Open Letter to the Editor of West Hawaii Today

The following is what I wrote to the editor of West Hawaii Today, November 12, 2010, prompted by biased or incompetent reporting, by West Hawaii Today’s Reporter, November 11, 2010, in a front-page article, "Proposed processing plant placement panned", on the WasteStream meeting.

I waited until now, because WHT's editor promised to get back to me by the end of this week, in response to my letter to him; he has not done so.  For me the week ended yesterday, Saturday November 20, 2010.

"Dear Reed,

First let me thank you for trying to cover this story, and for placing it on your 'Front-page'.  However, when I asked you (WHT) to cover this meeting, I was hoping you would send a reporter of the caliber of a Jason Armstrong, perhaps with a cameraman, or a reporter, who knows also how to take pictures.  What we got was either a biased or lazy individual, who took the easy way out.  Instead of reporting on a three hours meeting, the reporter picked on one of two residents (out of 15 to 20 who spoke on the issues), who pointed out that  property values will go down about 25%, while ignoring the many residents who spoke of the real issues involving health risks, air pollution, including disease carrying rodent population expansion, safety of school children walking HWY 270 to and from school, heavy noisy truck traffic, site location too close to homes, potential complete long road closure, of the only road in and out, due to a major truck accident, preventing emergency vehicles reaching for example, potential heart attack victims, and/or home fires.  Also, the noise created by the waste facility itself were commented upon by residents, etc., etc.

Peter Klika is not the spokesperson for the 'Against' movement, he never announced himself as such, and while he is a member of our working group, he simply expressed his own opinion.  This movement was founded by myself, and not even I chose to officially speak for others in our movement.  Each resident or member of our working group expressed his or her own opinion during the comment period of the meeting, which this reporter almost entirely ignored, save for Peter Klika's comments who was 1 out of over 125 residents in attendance, and 1 out of 15 to 20 residents speaking their mind during the comment period.

Despite the fact that WasteStream said gasification is off the table, one of their sympathizers  (Waste Stream's adviser on gasification, apparently), got up to speak, with the blessing of WasteStream no doubt, with whom he sat before and during the meeting, trying to lecture the residents on the benefits of this process, and how harmless it really is.  It is my firm belief that this individual is the equivalent of Rasputin, and he is the source of this outdated idea of the gasification process, by WasteStream, that most of America has long realized to be a dangerous and uneconomical process, and have therefore discarded it a long time ago.  Very few if any of these gasification plants are still in operation [in] the USA.  Your reporter said nothing about that. Internationally known expert Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, who studied gasification for 14 years, has nothing good to say about this toxic process.  I, in fact, cited this expert in my rebuttal of the claim by 'Rasbutin' that this process was entirely safe and harmless.  Your reporter said nothing about that, all this reporter did was to echo the words of WasteStream's Bob Martin.  As an aside, this reporter even got Martin' s name wrong, he is known as Bob Martin, and not Rob Martin.

Gasification was, and appears to be still the dream process of WasteStream, yet your reporter said plans for gasification have been scrapped.  What a stretch of imagination.  This is not what we got out of this meeting, the majority of residents do not believe anything coming out of WasteStream, who have lost all credibility, brought on by their bizarre handling of the entire public relations effort, and their illogical site selection, which violates two criteria stipulated in 2008 by the County, and published that year in 'The Kohala Mountain News'.  In fact, your reporter quotes Martin as saying, “If gasification ever happens in North Kohala, it will be somewhere else”.  What does this tell us?  It does not tell us that the plan for gasification has been scrapped as reported by your reporter.

