren't fly-by-night, said they have two other properties, the Kauai Kalani and the Mokihana, and Waters' mother lives here, too. 

Waters said they've spent $500,000 to date on the project, supposedly with no guarantee they'd be allowed to proceed. "That's our commitment."

Though Belles said he can't guarantee the resort will be restored, even if the ordinance is allowed to stand for another two years, “we will make our best-faith efforts to rebuild.”

However, as soon as the developers apply for permits, they're vested into the exemptions of the Iniki ordinance, Dahilig said, even if they fail to begin construction before the ordinance is repealed.

And with permits in hand, the project could be flipped. Because as Waters said, you never know what the future might hold. You know, like the need for some fast cash.

The developers said the resort will employ about 400 people. It's expected to cost between $2 million and $3.5 million to demolish the moldering eyesore that the county has allowed to blight Wailua for the past two decades, with new construction taking about two years.

In response to questioning from Councilman Gary Hooser, who isn't a member of the committee, Waters said they have no intention of building timeshares. Hooser said he plans to introduce an amendment prohibiting timeshares, as they require fewer workers than a resort.

Jasper, who made it clear he is the only one authorized by owner Prudential Insurance to give tours of Coco Palms, said that hundreds of people have signed online petitions to rebuild the resort, “including some notable Hollywood names. People all over the world want to see this.”

However, none of them would have to regularly navigate the traffic generated by hundreds of hotel guests and workers on Kapaa's already clogged roads.

In the end, the committee agreed to let the ordinance stand for another two years. It will go to the full Council for a vote next week, where it appears likely to pass.

“Small risks lead to success,” Chock said.

“We could really use these good jobs for our kids,” Kagawa said.

Yukimura, while noting the project would preclude the community from moving forward with its vision for the site, said, “it may be we can merge the visions.” Belles said there's about four acres mauka that could possibly be used community and/or cultural purposes.

“My gut's telling me these individuals are sincere and committed,” Bynum said. “My intellect tells me that may change.”

My intellect tells me it's absolutely insane to add a 350-room hotel to that congested corridor. And my gut's telling me there's a sucker born every minute, with four of 'em sitting on the planning committee. 

But maybe, just maybe, they'll finally tear that wreck down. Though I wouldn't bet on it.

Musings: 'Nuff Po, Huff Po

Has anyone else noticed that the primary purpose of Huffington Post Hawaii seems to be encouraging people to move to the Islands?

I'm not talking about articles promoting travel to Hawaii — though Huff Po-HI has plenty of those — but pieces like “How to Escape from New York and Move to Hawaii” and “Here's How You Know It's About Time You Considered Moving to Hawaii.”

The latter is representative of the painfully banal approach that Huff Po-HI typically takes to relocating to Hawaii: your life sucks, the weather sucks, you're bored and then voila, “you Google image search pictures of Hawaii” — because of course you're not interested in substance, only superficiality — and whattaya know, you find all these gorgeous photos of the Islands on the Huff Po-HI website.

Why is the Huffington Post trying to dumb down and pimp Hawaii, turn it into a parody, reinforce all the worst stereotypes, misperceptions? 

Like this blog post on “6 Reasons Hawaii Will Ruin Your Life,” which uses goofy photos to illustrate such statements as: “who needs a career path” and “work ethic? forget about it” and “Soon, you'll find that you have less in common with your friends and more in common with those drifters sitting on the sidewalk.”

WTF?

And this “escape to paradise” post that proclaims:

I've brought that Aloha Spirit into my own life by using the pineapple as a welcoming symbol throughout my home. My dogs are named Maui and Tiki in honor of our love of Hawaii. I've also written a series about a young woman vacationing in Hawaii for the summer who meets the local heartthrob surfer. Along with discovering paradise, they find love set among the beauty of these tropical islands.

Auwe.

Sadly, this kind of distorted imagery is not a rare occurrence. In the three months since Huffington Post piggybacked on Civil Beat to launch a Hawaii edition, it's published precious little of substance and more than 30 pieces extolling the virtues of the Islands. They've included such puffery as adventure travel on Maui, surf cars, “glamping” (upscale camping) in the Islands, “lucky we live Hawaii,” and even a photo series on vog entitled “who knew air pollution could look this good?”

Typically, they're photo-rich, content-limited and substance-challenged.

And if they don't have articles of their own, they'll run something from Forbes, or the New York Times. Main thing, just keep the message out there: come to Hawaii, and stay.

Though some are authored blog posts, many more run without any byline, raising the question: who is writing this palaver, and why? How come there's this drive to lure more people to Hawaii to live, when we don't exactly have an abundance of jobs or housing?

Like the post “Honey, Let's Move to Hawaii." Or “The Coolest Jobs In Hawaii Might Make You Reconsider Your Career Choice” — yes, you, too, could be a beloved helicopter pilot, a property manager for a lavish estate or even a farmer, so long as you don't grow GMOs. 

