Over 400 Residents Have Registered In Opposition, So Far

Aloha,

The good effort by our active petition team resulted in this good showing.  If you have printed the Petition Form, and collected signatures, please email them to me, as soon as possible, so I can update our records.  It must be noted, all signatures were freely given by the registered residents, who were all outraged by this whole affair.  So far, we have encountered only one resident, to my knowledge, who was in favor of this project, and he was, apparently, seen hanging around with the WasteStream folks.

Thank you!

When A Match Is Put To The Water It Starts A Fire! - By Denise Nekrash

Funny how serendipity can happen...I just had two customers from Montreal in.
They commented on how much they love Hawi and how beautiful it is. One of the ladies said "and hopefully it will stay this way'". I then replied funny you should say that because we all hope so too. And then I went on to tell her in a "nut shell" that a gasification plant is trying to be pushed through against the will of the community. She offered to write a petition from Montreal and post it on her site as well as www.care2.com ( I think that is the site) that is world wide for environmental protection. Her name is Lina and her website is www.activert.org She is planning to make a documentary on the endangered Monk Seals here in Hawaii.
She absolutely loves Hawaii and eco-friendly companies. She promised that she would get on this, she is here until March 13. She also mentioned that the government pushed through for a gasification plant in Montreal and the people have told them that they will not be re-elected. When  a match  is put to the water it starts a fire! Now the government is saying it is a bad idea, and they are keeping the existing one but will not build anymore. She would be an excellent person for you to speak with Frank. I can give you her phone number if you like.

_______________________________ End _______________________

Comment by Frank JM:

Gasification? Yes, let us not forget, Bob Martin was quoted, November 11, 2010 by West Hawaii Today, as having said," If gasification ever happens in North Kohala, it will be somewhere else"  It does not matter where in North Kohala, it is harmful anywhere on the Island, not just near Ainakea.

Kohala Mountain News Spin or ...?

Aloha,
In an article, entitled "Site Selection for Zero Waste Park Update", published February 26th 2011, the following fly in the ointment (spin or ...?) was detected.  This article states the following, among other things.

"The new task force has an objective of finding an alternative  to the site located near 'Ainakea, but will support that site if no other workable location is found."  Emphasis added.

Peter Klika, who is the only new member of this "new task force", stated in his blog of February 21st 2011,

"I am confidant there are other more suitable sites and will never support  the old proposed site which is too close to Ainakea and unsuitable for many other reasons."  Emphasis added.

Whom should we believe?  I put my trust in Peter, he has, in fact, a lot to lose should this waste facility show up at his very backyard.  I think the statement in the Kohala Mountain News article, quoted above, is a veiled preparation for us, to live with the fact that the current site selected is reality, and nothing will change that, in their opinion.

The Editor, who did make an attempt to verify the opinion expressed in my letter, published in the same issue, failed, apparently, to do so in this case.  The fact that no author is shown for this article, it appears, the Editor is entirely responsible for it.  WasteStream's king pin is also the business manager of the Kohala Mountain News.  Could this perhaps explain the spin detected again and again?

As an aside, this article also claims that this "new task force", which is really the old WasteStream task force with Peter Klika added, is not part of WasteStream Kohala.  This spin, appears to be designed to make us believe WasteStream is no longer subject to the Sunshine law.  Whoever is searching and deciding, for the County, which site should be used for the Zero Waste Park, is subject to the Sunshine law.  It's that simple.

Report From Peter Klika, Esq.

Aloha,
Sorry for the delay. I've been preparing for a mountain expedition to Nepal. I leave Tuesday and have been a bit crazed with last minute details. There will be an article in the next Kohala Mountain News  about the committee's work to date. The short version is that about six potential new sites are being considered all of which are west of Hawi Hill Road. In addition, expanding the existing facility is still an option but may not be the best site for way in the future as the community grows. The old proposed site near Ainakea remains off the table but a very remote possibility if there are no other suitable sites. I am confidant there are other more suitable sites and will never support  the old proposed site which is too close to Ainakea and unsuitable for many other reasons. I will return in mid-May and it is unlikely I will be able to add any additional information until then as I will have no way to communicate from Cho-Oyu basecamp. Aloha. Peter .

From Which Corner Of The Mouth Should He Speak, Asked The Man?

Aloha,

Due to my car's battery problem (needed charging), I arrived approximately at 11:45 a.m. at the February 19th meeting of the 'NK_CDP ‘Annual Community Meeting’.  My Battery’s timing was perfect, within two minutes of my arrival, the chairman of the CDP, Bob Martin, explained to the audience that the selected site for the waste facility is, for now, on hold, due to the rejection by the community, and they are trying to revisit this subject by looking for an alternative site someplace else.  He figured this very difficult task should be complete by June of this year.  He complained about shooting of the messenger is going on, and plenty of not in my backyard, etc.