I could have written 90 percent of this reporter's story, if one could call it that, without ever leaving my office.  All this reporter did  is regurgitate WasteStream's published propaganda, almost verbatim.  It really is a nice Infomercial for the benefit of WasteStream, that, this so called reporter, finished up with.  This reporter made the residents of Ainakea look as if they were only worried about their property values.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  If this reporter had listened to what the overwhelming majority of residents were saying, a different and true story would have been told.  This reporter referred to a few questions that were asked, and said nothing about the serious official comments made by Ainakea, and other local residents.  WasteStream appeared less than prepared, in too many instances, they could not provide answers to simple questions, like "how far from the ocean will the waste facility be?"  Not even the County representatives, in attendance, could help WasteStream's Bob Martin on this one.   In the headline, "Proposed processing plant placement panned."  I bet you any amount of money, very few if anybody will understand what this reporter was trying to say.  I checked with several persons, including degreed individuals, and nobody could tell exactly what it supposed to mean in this headline.  Looking in Webster's dictionary all definitions of "panned" fail to fit into this statement.  This reporter was evidently writing for two parties WasteStream and herself.

Your reporter unfairly painted the wrong picture of what motivates the vast majority of local residents in rejecting this choice of location.  Moreover, we had a show of hands in favor of this project, and nobody in the audience raised their hand.  Then another show of hands was asked for to show who was against this project, and all hands went up.  Odd as it may seem, your reporter did not report on this important show of hands by the 125 residents at the meeting.  If that is not blatant bias, than I do not know what bias is.  Deliberate under-reporting is as bad as making up a story out of thin air.  These show of hands were a crucial event, at that meeting, that a good reporter should never miss to report on.

I give you an opportunity to rectify these serious omissions, by printing this letter to the editor, and let your readers, including your many Ainakea readers, have the benefit of learning the real and most important concerns of the residents of Ainakea, and assure them that the true facts are important to your paper.

Thank you and Aloha,

Frank"

The Land Parcel Next To Ainakea Was never On The Short-list In 2008

Thanks to Peter Klika, Esq. we got a copy of the report submitted by Geometrician Associates LLC (hereafter referred to as Geometrician) to the County in 2008.

First there were 104 sites, then there were 24, and finally 4 sites already owned by the State of Hawaii were the finalists. The land parcel next to Ainakea was never in the picture, because it was way too close to a residential area.  Even a lesser populated area next to parcel TMK 355004034 off Lincoln Ave. was considered too residential, and was as such rejected.  How things can change, now a parcel next to the most densely populated area, Ainakea Village, in North Kohala, became the only acceptable site to process rubbish.

Below,quoted, are some important statements reflected in the report, which will help us to better understand the absurdity of the present site selection.

 Reference report by Geometrician Associates LLC  October 2008 - NORTH KOHALA
RECYCLING AND TRANSFER STATION
ALTERNATIVE SITE SURVEY

“DEM [Department of Environmental Management] would like the new site to be selected by the community, since residents know which location would be most convenient and would work best for them.”

Geometrician took the liberty to take the word of WasteStream members only, as the voice of the community, how shortsighted of them.  Here is a group of individuals who live in reasonable proximity to the current transfer station, which by the way was there before they moved to the area, and wish now to move the unwanted facility near somebody else's backyard. Instead of consulting with the community at large, Geometrician  took the single input from people with a self-serving agenda.

"The primary measures on which properties will be rated will include size, zoning, current property uses, slope and topography, road access, current and potential traffic issues, proximity of water and electric utilities, user community centrality, usefulness, hazardous substances or activities, drainage and flooding, flora, fauna, and ecosystems, known historic sites, and proximity to environmentally sensitive properties or resources."

“DEM determined that the optimum process for evaluating sites would include intensive community involvement, as the local community is best able to determine particular needs and is familiar with the existing uses and constraints of various potential sites.

Fortunately, there was an existing organization in North Kohala known as WasteStream, a group of about a dozen residents ...  "

The intense community involvement consisted of talking to twelve (12) WasteStream members.  How intense is that?  As stated above, WasteStream's motives are highly suspect, to say the least, and they certainly do not represent the wishes of the community.  In fact, over 125 residents voted 100% against WasteStream's agenda, at the November 10th, 2010 WasteStream meeting.  This represents at least a 10:1 ratio against the present site selection.

