Dash of Calabash

I was talking to a sophisticated local journalist on Sunday about the Akaka bill. I showed him a letter from Senator Dan Inouye which contained this statement, “Once the Hawaiian governing entity is formed, S. 147 [Akaka bill] provides authority for the United States to enter into negotiations with the Native Hawaiian governing entity to address such matters as the transfer of lands and natural resources now held in trust by the State of Hawaii for Native Hawaiians and is subject to enforcement by the United States…”

The journalist’s response was, “You mean there would be another government in Hawaii?” Then he said rhetorically, “Don’t we have enough government already?”

With that I showed him the individual island maps of the potential property to be “negotiated” by bureaucrats to go to the new “entity”.

He was incredulous, saying “this is to be done by the US Congress without permission of the people of Hawaii?”

My answer to him, “yes, indeed, our Governor is lobbying Congress to pass it.”

If this fully aware journalist was uninformed, think of all the others who must be confused or unaware. Print out a copy of the state map. Put it on the wall, look at it often.

In the same letter from Senator Inouye, he concludes, “Federal recognition would bring us one step closer to righting the wrongs…” This sound like much more than “recognition” to us. One step Senator? How many steps are there to be? Is this the first step of 1000 miles? Or, are we to hot step into perpetuity? The wrongs we did are to righted over and over and over? This is not just hard to understand, it is mind-boggling!

This is not just a Hawaii issue. The implications are enormous. And proponents say they have 53 votes in the US Senate!

For more information on the Akaka Bill and its ramifications go here, and here and here.

(ror)

Michelle Malkin likens the Akaka Bill to Apartheid and has some quotes from Bruce Fein on the bill.

The Cato Institute has a report called Liberating the Roads - Reforming U.S. Highway Policy that focuses on the uses of the Federal Highway Trust Fund money, the majority of which, 85 percent, is in the form of fuel taxes. What the Cato paper notes is that increasing portions of these taxes go to none highway related projects even though the public still believes they are and should be dedicated to road construction and maintenance.

A national poll conducted in 2002 by Andrews McKenna Research, showed that 89 per cent of Americans still believe it important that fuel taxes and other highway fees should go to highway improvement.

However, since 1982 this has not been the case. The Surface Transportation Assistance
Act of 1982 raised the federal gas tax by five cents. One-fifth of the proceeds of that gasoline tax increase was dedicated to transit and placed in a new Mass Transit Account in the highway trust fund. By definition, this money was to go to mass transit programs in urban areas, not highway maintenance.

What this means is that an increasing amount of money is being used to fund transit options, mostly rail, that are less efficient dollar for dollar than other forms of transportation.

It is not easy to quantify these diversions, but the expenditures authorized for the last highway bill-the 1998 “Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century” (TEA-21)-offer a fair assessment of them. Items authorized for what were clearly nonroad purposes are listed in Table 1.

Transit-18.83 percent. This diversion results from 2.86 cents per gallon of motor fuel being taken for the Mass Transit account of the FHTF. The funds are used to subsidize transit services that have so little appeal to passengers that users are unwilling to pay even the operating costs. Passenger-mile costs for light rail average $1.20, and for bus transit $0.75-both well in excess of the cost of travel by car, which averages $0.34 per
vehicle-mile.25 Transit use is concentrated in a few places-73 percent of the ridership in 2001 took place in seven metropolitan areas: Boston; Chicago; Los Angeles; New York; Philadelphia; San Francisco; and Washington, DC. It is by no means clear why farmers in Kansas should subsidize local travel in Washington, DC.

This paragraph is very revealing. First, the passenger-mile costs for light rail is 3.5 times the cost for travel by car. This demonstrates how economically inefficient rail is. (And this is for light rail, the cheapest kind and not what is being proposed for Honolulu.) Second, 75 percent of the ridership is in the seven most job dense cities in the country.

Finally later in the report California’s congestion pricing system is examined. It has proved to be effective and quite popular.

The first variable toll lanes in the United States were conceived, designed, constructed, and originally managed by the California Private Transportation Company. Opened in 1995, they consisted of two pairs of “Express Lanes” in the median of a 10-mile stretch of heavily traveled State Route 91, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles. Express Lane users pay toll by means of transponders, with the payments debited electronically from accounts opened with the California Private Transportation Company. Toll rates vary from $1 at night to $5.50 at peak travel periods, and are changed periodically to ensure the lanes remain free flowing.

Following the lead of the private sector, California’s public sector implemented a similar project on Route I-15 north of San Diego. It, too, has proved popular. The rates charged on the I-15 lanes to ensure free flow are not pre-announced, as they are on the S. R. 91, but are varied automatically in real time-they are changed every six minutes, in response to actual traffic conditions. Road users approaching the Express Lanes can see the current rates on message signs and, once in the lanes, pay no more than the rate in force when they entered.

The cost to build and implement such lanes here in Honolulu at 1/3 the cost of building a heavy rail system that will do nothing to relieve traffic congestion along the H-1. By the time the rail project is built, if it is, the population increase on the Leeward side of the island will more than offset any traffic congestion relief due to rail. This will be true if rail is at capacity and is standing room only for the 45 minutes to an hour it will take to go from Kapolei to Iwelei.

When all is said and done there will still be a need to build more highways to address the population increase that is projected for the Ewa side of the island. The money that could have been spent on highway improvements will have been wasted on rail. A couple of decades hence people are going to wonder what we were thinking. (don)

There is so much information on light rail, heavy rail, monorail and commuter rail in the news right now it is difficult to keep track of it all. The main problem is the increased costs associated with building, maintaining and operating rail is escalating rapidly. This is threatening rail projects all around the country at the very time that Hawaii and Honolulu is considering it, which, of course, will prove to be a mistake.