Which leads us to the anti-GMO issue, the only topic, besides relocating, that Huff Po-HI has covered with a vengeance.

Do you suppose there's any connection between that emphasis, and the two-part, real estate agent-penned post on “Making the Dream of Living in Hawaii a Reality”? Or Civil Beat owner Pierre Omidiyar's plans to develop a super upscale resort and homes on Hanalei Ridge? (Which is the subject of a Star-Advertiser poll today.)

And keep in mind that this is the photo they used to illustrate a "farm" in those "cool career choices:"

The last time Hawaii was the focus of a major push to encourage new residents was more than a century ago, when the plantation owners went shopping for cheap field labor.

So what do the fabulously wealthy Arianna Huffington and Pierre Omidiyar have in mind with their current campaign? What might they be seeking to gain from encouraging folks to pack up and move to Hawaii, where the newbies typically hunker down together and rarely assimilate? Is this an attempt to further dilute local culture, to create a block of voters who primarily value Hawaii for its climate and recreation, who have no ties to this place aside from the deed to their house? 

Or is it simply the 21st Century expression of the same desire that drove the planters: accumulating money and power through the land?

As a friend observed: Whatever happened to that bumper sticker, nofogetfogohome?

Musings: Niihau No-Fishing Zone Meets Resistance

Westside Kauai Rep. Dee Morikawa and other members of the state House will be meeting with the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) this week to discuss concerns about a proposed no-fishing zone around Niihau.

“I certainly don't support this,” Dee wrote in an email to me. “There needs to be a fact-finding study to see if the Niihau complaints are warranted.”

The Robinson family, which owns the island, claims fishermen from Kauai have been over-harvesting fish and opihi on Niihau. The Robinsons have gotten support from Oahu Sen. Clayton Hee and other Hawaiian legislators to introduce a bill banning fishing around the island.

“When you make a state law doing something like that, you set precedent,” a Kauai resident who occasionally fishes neat Niihau told me. “It's beginning to open like a can of worms. What's next? Larry Ellison on Lanai? Hawaiian Homes in Anahola?”

William Aila, director of the DLNR, reportedly is considering a similar approach to resolve resource “conflicts” at Molokai and Lanai, according to comments made at a November meeting with Kauai fishermen.

The Robinsons already have negotiated a memorandum of agreement with the state and federal governments to possibly include the waters around Niihau in the Hawaiian Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. Final state approval is still needed.

Though all beaches in Hawaii are public to the highest seasonal wash of the waves, Niihau has long been considered essentially off-limits for shore landings — an unofficial ban the Robinsons enforced. Boating activity has increased in recent years, along with disputes between island residents and Kauai fishermen.

“There was small kine altercations,” the fisherman told me. But an incident earlier this year, in which Niihau residents reportedly confiscated fishing gear from Keala Lanning and his nephews, who were picking opihi, “seemed to start Bruce [Robinson] on the campaign to shut Niihau off.” Lanning unsuccessfully sought a return of his property through DLNR.

The fisherman acknowledged that "some people do take advantage," including setting net in front of the one village where all Niihau residents live. “That, to me, is not showing respect for the people. But it's not right to close the whole island, because the state owns out to three miles and up to the high water line.”

Fishermen at the November meeting with Aila expressed concerns about restricting access to publicly-owned resources. They also said Niihau, Kauai and Kaula are connected, so the Niihau marine ecosystem can't be managed independently.

Aila and the Robinsons have justified the closure by saying Niihau residents depend on the ocean for food because they have no refrigeration. Others say Niihau is a “special case” because it is one of the few places where Hawaiians can still engage in traditional subsistence lifestyles. 

The Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs is also weighing in with a proposed resolution contending that “in the recent months, outsiders have become even more bold and have raided the island of opihi and fish to the extent that oftentimes the people go hungry.” 

The resolution also maintains “the urgency of the plight of the Niihau people came to light through the Aha Moku Advisory Council on Oct. 18, 2013, when the latest report of ten commercial fishing boats were seen within the near-shore waters of Niihau taking as much opihi as they could gather.”

But others dispute those claims, saying fishermen haven't taken too much. Solar panels and generators do power refrigerators on Niihau, they say, and the Robinsons operate a barge that regularly brings in food from family members on Kauai. "The people there aren't starving," the fisherman said.

Though the Robinsons say Niihau has about 150 permanent residents, others say only about 30 to 50 people live there full-time. Many former Niihau residents have settled in Kekaha and Waimea.

Niihau residents also have access to wild game that is so plentiful, fishermen say, that some hunters pay Robinson for the chance to engage in eradication hunts, though they are not allowed to take the meat. The Robinsons also host expensive safaris for tourists who want to hunt the exotic game introduced there.