“In order to look widely and err on the side of inclusion, only the following criteria were
considered of primary importance at this step:
• At least three acres in size;
• Good highway or major County road access; and
• Within the east-west limits discussed above.
A total of 104 properties met these three criteria;…”

“SECONDARY CRITERIA AND EVALUATION
Selection criteria were refined at this point to include the following:
• Size, with eight acres as the desirable minimum
• Appropriate zoning (Agricultural or Urban, not commercial)
• No unsuitable current property uses
• Suitable slope and topography
• Good road access
• No current and potential traffic issues
• Proximity of water and electric utilities
• User community centrality
• No obvious evidence of hazardous substances or activities
• No obvious drainage or flooding hazards
• Non-native flora, fauna, and ecosystems
• No known historic sites
• Not near environmentally sensitive properties or resources.”
“YES, potentially a good choice,
MAYBE, but has problems, and
NO, definitely will not work”

One of the criteria was, " Not near environmentally sensitive properties or resources"; to me that reads not close to homes.  To WasteStream it read close to homes, apparently.

The four final sites selected by Geometrician in 2008 were:

"TMK/Acreage/Owner Description
5-5-007:005
40.57 acres
State of Hawai‘i

5-5-003:004
136.94 acres
State of Hawai‘i

5-5-006:002
44.50 acres
State of Hawai‘i 

5-5-006:003
404.12 acres
State of Hawai‘i"

Note: Descriptions are not shown.

“Given current evaluative criteria, these four sites are the only ones recommended for advancement for further study in an Environmental Assessment. It should be recognized that the wider public involvement expected in the early stages of the EA process may identify additional properties for consideration, or may reveal hitherto unknown information that could qualify previously excluded properties, which will be evaluated using the same criteria."

All of these parcel were far from the Ainakea Village, and other more populated areas. As far as I am  concerned, Geometrician Associates did a fairly good job at providing the County with good candidate sites, and it is impossible to understand, how the land parcel next to Ainakea Village finished up as the, so called, only acceptable waste processing site, out of 104 parcels examined.

 

German Industrialist Purchased Massive Acreage From Parker

West Hawaii Today's reporter, Jason Armstrong reports that German Industrialist, Michael Saalfeld, purchased massive acreage (3,509 acres) from Parker Ranch.  Located on both sides of Akoni Pule Highway, the adjoining parcels extend from Mahukona Beach Park north almost to Puakea Bay Ranch.

It is reported, by WHT, that Saalfeld "...started SunFuels to produce biodiesel using a gasification process licensed by Choren Industries, a German company in which Saalfeld owns the controlling interest."

For more on Sun-Fuel follow this link: Sun-Fuel Plans

 Where does this fit into the puzzle?

Waste Stream Gets Backwash! - By Howard and Carol Ann Olsen

We attended the Waste Stream presentation at Kamehameha Park, November 10th, and were proud to see a good turnout from our community.  Many of our neighbors spoke out against the proposed location adjacent to Ainakea Subdivision,  expressing their concerns about odors, air quality, noise, safety, traffic and proximity of this site to the ocean.  In response to the opposition, Waste Stream said they received only two phone calls when they announced the Upolu sites in October 2008. This is, in our opinion, an example where nobody complains when you're doing something right.  Apparently, most of North Kohala was satisfied with the 2008 proposal. 

We estimate more than 100 people turned out to express opposition to the Ainakea location because of concerns for children, elderly, nearby schools and hospital.  This clearly indicates that the majority of residents favor moving this project somewhere west (down wind) of Hawi.  We appreciated the presentation and left the meeting with the impression that the Upolu Airport/Wind Farm Road sites would now be revisited and that our community has a responsibility to let the state and county officials know by January that these are the wishes of the majority.
Thank you & Aloha, Howard & Carol Ann Olsen

Site Photo Taken From Hap's Place

With a 4x magnification magnifier glass the white flag (center from left to right) can be seen, without too much problem.  Standing by the fence, it looked to me like a par 4 hole, about 325 to 375 yards.

