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  And, where did this outdated idea of a 'gasification plant' come from?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