Some fishermen contend Bruce Robinson is seeking the ban in part to protect the resources for his own gain, because he reportedly has been selling opihi from the island for decades. Others claim that Sen. Hee and his friends were given “free reign” to hunt and fish on Niihau in exchange for supporting a no-fishing law.

There is also the issue of enforcement, with many asking how the state, which has a tiny staff of conservation officers, could enforce a no-fishing ban.

“I would support beefing up the DOCARE enforcement staff to police the island better,” Dee said.

“I think the politically right thing to do is have some sort of conservation in a way to satisfy both sides,” the fisherman said. “Maybe a closed zone in front of the village” where residents do regularly fish. But they can't easily access the rest of the island, he said, so it should not be closed to fisherman from Kauai.

Though Dee's district includes Niihau, she was not consulted about the fishing ban by the state, her fellow lawmakers or the Robinsons. Dee said she asked DLNR and the governor's office for an explanation of the proposal two weeks ago, but heard nothing back.

Dee said further public discussion on the issue “will occur when and if the bills are heard during the session. In the meantime, I have been listening to people and asking questions of those whom I feel may have suggestions. I'm also very accessible through my legislative e-mail [repmorikawa@capitol.hawaii.gov] and encourage anyone to submit concerns to me.”

Musings: Good Little Parrots

I happened to be down at the County building yesterday morning, in the rain, when the Harleys came roaring in, bringing toys and food for the island's many needy citizens via the Keiki Toy and Food Ride.

Besides the stuff collected by the bikers, workers from the island's four chemical/seed companies, supported by some corporate funds, donated more than $1,000 worth of toys. Though a lot of the workers don't make much money, and many support relatives in the Philippines with their pay, they still managed to come up with a significant amount of cash to benefit a local charity.

And I couldn't help but think, how have the anti-GMO groups given back to the community lately? I don't mean individuals in those groups, because I know many are involved in worthwhile endeavors through their employment and/or volunteer activities, but the groups themselves. Because they do have money — money to fly people to other islands to testify and march, money to buy ads and run their various campaigns.

They've gotten money from the anti/pro-GMO groups that fund them, money from selling tee-shirts, money from donations, money from a benefit concert, money that will never be fully accounted for, much as they demand full transparency in others.

Just curious why groups that supposedly formed because they're so worried about the community aren't simultaneously doing something to help it — other than push through a badly flawed bill that could help the chemical companies and the state definitively establish their pre-emptive powers over the counties.

Because Kauai is all about giving back, and I'm not seeing it from that particular segment. Perhaps it's because a lot of the newbies in those groups don't understand local culture, just like they don't know history.

Which is why they kept proclaiming — with the aid of newcomer TGI reporter Chris D'Angelo — that last summer's red shirt march on Rice Street was the biggest coming together of people ever on Kauai. 

Wrong. Take last Friday's Lights on Rice event, which had 2,000 marchers in the parade alone, and some 10,000 people total in attendance. Friday night football games regularly attracted 5,000 people, and back in the day, the union rallies attracted far larger crowds than the march, as a percentage of the total population. But since Chris doesn't know any of that, he accepts the misinformation that's fed him as fact.

Whenever I write something critical about the red shirt movement, or highlight its connection to the real estate and construction industry, I get a comment or two about how I must be working for the chemical companies. Because there couldn't possibly be any other reason for finding fault, right?

Just like I got heat when I dared to criticize the petition drive to hold an election on the KIUC smart meter opt-out fees. Oh, we're not trying to stop you from having an opinion, I was told, we just can't understand why you would express it, why you would say anything that might hurt “our side.”

The message seems to be that if you hold any sort of progressive views, you should just quietly march in lock step with all the others, parrot all the commonly held stances, and if you see something wrong or stupid going down, then look the other way and keep your mouth shut.

How, pray tell, is that any different than a county worker in, say, building or planning, who sees one of their colleagues accept a platter of sashimi, a bottle of Scotch, from a developer, but doesn't say anything, because hey, that's my co-worker, or my cousin, or my classmate?

Wrong is wrong and stupid is stupid, no matter who is doing it.

Which leads me to today's article in The Garden Island on red shirt leader Felicia Cowden — the second fawning piece that Leo Azumbuja has written about her in the past three months — which designates her as “the voice of agriculture.”

Really? Where in the world did TGI ever get that patently erroneous idea? When you consider all the real true farmers on this island who have devoted their lives to agriculture, who have struggled to actually feed large numbers of people, keep irrigation systems alive, ag lands from being developed, TGI has the hubris to proclaim a home gardener living off her investments "the voice of agriculture?”