It sure is way too close to Hap's home, without question.  We don't know of course if the white flag is the center where the waste facility is planned to be built or not.

What Would It Take To Believe Gasification Is Dead?

With all this double talk and mixed signals from WasteStream, and the fact that they have no more credibility, it would take a County Ordinance prohibiting the gasification of  waste, of any kind, anywhere on the Big Island.  Yes, that is what it will take for me to accept their turndown of gasification.   Anything less than that, just won’t cut it anymore.

As late as at the November 10th meeting, we witnessed a speaker trying to sell the idea of gasification, as a clean and safe process, nothing harmful goes into the air he said.  We all know now, from reading the information provided on the 'Against' web-site, and other sources referenced, that this is simply not true.  No doubt, I could find texts, from industry friendly sources that would have us believe all is well.  Involved industries of any kind, are always ready to lie to sell their goods.  Remember the snake-oil salesman of the old west, portrayed in western movies?  I say, the old west is not dead yet, we still have the odd snake-oil salesman trying to bamboozle us.  Today however, it is no longer so easy to sell snake-oil, people are better educated now.  You show them snake-oil, and darn it they know right-away what it is.  So much for progress, it just ain't that easy anymore.


I say, if WasteStream truly moved away from this nutty idea of gasification, why bring it still up?  Why bother?  The answer is, it is just on the back-burner, simmering ready to be served again.  It could not be helped, the simmering temperature, apparently, was high enough to have gasification bubble to the surface, it blew the lid right off.

They Just Don't Get It

In a front-page article, by 'West Hawaii Today', in the November 11, 2010 issue, Proposed processing plant placement panned, Bob Martin, WasteStream's Coordinator, was quoted saying,

"It has been taken off the table.  Gasification is not part of this plan"

"If gasification ever happens in North Kohala, it will be somewhere else"

If WasteStream had learned anything over the last few months, they must know, by now, that gasification is dangerous to health anywhere on the Island.  If they now concede that gasification is bad near Ainakea, logic would dictate that it is no good for any other place on the Island, because it pollutes the air with highly toxic carcinogens.

With these mixed signals from WasteStream, they expect us to believe that gasification is not part of this plan.

Those of you who were at the November 10th meeting, witnessed a speaker trying to sell the idea of gasification, as a clean and safe process.  They just don't get it.

Standing Room Only At The November 10th WasteStream Meeting

The meeting was attended by well over 100 people, and as it turned out, by a show of hands it was clear that nobody, other than WasterStreames, was in favor of the site selected by WasteStream and the County.  WasteStream's coordinator, Bob Martin, ran down the agenda list, making the case that WasteStream has a passion for recycling, and that, apparently, the end result justifies the means by which it is achieved.  Fortunately, there were no buyers.

It was very difficult for me to keep my cool, when confronted by these condescending statements over and over again.  These people from WasteStream, and their coordinator look like intelligent individuals.  My question is; why do they assume that we, the residents of Ainakea are all stupid?

An entire young football team entered the meeting, in solidarity with the residents of Ainakea, and stayed a short while.

I have noticed the WasteStreamers were walking barefoot, perhaps to look more native than the rest of us, after all they claim 20 years residence in Hawaii.   I did not see any of the real natives follow their example, they all wore their shoes.

Following the presentation, we were given an opportunity to ask questions, however, for many they had no answer.  For example, one questioner wanted to know how far the planned waste facility would be from the ocean; they did not know.  But they did pretend to know, when once asked that it would be 0.4 mile (702 yards) from the nearest house.  And, that apparently is wrong, because one resident says, his home is 200 yards from the site.

Another resident, who spoke during the comment period, asked, “what are they thinking?”  Yes, indeed what are they thinking of?  It was a great opportunity for our community to show that we are not stupid, and that we are all against this ill-conceived, and opportunistic project that would benefit few, and harm many.  Still another resident commented on the fact that WasteStream want to create a “showcase of state of-the-art waste management” (WasteStream’s description). She suggested that this indicated to her that these people wanted to be seen.  I said it before, on their road to glory they would be willing to trample on the community, they pretend to care for.