Speaking of backyard, most of the individuals, if not all, living near the present waste transfer station, are the very ones, desperately trying to get it out of theirs.  And, as Peter Klika so aptly stated Nov. 10, 2010 at the WasteStream meeting, these folks will gain in their property value, if they can pull it off, while Ainakea property values will drop by 25%, in his opinion, as a retired land attorney.  And, Peter knows what he is talking about. When these folks bought their homes, the transfer station was already there, so they made a conscious decision to move there anyway, whereas, folks in Ainakea had no transfer station near them when they bought their homes.  See the difference?  Very likely, some folks in Ainakea would not have bought property near a waste processing station.  Granted, some folks like the ones pushing for moving the existing station now, would have perhaps bought anyway, and like others, would have gotten the property cheaper because of it.

Bob Martin next invited comments from the audience, and when it was my turn, I asked him, that in light of the overwhelming rejection of the current selected site, near Ainakea, is he now prepared to remove this site permanently from the list?  He said, that he simply shelved this site, but is not prepared to remove it from the list.  I then asked him, if you are unable to find another suitable site, are you prepared to go back to the current site near Ainakea, despite the fact that in a democratic society the will of the majority should prevail?  He gave me a smirk, and said probably not.  I told him that he is now talking out of both corners of his mouth.  He then asked me from which corner of his mouth I want him to talk.  I refrained from answering this silly comment.  How about talking straight for once.  What is going on here borders on mental cruelty.  If they probably would not go back to the original site selected, as stated, why not take it permanently off the list?  Two reasons could explain their position.  One, they have no intention to abandon the current selection, or  they enjoy seeing the community anxious about this issue?  By God, what power we have, they must be thinking.  It will be interesting to see, if they can match the power of the EPA.

When I asked him, what happened to the good plan they had in 2008, he answered, I will tell you in private, but I am not prepared to state it in public.  I just love this kind of reply; it shows the true 'Modus-operandi' of this organization.  Heavens forbid, the public should have this kind of information.  And, this kind of thinking is the reason why Hawaii  enacted the 'Sunshine Law', and our Government put into the books a law, known as the 'Freedom of Information Act'.  Needless to say, I am not interested in hearing this hidden information in confidence, for I would surely share it with the public at large.  How condescending was that, as far as the wider audience was concerned?  What autocratic and arrogant behavior this organization displays, again and again.  Finally, Bob Martin invited me to join them, to which I replied, “I will join you under one condition, that you remove the site near Ainakea, permanently.”  He declined, and one of his followers, shouted, ”thank you very much!

CDP/WasteStream, I invite you to prove me wrong, but my instinct tells me, we will have a dog and pony show until June, and then guess what?  We will be right back to the site near Ainakea homes, it will again be the only suitable site, but only according to some interested parties, who will benefit from the destruction of the quality of life in our community, a community they so very much care for, so they say.  But, actions speak louder than words.  Do we really all look that stupid?  And no, I did not stay for lunch; I came for answers and not lunch.  All this double talk dished out was more than a sane person can stomach.  Of interest to note is also that the CDP was well protected by two able-bodied security officers.  I don't know about them, I felt pretty secure.

 Now is the time to write to the EPA, as suggested in my earlier blog; don't wait till June.

The Environmental Protection Agency Is Taking Notice Of Our Concern

Aloha,

I just recently received a response from the upper management of the EPA, and our "important environmental justice concern" is being forwarded to the Environmental Justice Liaison for Hawaii.  I will stay focused on this avenue, unless either WasteStream or New Moon decide to play by the rules, and respect the overwhelming rejection of their site selection, by the affected community.

The following is a partial quote from EPA's email to me.

"You raise important environmental justice concerns about the proposed facility and community.   I am taking the liberty of sharing your email with our Region 9  Environmental Justice Office.  Debbie Lowe is our Environmental Justice Liaison for Hawaii and can be reached at 415 947-4155.  She is familiar with the Executive Order 12898 and may be able to answer your questions about the order and the crucial community concerns you raise."

It is still not too late to write to the EPA yourself, and add your own voice to this issue.

Please write to Ms. Eileen Sheehan, USEPA REGION 9, at Sheehan.Ei​leen@epamai​l.epa.gov
From feedback , it is obvious only very few of you have done so already.  Come on Guys, this is all our fight, don't just watch what few of us are doing, get in on the action, now.