Gee, Leo, you might want to stop parroting what you hear in the KKCR/Facebook echo chamber and get out in the community more. Because I can tell you, if you asked them that know, "who speaks for ag on this island?" they sure as heck wouldn't say Felicia. What an insult to farmers.

Musings: Finagling Foragers

Scarlet streaks and swirls smeared the sky, stained the sea a similar shade. And then the sun rose as a golden orb from water that warmed sand untouched by footprints, save for the tiny tracks of ruddy turnstones foraging in the foam.

Birds and crabs aren't the only creatures foraging on the beach. Let's not forget voracious upscale realtors like Neal Norman, who is making a small fortune selling oceanfront digs to Julia Roberts and other wealthy elites. Neal has listed Julia's Haena house for $17 million — after selling her the old Faye estate (with its vacation rental permit) on Hanalei Bay for a reported $13.4 million in 2011.

Though Neal personally owns an oceanfront house on conservation land in Haena — where part of the public beach has been stolen by sandbags thickly vegetated in irrigated naupaka — he doesn't dabble solely in seaside real estate. A look at the current listings page on his misnamed "Hawaii Life" website shows a plethora of properties that would be best termed as a blatant misuse of agricultural land.

Like the seven properties totaling more than $80 million in the Kauapea-Kilauea road area above Kauapea (Secret) Beach — an area that not so long ago was being successfully farmed, until rising property taxes drove out the farmers.

He's also the listing agent for other multi-million-dollar estate properties on ag land in Kalihiwai Ridge, Anini Vista, Kalihiwai and Kapahi and he's selling the ag estate lots that displaced Growing Greens, a longtime nursery on Kawaihau Road.

Then there's the $3.5 million, 63-acre ranch property at the base of Kalalea mountain in Anahola, which he advertises as:

Approved 5-unit CPR project AND Tentative Subdivision Approval for a 12-lot agricultural subdivision (with density potential for up to 19 home sites). Water supplied via two existing County water meters and supplemented by a private well which is capable of over-supplying the residential and agricultural needs [wink, wink] of the parcel.

To be fair, Neal does have one property euphemistically listed as a “farmer's delight” — a 35-acre parcel in the Moloaa hui with “farm dwelling rights” (more wink, wink) and ag water only. No doubt the $950,000 price tag would delight a bonafide farmer.

In short, Neal is a classic example of a guy who is steadily destroying agriculture on Kauai by driving up land values to the place where they simply cannot afford farming.

But that doesn't stop him from pretending he's something different, as in a lover of the land and a friend of farmers. As his website proclaims:

What’s more, Neal has cared for Kauai’s “aina” by planting thousands of trees for the benefit of future generations and serving on agriculture boards and committees so that farmers would be able to develop improved and reliable organic standards.

Neal also supported Bill 2491 and GMO Free Kauai, which again raises the issue of just what and who are really behind this movement. If you follow the progression, Neal and his co-horts are running out of ag land to sell on the North Shore, so they've moved into Kapaa and are headed southwest — once they dislodge those pesky seed companies.

But I'm sure Neal is driven soley by his love for Kauai, rather than pure greed. After all, as his website gushes:

Neal is grateful for the wonderful life he gets to enjoy everyday on Kauai and is a strong believer in giving back.

Great! Glad to hear it!  So how about giving us back our ag land, Neal? Oh, and the beach, too, while you're at it.

Musings: Opt for Fair

Adam Asquith has filed a motion for a TRO to stop KIUC from collecting the $10.27 monthly smart meter opt-out fee until a vote on the question is held next spring.

At least, that's part of what he's asking for. What he really wants is the elimination of any fee at all, regardless of how a majority of the members vote. In his “prayer for relief,” Adam requests a court order suspending the fees until:

KIUC establishes policies that do not extort fees from the plaintiff for preventing the invasion of the privacy of his home by the Defendant [KIUC]

Or in less dramatic rhetoric: no opt-out fee period. At least, none for Adam. And what the utility gives Adam, it has to give everyone else.

People should have the right to “opt-out” from having a smart meter installed, and about 10 percent of the co-op members have exercised it. But it's unfair to expect the other members to pay the costs of reading the analog meters — costs that KIUC justified to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Commission. 

I've primarily heard two arguments from those who think everyone should pay for what the state Consumer Advocate has termed “cost-causers.”

The first: People shouldn't have to pay for their health and privacy. Perhaps not, but they do it all the time. They pay for supplements, gym memberships, organic food, better quality bike helmets, encryption software, unlisted numbers, phone scramblers, etc., etc., all to ensure health and privacy. Why should having an analog meter be any different? And in any case, those making this argument aren't really saying “people shouldn't pay.” They're saying “all of you should pay for us.”

The second: It's punitive, penalizing those who opted-out. The PUC — headed by Mina Morita — nixed that argument in its decision and order approving the fees:

Such a cost recovery approach from the cost-causing customer is reasonable. Thus, the perception that the assessment of the one-time and monthly recurring charges constitutes a penalty for customers that have opted-out of using standard meters is without merit.