WasteStream still try to convince us, that the gasification plant is off the table, despite that their published brochure tells otherwise.  And, to proof them false, one of their sympathizers got up to speak, trying to tell us that, apparently, he knows all about gasification (he even flashed the book he had read, probably), and that gasification was clean energy, and there was nothing wrong, supposedly, with using this process.  My question is simply this, if gasification is truly off the table, why try to still sell it to us?  The answer is clear; it is not off the table, at least not for long.

Peter Klika, the retired land use attorney (and member of our ‘Against’ group), brokered a deal with WasteStream and the County, which puts the current site on hold for 90 days, allowing them, with the help of Peter, to revisit other sites contained in the original list of 104, and perhaps also others.  It is my sincere hope that they will find another more logical site for this project.  We at ‘Against’ will not sleep for these 90 days, and make sure that our list of registered residents (80 so far), who oppose the current designated location, will grow, and re-enforce the strong statement made at the meeting.

Why I am opposed to the proposed garbage transfer station - By Susan Russell

I am opposed to the proposed garbage transfer station for several reasons: poor choice of location, destruction of farmland, negative impact on nearby population and cost.

Besides all the other health and environmental concerns, this thing is going to cost the taxpayers a pile of money.  Many in the community are already struggling with financial issues, people losing their homes, high costs of health care, schools struggling to stay open, children in need school supplies, etc. This proposed transfer is NOT a priority in this community right now and most people will not appreciate paying (higher taxes and dump fees) for a fancy new place to dump garbage when the existing transfer station we are using appears to be working just fine.  Yes, we need a better system to recycle green waste (at the present dump), but this is nothing compared to the cost of building a whole new transfer station.

And, the suggestion of installing a garbage incinerator in the works?  Insanity.  The cost of building of running such a facility, especially in this small community is an extremely poor choice. We previously lived in Skagit County WA (a large county with lots of funding) where one of these incinerators was built—THE TAXPAPERS SPENT MILLIONS and the thing ran haphazardly for only a few years (off and on—mostly off).  We we’re TOLD the thing wouldn’t pollute (IT DID!)   AND, have a low cost of operation (NOT). Below is a paragraph from Clark County Washington solid waste management plan 2000.

Several other MSW incinerators within Washington State have closed recently.
Incinerators in both Skagit and San Juan Counties have been permanently retired. The
Skagit incinerator built in 1988 was also partially funded through a State-matching grant.
The 178-tpd facility was closed in 1996 due to equipment failures and high operating
costs. A smaller incinerator in Friday Harbor (San Juan County) was closed in 1995
because it’s environmental compliance costs exceeded its budget. Olivine Corporation’s
100-tpd incinerator in Whatcom County was forced to suspend operations due to its
inability to compete economically against other county waste export operations.

Letter To The Editor - Of "The Kohala Mountain News", Published October 23, 2010

I come again and again in contact with residents, who did not read, apparently, the article shown below.  This is to provide those people another opportunity to learn about the issues involved.  This is our second posting of this letter to make sure the information stays on the front burner.

"New Proposed Transfer Station Next to Ainakea Village
Dear Editor:

A group of 10 local residents who call themselves “WasteStream ” are pushing for the construction of a new waste station to replace the existing transfer station. The idea to improve upon the services offered at the current station is good and well, but the location leaves much to be desired: less than half a mile makai of Ainakea homes, the new waste station would be upwind from the most densely populated area in North Kohala. The so-called “Zero Waste Park” would be on about 10 acres of land (30 yards past Pratt Rd.) and would eventually have a facility to burn (gasify) rubbish.
Let no one doubt, this project is on the fast track. Per their handout provided at the pizza and beer “talk story” for selected Ainakea residents, they state that the proposed land will be purchased by the county in late 2011. They also expect that the funding for this “capital improvement” will also be allotted in 2011. They further state, “Contracts for the construction of the roadway and the facility, as well as the greenwaste operator, Reuse Center, and gasification plant, should be awarded in 2013.” The proposed opening of this facility should happen in 2015, they say.  
Also, since North Kohala generates only 2.5% of the Big Island’s total waste, it is very probable that the new waste facility could eventually receive trash from other districts for gasification. In fact, county reports show that the idea of trucking rubbish from other districts to the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill is being considered.  Trucking waste to this planned waste facility for gasification would mean more pollution and a significant increase in truck traffic, generating more exhaust fumes and road noise.
All of your readers opposed to such a plan should visit the website www.against.homestead.com to learn the facts, and why other local residents are against such an irresponsible choice of location for a waste station, and the very idea of burning trash in our pristine environment, so very close to our downwind homes. Even an internationally-known expert in the field of gasification, Dr. Paul Connett, has nothing good to say about it. After digesting the facts on this website, North Kohala residents will have an opportunity to voice their concerns by registering their opposition in the guest book provided.
Readers without a computer should ask a relative or a friend to register them. Failing that, they may write to “Against Waste Facility” c/o FJM, P.O. Box 995, Kapa`au, HI 96755. The signed letter (or note) must include your full name, telephone number, and permission for ‘Against’ to register you. Also, contact Councilman Pete Hoffmann (895-0834 or 883-8547) and Mayor Billy Kenoi (327-3602).
Most people in our community have not heard about this project. The reason for this is that the players involved have kept their cards very close to their chests. So far, only a small group – picked from your Ainakea neighbors – has been invited to a pizza and beer “talk story” to hear about WasteStream’s plans and offer feedback. Should we be alarmed about such a plan? It depends. If one lives in Ainakea, Kapa`au, or near the border of Kapa`au, one has all the reason in the world to be not only alarmed, but outraged once it is realized where this waste disposal facility is to be built. As a taxpayer one should be alarmed no matter where one lives on the island, because when the county spends additional millions, taxes will go up. There is even talk by the county to impose a “Pay-As-You-Throw” fee whenever you bring rubbish to the waste station.
Why anyone would select this site, which is far too close and directly upwind to our densely populated Ainakea village is beyond comprehension. A certain stench from the proposed Zero Waste Park will replace the fragrance of flowers we now enjoy. What about the other twenty-four potential sites, especially their supposed first choice near the wind farm? No satisfactory explanation has been given for their choice of this location near homes.
Many years ago there was a plan to build a polluting oil-burning generating station in our area.  The people of Ainakea and others spoke out in opposition. As a result, this project got killed. The same must happen with this unwarranted and ill-conceived waste station. People who care about the environment, the health of our children, the elderly and others need to stand up firmly in opposition.

Yours truly,

Frank J. Maier on behalf of ‘Against,’ the ‘Action Group Against Inappropriate New Station Threat’"

A win-win situation for North Kohala and the County of Hawaii - By Peter Klika, Esq.

I propose to put WasteStream's proposed waste park adjacent to the wind turbines on Upolu Road and have the electricity for the waste park supplied by the wind turbines. Doesn't this make more economic, environmental, and aesthetic sense than putting the waste park upwind of a residential community,a hospital and two schools? As you know, HELCO does not purchase all of the electrical capacity from the wind farm and the owner has recently submitted bids to disassemble  some of the turbines. The County and North Kohala will have a clean, efficient, and environmentally sound source of electricity and the trucks that serve the waste park do not have to drive through Hawi and Kapaau. The State already owns a large parcel at the end of Upolu Road which can be leased to the County just like the existing transfer station and there is already a paved road all the way to Upolu Airport. Ladies and Gentlemen: Let's be a bit more imaginative and sensitive and take a close look at my proposal. This is what WasteStream and the County should be examining, not building an entirely out of place facility on AG-20 land being sold by a private party. Respectfully,  Peter Klika

Response To WasteStreams' Junk Email To ?