Some of the interested parties from the other side, have others spread rumors saying, we were told (by so and so...), it will never happen.  All this is designed to lull us into a false sense of security.  Remember, the "Main Players" with whom I have communicated in the past and with one in the recent past, in writing, have thus far refused to come out and say it themselves.  What does this tell us?  You are right, ... they are probably still cooking this mess, waiting to serve it to us, just a little later.

Just a short example of how  the NKCDPAC play their game, their June 10, 2010 meeting minutes clearly reflect the following:

"It is agreed that the public would not be invited to our meetings at this time ... we need to build a firm foundation and get down to business and then decide on when and how to involve the public."

And, this in total violation of Hawaii's Sunshine law (enacted over 10 years ago), which distinctly prohibits these kind of meetings, out of the sunlight. 

A Short Dance With The Mayor At The North Kohala Senior Center

Aloha, and Happy Valentine to all of you!

Today I had the pleasure to dance and speak with the Mayor about our issue.  Dance with the Mayor?  I will explain later.

The Mayor was the surprise guest at the Senior Center, which was hosting a Valentine party today; there was dancing and singing, and many door prices were handed out.  In the midst of this activity a special Valentine was announced, and in came Billy Kenoi the Mayor of Hawaii.  Apparently, none of the seniors were told beforehand that the Mayor will be speaking at this gathering.

The Mayor talked to us about his family background, and the fact that we are all one family here on this Island of Hawaii.  His mother came from the mainland, and his wife, whom he met on the mainland came from Japan.  He told us that his father, a big Hawaiian Teddy Bear according to his mother, told him, "son think and feel before you speak, this way you will speak not only with your brain, but also with your heart".  The mayor, unlike your average politician, did not speak from notes, but spoke from the heart.  He learned his father's lesson well.

Billy Kenoi explained to us some of the hard choices he has to make in light of the current economic conditions.  He shared with us some of the conversations he had with people who have been through rough times on the Island, before he was born, and they all told him that those hard times were not nearly as bad as the current economic situation.  While the Mayor was giving us some insight into his world, as the Mayor of this Island, the MC of the senior center had other ideas,  he interrupted the major by announcing, that anyone wishing to dance with the Mayor could do so by paying a dollar.  And, since I was anxious to speak with the Mayor I forked over my dollar and stood in line, with a host of ladies, to dance with the Mayor.  While the Mayor and I were kind of dancing, I discussed with him very briefly our situation regarding the planned waste facility near Ainakea homes.  The Mayor is still under the impression that this site was selected by the community; I told him the opposite is the case, the community actually rejected this very site.  And, while nothing was settled during my one minute dance with him, he promised to discuss this issue with me further later on, at some other time.

I, for one, was impressed with his style of speaking, his candor, and had he not been ushered away from his talk so soon, I am sure we would have learned a lot more.  I can hardly wait to continue my conversation with Billy Kenoi, the Mayor, who, apparently, thinks and feels before speaking.

WasteStream attempts to avoid the Sunshine Law of Hawaii

Following my telephone request to have WasteStream’s meeting notices and agendas mailed to me, I received Sunday evening a call from a WasteStream member, who informed me that I mistakenly assume that WasteStream is subject to the Hawaiian Sunshine law, as they are just a citizen group, having nothing to do with the county, per se.

In an article published in the Kohala Mountain News, published October 23, 2010, WasteStream said the following:

“WasteStream is a grassroots group … and working with the County Waste Management Division to increase the number of recycling options at the current transfer station.”

“Our organization is not a county decision-making body.  We are an advisory group to the county and are involved because we care deeply about these issues.”

“In 2007, the county asked WasteStream Kohala to undertake an extensive search for a new transfer station site in the community.”

Now let us look at the law.  Ref. Part I of Chapter 92,
Hawaii Revised Statuteshttp://www.state.hi.us/oip/6aug08%20Sunshine%20GUIDE%20complete.pdf

“Unfortunately, there is no list that specifically identifies the
boards that are subject to the Sunshine Law. As a general
statement, all state and county boards, commissions, authorities,
task forces and committees that have supervision, control,
jurisdiction or advisory power over a specific matter and
are created by the State Constitution, statute, county charter,
rule, executive order or some similar official act are subject to
the Sunshine Law. A committee or other subgroup of a board
that is subject to the Sunshine Law is also considered to be a
“board” for purposes of the Sunshine Law and must comply
with the statute’s requirements.”  Emphasis added.

By their own admission, shown above, WasteStream is “an advisory group to the county”, and as such has an “advisory power over a specific matter”, selecting the site for a new transfer station.  They further admitted, that "the county asked WasteStream Kohala to undertake an extensive search for a new transfer station site in the community".  Moreover, since this affects a great number of residents, their meeting notices and agendas must be made available to the public, and they are most definitely subject the requirements of this statute.