In short, KIUC has sufficiently demonstrated that it incurs costs in installing and utilizing non-standard meters, and such costs should be passed on to the cost-causing customer and not to customers that have chosen to utilize standard meters.

Adam, and the other members who circulated a petition that will bring the fee to a vote of the members in January, think the initial decision to impose a fee should have been made by the whole membership. 

But it's not like the members never had any say. The fee was approved through a public process that included a KIUC meeting, with opportunity for member testimony, and a PUC review with public testimony. The fee was also approved by the Consumer Advocate, who stated:

1. "[O]ne of the significant issues that is being addressed is cost-causation, in which utility costs incurred to benefit a specific customer group of customers, or customer class, are assigned as much as possible to the customer, group of customers, or customer class that causes those costs to be incurred to prevent other customers or customer classes from paying for or subsidizing the 'cost-causer.' This is sometimes generally referred to as 'the costs following the cost-causer.' "

That seems a reasonable rationale, reached through an open process, and it's what's been adopted elsewhere.

But no, it's not enough, the process will go on, dragged out by those who aren't necessarily concerned primarily with their fellow coopers — despite lofty language about democracy and transparency. 

Let's face it: the people who were not happy with the original decision to install smart meters are of course not happy with the decision to charge opt-out fees. Just as they will not be happy with the election results, or anything that arises having to do with smart meters. Because what they really want is to get rid of the smart meters altogether.

Which is their opinion, and they're entitled to it, but at what point do you decide — as a member-owned cooperative — that ship has sailed? Or do the 10 percent who don't want smart meters get to keep using new ploys to hold the other 90 percent hostage at the dock?

Musings: Best Intentions

It's a new moon today, the last moon cycle of 2013, a good time to reflect on the year thus far and set intentions for the dynamics that will shape the year ahead.

I'd like to believe the Ulupono Initiative has all the best intentions in starting up a demonstration grass-fed dairy farm at Mahaulepu, on land Grove Farm initially slated for the cultivation of taro, a tried-and-true, high-demand crop. Still, I can't help but wonder if it will become a bargaining chip in the hotly-contested Hanalei Ridge resort project. Because, you see, Ulupono is a philanthropic endeavor of billionaire Pierre Omidyar, a major investor in the plan to build a resort and 36 houses on the ridge above Hanalei Bay.

I've always had a hard time reconciling Pierre's interest in promoting both sustainability and the inherently unsustainable ultra-luxe travel market, but he has apparently found a nexus, as in how can you deny me that resort when I've invested $17 million in a dairy farm experiment on the other side of the island?

And nobody has put that kind of money into Kauai ag except for the reviled five — Sygenta, BASF, Dow, DuPont/Pioneer, Kauai Coffee — targeted by Bill 2491.

I'd like to believe the folks behind 2491 and the Big Island ban on new GMO cultivation had the very best intentions in promoting that legislation, but I've been rather disturbed to discover that Monsanto — poster child for bad agricultural practices and the evils of corporatism — emerged from the fray not only unscathed, but in an advantageous position.

That's right. Monsanto quietly negotiated a memorandum of understanding with the Maui Mayor's office that is even more slack than the limp Kauai Agricultural Good Neighbor Program negotiated by the state. And its extensive Oahu operations remain untouched.

So while its competitors — DOW, Syngenta, BASF, DuPont/Pioneer — will be required to disclose pesticide use in great detail, pull land out of production to create buffer zones, and either fight a lawsuit or try to convince the state to do the suing, with all the subsequent bad PR, Monsanto will be enjoying business per usual.

Curious, how prominent Maui County anti-GMO activists like Walter Ritte and Courtney Bruch were fighting so hard for the Kauai and Big Island bills, even as Monsanto was weaseling out in their own backyards. Where was the fury, the outrage, at Maui Mayor Alan Arakawa for negotiating that wimpy MOU, which effectively headed off legislation? I mean, if people are getting sick and dying from biotech pesticides on West Kauai, wouldn't folks living near the fields on Molokai, Maui and Oahu be similarly suffering? So why is Monsanto alone given a free pass to continue as it has?

Meanwhile, I'm sure Monsanto has only the best intentions — as in ensuring steady profits for its shareholders — in launching a new “charm offensive” to improve its tarnished image. As Politico.com reports:

Focusing on serving the agriculture industry with high-yield crops, feeding the world and making a steady profit for its shareholders has served Monsanto well in recent times. But the ostrich approach to public relations has not yielded dividends for the company’s image.

Monsanto was declared “the most evil corporation of the year” in early 2011 by NaturalNews.com. Earlier this year the company confronted an international “March on Monsanto” Facebook campaign.