Looking through my junk folder I noticed an email from WasteStream, it did not indicate to whom it was addressed, but since it was in my junk mail I assume it was meant for me.  While this interest group tries very hard to explain away facts as misconceptions, etc., they are having a hard time, because the true facts get in their way.  Let us examine just a few examples of false statements they make and the problems they have making things disappear they publicly announced repeatedly.

WasteStream writes,
"In the last several weeks you have received emails concerning the proposed Zero Waste Park. We are writing to address a few misconceptions included in those emails or being discussed by people who have received those emails."

'Against' never wrote unsolicited emails, like WasteStream has, to anybody, but we are guilty of answering emails sent to us.


WasteStream goes on to say,
" In our original brochures concerning the ZWP, we included a study of gasification as a possibility for inclusion in the new facility, even though some of  our members did not support such a study.  We underestimated the alarm this study would cause. In fact, many who have been outspoken about the ZWP have claimed that we were proposing to install a gasification plant, not study it."

The claim that WasteStream are proposing to install a gasification plant came from WasteStream themselves.  They said in their first published propaganda, and I quote,

"Contracts for the construction of the roadway and the facility, as well as the greenwaste operator, Reuse Center, and the gasification plant, should be awarded in 2013." Underline added.

In their second revised propaganda, mailed to many of us recently, they stated again that their intent is to build a gasification plant, and I quote,

"Contracts for the construction of the roadway and the facility, as well as the greenwaste operator, Reuse Center, and the gasification plant, should be awarded in 2013." Underline added.

'Against' is only claiming that WasteStream proposes to install a gasification plant, because WasteStream stated so in their publications repeatedly.  It is WasteStream, who published their intentions to do so, ' Against' is just reacting to these announcements by WasteStream.

WasteStream further says,

"To be clear, gasification is not a planned feature of the ZWP we are proposing; there is no hidden conspiracy to install gasification."

Well, 'Against' did not have to say there is a hidden conspiracy to install a gasification plant,  WasteStream made no secrete out of it, it was in plain sight twice on their propaganda, for all to see.

 WasteStream goes on to say,

"Secondly, various insinuations about our motives have been made in these emails and on the website opposing our efforts. We want to clearly state that our desire is to create a transfer station that will truly serve the growing needs of our community and provide more opportunity for re-use, recycling and an ability to keep green waste out of the landfill."


'Against' has no control over what enraged residents write in their emails to us, and as far as I am concerned, I too find it very difficult to swallow some of the civic interests claimed by WasteStream.  I would compare the efforts by WasteStream, regarding their project, with a story that comes to mind. 

Once there was a president of a homeowner association, who one day decided to collect and dispose of all the dog droppings in his community.  And, all that saw him do that, said, now there is a man who is doing something good for the community he lives in.  When all the smelly dropping were in his paper bag, he proceeded to dispose of it.  And he did so by emptying the contents of his bag at the front door of a dog owner.  Now wasn't that nice of him?

WasteStream further writes,

"We are a small group of local residents, most of whom have lived here for over 20 years, who feel passionately about reducing our trash."

As I wrote before, if these misguided souls would feel at least as passionate about the health of all of us, and the quality of our lives, then they would not propose to have a waste facility of any kind within less than 700 yards from homes, violating the criteria dictated by them and the county, and published in 2008.  WasteStream keep bringing up the fact that some of them lived here for 20 years, and it seems that they think this gives them the right to dump rubbish next to Ainakea homes.  I have been paying property taxes to our community since 1989, but that does not give me any rights to screw-up peoples lives here.

WasteStream continues,

"We have invited Ainakea residents and other adjacent property owners to a meeting on Wednesday November 10th at 5:30pm at the Intergenerational Center in the back of Kamehameha Park across the roadway from the skate park."

It seems odd, too many times when we ask residents, if they heard about the upcoming WasteStream Meeting, we get a blank stare.  It appears, that our postal service either has failed to deliver the notices, or perhaps these were never mailed to all residents.  I know from past experience, the postal service is usually spot on.