First there is this from Chad Williams of the Carolina Journal about the Raleigh - Charlotte rail project:

Ah, but then trouble from on high (and it is a problem) happens when the Federal Transit Authority (FTA decided that Raleigh and Charlotte essentially weren’t ready by relegating them to the “promising projects” category and cutting requested funding significantly. This and the fact that the federal deficit is starting to soar like a raptor on a thermal plume should also make you wonder why we need this.

This is the second time that the federal government has cut or reduced promised spending. (The congress recently cut the funding for the downtown Santa Ana to John Wayne Airport rail putting that project on hold and in doubt.)

To see the whole article go here.

Another city that is questioning the wisdom of rail due to its tremendous cost is Seattle. The planned monorail project there is now also in doubt although taxpayers have been paying increased car license tab taxes. Significant to the problem is the

. . . 20 percent increase in costs . . .

Last week, state Treasurer Mike Murphy said that showed the project should be terminated as unaffordable, and on Thursday state Sen. Ken Jacobsen, D-Seattle, asked Gov. Christine O. Gregoire to call a special legislative session to kill the project.

“The ballooning cost of the monorail is ridiculous,” Jacobsen said in a written statement. “There’s no end in sight. Taxpayers deserve better.”

This for a project that isn’t projected to cost what Honolulu’s rail will. The rest of the article is here.

An article from the Pacific Research Institute makes some interesting points about the global warming issue and its eventual resolution.

The difficulty of shifting an entire economy from fossil fuels was demonstrated by the Department of Energy when it found that even if the nation got 140 million cars converted to some alternative fuel by 2020, it would only reduce fossil fuel use of 5.4 percent. The most important thing could be what the mayors agreed to as their World Earth Day measure - planting trees and improving green space.

The United States has been doing that on a massive scale, adding a million acres of forest a year since 1910. This coincides with the mechanization of agriculture. As Clemson economist Robert McCormick has noted, richer nations plant trees rather than destroying them. Developed nations may produce more emissions, but they also take more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than poorer nations do. McCormick predicts with continued economic growth that “the growth rate of net carbon emission per person will soon be negative in the United States.”

Ultimately the solution will be the actions of those taking positive steps, planting trees and inventing more energy efficient machines, rather than negatives steps, i.e., curbing the use of fossil fuels. Read the entire article here.

July 5, 2005 Email: grassroot@hawaii.rr.com

Poll Results Show About 69% of Hawaii Residents say “NO!” to the Tax Increase

HONOLULU, HI - On the verge of the Honolulu City Council and Governor Linda Lingle considering bills that would raise the General Excise tax, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH) surveyed 10,000 Hawaii households about a variety of hot button issues, including whether they support a tax increase.

The question specifically asks: Concerning taxes, would you prefer to have your taxes not raised, and if possible, cut?

In response to that question, 68.65% say they oppose a tax increase; 31.35% say they do not oppose a tax increase.

For interviews or more information related to this poll, contact Richard Rowland, president of GRIH, at 808-864-1776.

July 5, 2005 Email: grassroot@hawaii.rr.com

Recent Survey of Hawaii residents shows
two out of three oppose Akaka bill

The survey was conducted June 29 _ July 1, 2005 by Election Research ccAdvertising.
Contact: Gabriel Joseph, President. Tel: (703) 234-2200 Website: http://www.ccadvertising.biz

The survey called 10,000 homes in Hawaii and received responses from 1,696. It was statistically balanced by population density and recorded other demographic characteristics of respondents such as sex, age and Native Hawaiian heritage.

- 67.11% of all respondents oppose the Akaka Bill.

- 22.71% of all respondents identified themselves as Native Hawaiians.

- 34.42 % of respondents were Republican, 33.56% were Democrat and 32.01% did not affiliate with either major party

- 44.88% of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for an elected official who supported the Akaka bill

We have heard from the Governor, Congressional delegation and OHA that the Akaka bill has the overwhelming support of the people of Hawaii. (Linda Lingle testimony Senate Indian Affairs Committee 3/1/05 “it is supported overwhelmingly by people of all ethnic backgrounds”; Sen. Akaka “enjoys overwhelming support from Native Hawaiians and all the people of Hawaii” Congr. Record S2201; Ed Case “most people living in Hawaii support federal recognition of Native Hawaiians - I would say 70, 80 percent, so definitely our mainstream.” Maui Weekly 6/19-25/05; OHA Chair Apoliona “both Hawaiians and non Hawaiians (86% and 78%) in both groups backing the Akaka bill” OHA Press Release 10/22/03.)

This survey establishes that two out of three residents of Hawaii are opposed to the Akaka bill. And that’s in spite of the fact that there has been virtually zero education about the bill or the consequences should it pass except from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and other proponents of the bill. With appropriate education and wide open community discussion we believe the support for the Akaka bill will dwindle to one in four. Is it any wonder that none of the backers of this bill support an open plebiscite of all citizens?

The responses also indicate that an elected official supporting the Akaka bill is in danger of losing a large part of his or her base in the next election. Why? Because 44.88% of respondents said they are likely to change their vote if their representative votes for the bill.

We challenge Governor Lingle, our Congressional delegation and all proponents to amend the Akaka bill to require an open plebiscite yes or no vote to determine the will of Hawaii’s people before any part of this radical and divisive bill becomes effective.