Such negative attention, the company observes in a recent Securities and Exchange Commission report, could influence future policy decisions: “The degree of public acceptance or perceived public acceptance of our biotechnology products can affect our sales and results of operations by affecting planting approvals, regulatory requirements and customer purchase decisions,” Monsanto says.

Aaron Perlut, a founder and managing partner of Elasticity, a St. Louis-based consulting firm specializing in reputation management, still thinks Monsanto’s shift toward engaging in the conversation is an important development.

“Typically when I counsel large companies in crisis I would suggest having a reasonable discussion because public opinion tends to side with reasonable parties even in a challenging argument,” Perlut says.

So if you can sufficiently infiltrate and disrupt a well-intentioned movement to make it appear unreasonable.....

And finally, I'd like to believe the University of New Haven has only the best intentions in developing a process to detect possible contaminants in cannabis — except, as the Associated Press reports, the project “is an extension of the law enforcement-related marijuana DNA profiling the school has done over the past five years under a $100,000 grant from the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. The school created a marijuana DNA profile database that has helped federal authorities determine where illegal pot growers and dealers got their product.”

Which master is the school serving?

Musings: Liquid Fuel

The night passed in restless, shattered sleep, thunder crashing, booming, rain drumming, drenching, branches breaking, one small dog panting in my ear, the other whining beneath the covers. Lightning flashes illuminated the backyard, a familiar landscape made eerie by jagged white light. I drifted in and out of dreams, warm, secure, fully understanding the meaning of snug.

Morning dawned dark, showers still falling, subsiding long enough for a raincoat-clad walk down to the river, swollen, but already receded from a nighttime high marked by mashed, flattened grass. Waterfalls, thick and white, tumbled down mountains, disappeared behind floating curtains of white cloud.

The bees, undeterred by the uncertainty of the weather, were already venturing out. I touched the landing board to assess its wetness, felt the heat of aliveness emitted by the hive. A beam of sunlight pierced the sullen sky and the birds belted out a joyous greeting, expressing their gladness, and mine, for the incomparable nourishment of rain. 

Musings: Sweet Feast

Thanksgiving Day dawned gold, vivid reminder of the riches proffered with the start of each day. Waialeale was fully revealed, and blushing rose, a splendid sight that elicited spontaneous song of homage and joy.

On the beach, coarse sand still held hollows made by monk seals, turtle tracks not yet smudged by human feet. Late November ocean, glassy, warm, clear, called out "come swim!" and I did, as the albatross giggled on the surrounding hills. 

Joyous, endlessly grateful, blessed beyond measure, this day, and every day, I returned home to find the bees busily working the tiny ironwood blossoms, partaking in their own sweet feast.

Musings: Just Truth

It was a big box crayon kind of morning, with streaks of apricot, salmon, scarlet, hot pink, soft pink, gold, yellow and lavender lighting up the dawn. But in the end, the sky made its own choice: gray.

KIUC customers who choose to opt-out of a smart meter are now being charged $10.27 per month — a fee approved by the Public Utilities Commission and endorsed by the consumer advocate. In most utility companies, that would be the end of it. But since KIUC is a cooperative, members were able to conduct a petition drive to put the issue to a vote.

Now KIUC will spend $63,000  to conduct an election to ask members whether everyone should pick up the tab for the opt-outs, or if the 10 percent who want customized service should pay extra. Meanwhile, Jonathan Jay and Adam Asquith are reportedly seeking an injunction to prevent the utility from collecting those fees pending a vote.

Like Bill 2491, much of the stirring up about the smart meter issue has come from radio station KKCR — itself a major emitter of microwave radiation — where Jonathan and Adam have talk shows. They've been aided by another programmer, Felicia Cowden, who last night told the KIUC board, “It hurts me to have to put KIUC back in the crosshairs.”

Crosshairs? As in the sights of a gun? As in targeting someone or something for death? That's ugly language for a talk show host who is supposed to be following programmer guidelines that state:

Verbal non-violence is the standard for all programming: programming should encourage thoughtful consideration rather than attempt to provoke outrage; it should not use inflammatory, deliberately provocative or culturally insensitive language, terms or labels, or “hot button” slogans; it should not attack or insult individuals, groups or cultures; and it should never incite hate, intolerance, or religious or cultural bigotry.

Programming should strive for objectivity. Programs should attempt to fairly convey all sides of an issue that is under discussion. Programmers are expected to strive for balanced discussion and to moderate discussions fairly, rather than to promote personal, political or religious agendas.

How, pray tell, is someone going to provide fair, objective programming when she's publicly announced she's got KIUC in her crosshairs?