"The notice of the meeting must include an agenda, which lists all of the items to be considered at the forthcoming meeting, the date, time and place of the meeting, and if an executive meeting is anticipated, the notice must state the purpose of the executive meeting."

Further,
"The agenda must list all of the business to be considered by the board at the meeting. It must be sufficiently detailed so as to provide the public with adequate notice of the matters that the board will consider so that the public can choose whether to participate. For anticipated executive meetings, as noted above, the agenda must be as descriptive as possible without compromising the purpose of closing the meeting to the public and must identify the statutory basis that allows the board to convene an executive meeting regarding the particular matter."

“The statute requires the board to maintain a list of names and
addresses of those persons who have requested notification of
meetings and to mail a copy of the notice to those persons at
the time that the notice is filed.”

“If a board files its notice less than six calendar days before the
meeting, the meeting is cancelled as a matter of law and no
meeting can be held. The Lieutenant Governor or the appropriate
county clerk is to notify the board chair or the director
of the department within which the board is established of the
late filing, and the board must post a notice canceling the meeting
at the meeting site.”

Considering the foregoing, please continue to call WasteStream, at 889-5025, and request meeting notices with agenda by mail.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH JUST BEING REACTIVE?

Aloha,

Just being reactive allows trouble to brew and eventually bubble to the top, thus confronting us by surprise, and many times our efforts then must be Herculean to stop an unwanted event.  It makes much more sense to educate ourselves, by being in tune with our community at all times.  Let us listen, and observe what is happening around us; let us be informed about rules of law, about rights or obligations we have with respect to our community.  Let us not lose focus once we are confronted with an issue, and let us stay the course.  Usually, confronting forces just have to wait until public interest is waning, in order to strike again; let us not succumb to such a scenario.  Our web-site and Blog have only one purpose, namely, to inform our community, so that we all know what is expected of us, and what interest groups can do to us, and what they cannot, according to the rules of law.

Had we as a community been more diligent in our observations our current dilemma would have never risen to the level it is now.  We could have spoken out much sooner.  While it is true, much of WasteStream’s deliberations did not see the “sunlight”; somebody in our community probably had an inkling, and did not think much of it.  In reality, no community can keep a secrete for that long.  But, we as people tend to wait and see if a potential problem really raises its ugly head.  We can always react then, so we tell ourselves.  In so doing, we not only do a disservice to our community, but also to the designers of nutty projects, because we lead them to think, that we, the community, don’t care or way or another.  We would be more helpful to them, by letting them know right from the start that their plans are not appreciated by us.  It would save them energy on the spot, and us later on.

Had we, as a community, been aware, for example, of the requirements of the ‘sunshine law’, we could have requested from WasteStream agendas for all of their meetings, further, we could have requested that meeting notices are mailed to us, at least 6 days prior to their meeting.  But, we did none of it.  In our defense, we could say, we are too busy to bother, but that just does not cut, does it?

We still have a few people on our email list, who can’t be bothered to keep themselves up-to-date on the issues, it appears; this should not be so.  Keeping up with the issues involved will, to some degree, make up for the fact, that we were initially asleep at the switch.

To request the mailing of meeting notices, including mandatory agendas, please call WasteStream at 889-5025.  I did, and left my name and address on their voice-mail.  Let us make an effort to attend their meetings, whenever we can.  I look forward to your comments; please add them to this blog topic, under "Post A Comment".

Who Is Afraid Of The Sunshine .................... Law?

Aloha,
The front page article of the 'Kohala Mountain News'  January 29, 2011 issue, entitled "CDP Action Committee Announces First Community Meeting" prompts me to address the Hawaii State law dealing with ...

"The Sunshine Law is Hawaii’s open meetings law. It governs the manner in which all state and county boards must conduct their official business.

The Sunshine Law is codified at part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes."  Ref. http://www.state.hi.us/oip/sunshinelaw.html

 The following quotations were taken from:

http://www.state.hi.us/oip/6aug08%20Sunshine%20GUIDE%20complete.pdf

"The Sunshine Law is Hawaii’s open meetings law. It governs
the manner in which all state and county boards must conduct
their business. The law is codified at part I of chapter 92,
Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”)."

"The intent of the Sunshine Law is to open up governmental
processes to public scrutiny and participation by requiring
state and county boards to conduct their business as openly as
possible. The Legislature expressly declared that “it is the
policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public
policy - the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and actions
of government agencies - shall be conducted as openly as
possible.”