'Against' is working hard to ensure that those people missed by WasteStream will know about this meeting.  Given the fact that we were not given sufficient time, we may not reach all either.  One would think such an important meeting would be announced in the local paper, but then too many people would be upset by it all, and that is not advantageous for WasteStream, I guess.

Please share this with all you know, and make sure they all will attend WasteStreams' meeting November 10, 2010, 5:30 p.m. at the "InterGenerational Center" in the King Kamehameha Park, opposite the back-wall of the Gym.

See you all there.

Our views - By Howard & Carol Ann Olsen

We oppose the current  Zero Waste site location by Ainakea Subdivision and support Frank Maier's recent letter to the Kohala Mountain News.  We know the people involved with Waste Stream and are certain they have worked long and hard to create this plan.  We believe they are intelligent people with the best of intentions.  However, this proposed location is unacceptable and contrary to their original stated goals.  Most of us would like to support their efforts and find and acceptable site for this project.  I respectfully ask that they revise this plan and that our neighbor Bennet Dorrance withdraw his offer in favor of one of the original sites indicated in the 2008 Kohala Mountain News article.
Aloha Nui Loa, Howard & Carol Ann Olsen

Please Use This Blog Page For General Comments on Waste Station

If your comment does not belong to any of the already published blog topics, then place it in here.

Don't forget, you must have an account, such as a free Google, for example.  I use Google, in fact, this blog is basically hosted by Google (Blogspot/Blogger).

Update - By Peter Klika, Esq.

Newmoon wants to put a zipline for profit on uper Iole Road near the Bond School. Bennet doesen't want trash trucks driving by the Bond School so he wants the proposed project near Ainakea far from his little "hobby farm". I speak only for myself but have very good sources. Please post on your blog. More later. PETER

And Then What Happened ...? (revised)

Yesterday I had the good fortune to meet a nice lady from Waste Stream, who happen to have an October 18, 2008 issue of the Kohala Mountain News, and she was kind enough to loan it to me, so I can read up on some history regarding the planned waste facility.  At first, I wanted to dismiss the article contained, because I thought it was a little dated, but wise as she is, she pushed it back to me, and realizing that I almost missed a good chance to learn something, I took it with me home, promising that I will return the paper.  And, I will.

I read the front page article entitled "New One-Stop Recycling/Transfer Station Planned", and although the article had some exaggerated claims, like long waits at the station, traffic congestion, unsafe traffic conditions, etc., I found myself in agreement, in principle, with the plan presented.  There was no talk about gasification, for example, and it did specify strict criteria requested by the county that, in my mind, all reasonable people could agree on.

1. It called for "a location away from existing houses,

2. a  site that is as convenient as the existing station for most residents, and

3. a location which can be contoured and landscaped to reduce or eliminate the visual impact of the station   and maintain the natural beauty of the surrounding areas."

After a complete review by the task force it was found , "only three sites fully met the criteria.  All are state-owned lands located on Akoni Pule Highway near Upolu Airport Road (see map)." So the article stated.

OK, we had a reasonable plan, containing clear criteria to be met by any future site selected, and a map showing the acceptable locations away from existing houses, then what happened?  Can anybody explain why suddenly an inconvenient location, out of the way for most people, and far too close to existing houses, became the only acceptable location, when in fact, it must be rejected for not meeting two out of three criteria required?  And, where did this outdated idea of a 'gasification plant' come from?  And, why was it included in the plan of 2010?  Also, who proposed it?  Who permitted this change?  Yes, we have many questions here, and expect full public disclosure.

The 'Coordinator/Adviser  to the Waste Stream project has a moral, if not a fiduciary responsibly to tell the good people of Waste Stream, that their final selection is not acceptable because it fails to meet two of the mandated requirements of the County.

The gentle lady I ran into wishes that sanity would return to our community, and I wish for the same thing.  Therefore, Waste Stream let this insane project location die a graceful death, and sanity will indeed return without a doubt.

Aloha, Frank