I've been a member of KKCR for a long time, but I no longer can listen to the afternoon talk shows because they are so biased and filled with disinformation, by which I mean the deliberate promulgation of misinformation in order to achieve a specific agenda. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Both Felicia and talk show host Jimmy Trujillo submitted applications for the recent County Council vacancy, and Jonathan ran for the KIUC board. In other words, all three have political aspirations aided by their shows.

When KKCR broadcasts a public hearing or meeting, that's true community-based radio. When it allows talk show hosts to rant unopposed for hours on end and spout all kinds of untrue, inflammatory stuff, that's something else, something more akin to propaganda. I hope the KKCR Board of Directors looks into this issue and cracks down on its public affairs programming to make it more representative of the larger community instead of dominated by a handful of people who all hold the same views.

While we're on the topic of disinformation and propaganda, I've been disheartened to see so many fake comments being submitted to this blog. What's even more troubling is that they're being generated by the pro-2491 group. Most recently, I got a batch of comments, all obviously written by the same person(s), trying to dispel the notion that the movement was haole-dominated. How pathetic.

As a friend said, “I hate pesticides, but I hate liars even more."

Or to quote Mahatma Gandhi: “Truth never damages a cause that is just.” 

Musings: City Views

Honolulu media usually don't pay much attention to Kauai, but now we're on their radar in a big way for the first time since the Superferry.

Today, Civil Beat has two stories on us. One is about whether Mayor Carvalho will face any re-election fallout for vetoing Bill 2491. The other is about how the planning department has clamped down on requests for public records following a Civil Beat report that showed Kauai was the fastest and cheapest in responding to requests. Now there's some unintended fallout for you…. Auwe!

In the piece on Bernard, reporter Sophie Cocke writes:

The unconventional advocacy group Babes Against Biotech, which has emerged in recent years as a highly visible presence in Hawaii’s anti-GMO movement, nicknamed him “the birth-defects mayor.” The group’s organizers — young women known for their bikini-clad pictures and pin-up calendar — plans to canvass on Kauai to secure Carvalho's electoral defeat in 2014. (The group claims to have 9,000 members.)

Given an absence of substantive public polling, it remains unclear how many people on the island actually respect or support Carvalho's decision, or support Bill 2491.

So, despite a rally by at least 1,500 people [a figure now often inflated to 4,000 and even 6,000] to encourage passage of the bill in September, no one knows for sure where a majority of Kauai's 65,000 residents stand.

“One of the things that is really interesting about this entire process has been that you have a very active group of people who have dominated the conversation,” said Jan TenBruggencate, a former Honolulu Advertiser reporter who runs a communications consulting firm and is a member of the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative.

TenBruggencate even suggested that there may be a silent majority against the bill. "So I have heard people surmise that some of the supporters of the measure on the council could actually lose votes. And that the support for the bill is relatively thin.”

I don't think the off-island-based Babes hold any political sway on Kauai. There's a big difference between visibility and clout. People here don't go for cheesy theatrics, just like they don't go for screaming at the mayor or the red vs blue divisiveness. Yes, the bill passed, but the process left a lot of appalled people in its wake — folks who vote.

As I told Sophie, though she didn't use the quote, it's meaningless to canvass against someone unless you have a better candidate to offer in his place. So far, no one has stepped forward to run for mayor, and I don't really see anyone on the horizon who could beat the big guy.

I wonder, though, if the surprising vote to make newly-appointed Councilman Mason Chock vice chair of the Council is an attempt to insta-groom him for the mayor's post. Before he voted for himself as vice chair, Mason said something about how he keeps getting the call to lead, and so he must heed it. Which is fine, so long as it doesn't turn into a Messiah complex.

An awful lot can happen in a year, so it's hard to say what people will be thinking when the election rolls around. And let's not forget the Democratic machine, because surely it will have something to say on the topic, too.

Musings: Fake Out

After a chilly, star-dense night, the morning dawned thick around the edges, with orange gilded cumulous clouds consolidating in the east and a thin layer of fleece floating above the summit of gray-green Waialeale. Overhead, next to a waning moon, Jupiter gleamed gold, then white, then finally faded in the bright light of day.

Remember how I told you how The Media Consortium, a group of supposedly independent “news” sources, was planning to send reporters here to give folks “honest, fair, and accurate journalism” about “pesticide-based pollution, GE food, corporate influence and other important topics?”

One of those first reports is now posted on the Truthout website, under a donation appeal that reads: Truthout doesn't take corporate funding - that's how we're able to confront the forces of greed and regression, with no strings attached. Instead, we need your support: make a donation today by clicking here.

Like I said before, mainland groups are using us and this issue to raise money.

Anyway, this “honest, fair” report quotes only pro-2491 activists Malia Chun — reportedly the sister of newly-appointed Councilman Mason Chock— and Josh Mori. Some of my favorite laugh-out-loud comments and assertions:

"Because there is no disclosure, everything we say is not based on fact," Chun says.

Stands of genetically engineered corn are not what you would expect to see on a tropical island that once hosted sugar cane plantations and has kept its population happy for generations with coconuts, breadfruit, taro and papaya.

In the past months, the drama around Bill 2491 created thick tension on an otherwise tight-nit island of 67,000 residents.

Yes, we're tightly bound by those uku.....lol.

Reports like this are what made me shudder when I read Gary Hooser's Star-Advertiser commentary, reprinted on his blog:

Their communications and public relations budget is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars as demonstrated by the number of radio spots, newspaper advertisements and direct mailers.  They hired prominent community leaders, conducted unethical “push polls”, and employ an army of industry bloggers and social media experts that attack the credibility and integrity of their opponents at every step.

Gary, surely even you can see that both sides are actively engaged in propaganda campaigns.

I think people do want truth. But all we seem to get are fakers and fake outs.

For a dose of truth, consider this:

Tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the so-called “Apology Bill” — Congress' big “yeah, we admit it was totally illegal for us to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy and colonize the Islands so hey, brah, sorry 'bout that.” 

And that's as far as it went, even though Sen. Slade Gorton said at the time: 

"...the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence."

In a recent email, Hawaiian national Pilipo Souza shared his frustration over the nothingness that followed the apology, sharing a quote that activist Russell Means issued during one of his many visits to Hawaii to advise kanaka on sovereignty issues:

"Native Peoples of the Americas will not know Sovereignty until the White Man admits they are not Free!"

But for some reason, none of those independent media outlets seem at all interested in covering this core-truth issue in Hawaii. I've been pitching them for decades, and all I've ever gotten is a big yawn.

Here's another bit of fakery, from an article buried in The Garden Island about how Mayor Bernard Carvalho has decided to locate the adolescent drug treatment center on Grove Farm land along Maalo Road. 

Hey, isn't that where the dump is supposed to go? What a great plan: Put the throw-away kids next to the rest of the island's discards. Still, I suppose it is a step up from the late Mayor Baptiste's plan to rehab the old dog pound, which the Humane Society had declared unfit for its strays. Anyway, here's the rest of the fake-out: 

Kimberly Cummings, a certified substance abuse counselor and program director at Women in Need, said the facility would also serve both boys and girls to ensure all adolescents are given the treatment they need.

All adolescents in need? Then how come it's only got beds for up to 10 kids? And it may not have even that. The actual number of beds will depend, according to Dr. Gerald McKenna, on "what the community can tolerate."

There will be no limit, however, on how much rubbish can be dumped in the same community.

Musings: Staring Down Illusions

In recent days, my musings have turned to the interconnectedness of things, and by this I don't mean ecosystems, but human systems. I've been thinking a lot about the few who control so many — often by perpetuating the illusions of choice and popular will — and why they want this control, and how they get it.

As so often happens, when I start pondering something, information comes my way that shines light upon it.

Which is the case with this graphic, sent out of the blue by a friend, that depicts the corporate centralization of so many consumer products. Click to enlarge.

Then another friend sent a link to this video, “Defense Against the Psychopath,” which explains why certain individuals are driven to gain power. It also shows how their followers help them achieve control over other people and social/political agendas. It was fascinating to see so many correlations to local events and personalities. Recognize anyone?

So what it leads me to is this: What do you — and I — really, absolutely know to be true?

And are you really so sure you can tell the good guys from the bad guys?

Musings: Puppet Masters

Newly appointed Kauai County Councilman Mason Chock is enjoying a meteoric political rise, winning the post of vice chair at only his second meeting.

Ironically, Mason was picked for the second-most powerful position on the Council after saying he didn't feel qualified to even head a Council committee. He has never served in political office.

Councilman Mel Rapozo, a veteran politician, won support for the position from Council Chair Jay Furfaro and Councilman Ross Kagawa. But Councilmembers JoAnn Yukimura, Gary Hooser and Tim Bynum voted for Mason.

In violation of the sunshine law, JoAnn earlier sent emails to all her colleagues announcing her desire to serve as vice chair. However, she couldn't secure a nomination. 

Curiously, Gary didn't say a peep about JoAnn's actions, though he raised a stink about county communications director Beth Tokioka allegedly violating the sunshine law in an episode where its provisions did not even apply to her.

Could it be that Gary and JoAnn subscribe to situational transparency, to go with their situational ethics?

Meanwhile, in another jaw-dropping move, Tim, architect of the second failed vacation rental law, was named chair of the planning committee. JoAnn, architect of the first failed TVR law, is vice chair.

The reorganization occurred after Nadine Nakamura left the Council to work as the mayor's top aide. Last Friday, Jay joined Gary, JoAnn and Tim in picking Mason to help override the mayor's veto of Bill 2491. Mason will finish out the final year of Nadine's term.