"In implementing this policy, the Legislature directed that the
provisions in the Sunshine Law requiring open meetings be
liberally construed and the provisions providing for exceptions
to open meeting requirements be strictly construed against
closed meetings. Thus, with certain specific exceptions, all
discussions, deliberations, decisions and actions of a board relating
to the official business of the board must be conducted
in a public meeting."

"In other words, absent a specific statutory exception, board
business cannot be discussed in secret, without public notice,
without public access to the board’s discussions, deliberations
and decisions, without the keeping of minutes, or without the
opportunity for public testimony."

"... As a general statement, all state and county boards, commissions, authorities,
task forces and committees that have supervision, control,
jurisdiction or advisory power over a specific matter and
are created by the State Constitution, statute, county charter,
rule, executive order or some similar official act are subject to
the Sunshine Law."

"A committee or other subgroup of a board
that is subject to the Sunshine Law is also considered to be a
“board” for purposes of the Sunshine Law and must comply
with the statute’s requirements."
"Yes. ... The open meeting requirement also applies to the meetings of a board’s committees or subgroups."



"In 1998, the administration of the law was transferred to OIP.
OIP also oversees the Uniform Information Practices Act
(Modified) (“UIPA”), chapter 92F, HRS. The UIPA is Hawaii’s
freedom of information act."

It appears, this rule of law existed in 1998, and perhaps sooner.  The CDP Action Committee announces, in the 'Kohala Mountain News', first community meeting to be held Saturday February 19, 2011, about 12 years after the law applied.  And, no sooner was this meeting announced in the paper, when we also learn that "on December 30, [2010], Chairman Bob Martin and AC member Joe Carvalho met with County Planning Director  Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Amy Self from the corporate Counsel's office, and Pete Hoffmann to discuss whether the AC should consider transitioning  to a community association not under the jurisdiction of the county code and therefore not subject to the restrictions of the Sunshine Law."  This so called 'County Code', is actually State Law, and therefore is not subject to revision by the county, I understand.

If a public organization has nothing to hide, why would it be against open meetings?  Why would they seek ways to avoid open meetings?  In fact, had 'WasteStream' complied with existing law, I doubt very much that we would be in the situation we are in because of their unilateral bad choice for a waste treatment facility near Ainakea homes, made in secrecy.  Residents of our area would have had early input, thus avoiding what was to follow.

"§92-9 Minutes.
(a) The board shall keep written minutes of all meetings. Unless otherwise
required by law, neither a full transcript nor a recording of the meeting is
required, but the written minutes shall give a true reflection of the matters
discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants. The minutes
shall include, but need not be limited to:
(1) The date, time and place of the meeting;
(2) The members of the board recorded as either present or absent;
(3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided; and a
record, by individual member, of any votes taken; and
(4) Any other information that any member of the board requests be
included or reflected in the minutes.
(b) The minutes shall be public records and shall be available within thirty
days after the meeting, except where such disclosure would be inconsistent
with section 92-5; provided that minutes of executive meetings may
be withheld so long as their publication would defeat the lawful purpose
of the executive meeting, but no longer.
(c) All or any part of a meeting, of a board may be recorded by any person in
attendance by means of a tape recorder or any other means of sonic
reproduction, except when a meeting is closed pursuant to section 92-4;
provided the recording does not actively interfere with the conduct of the
meeting. [L 1975, c 166, pt of §1]


"§92-13 Penalties. Any person who wilfully violates any provisions of this part
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be summarily
removed from the board unless otherwise provided by law. [L 1975, c 166,
pt of §1]"  Ref. part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

Well Over 360 Residents Have Registered In Opposition So Far

Just a quick update, the list of residents in opposition to WasteStream's current site selection for the waste processing facility is still growing.  Our community has banded together to oppose this unwanted project near our homes, as is clearly evidenced by the number of residents who are willing to show their stand on this issue publicly.  Many more consider this a bad location, and have yet to register their voices.  Some still have no idea what is at stake for our community. Let us get the word out, and make your neighbors and friends realize that we need their support.  I firmly believe that the 360 plus registered residents are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

Not all signed petitions have been posted yet, but will be soon.

Invitation To Fact Check

Once in a while we are accused that our web-site shows misinformation, and distorted facts.  Here is the latest message I have received.

Email from Scott B. (1/12/2011)
"While I agree that the proposed site is not the best site for such a facility, I was disappointed to see so much misinformaion on your web site. It does not help our community to distort facts and persist in repeating inacurate and false information, and diminishes the value of the real information you present. Thank you for your efforts to inform the community on this issue, but please check your facts more carefully and present them objectively. If you are going to state opinion, make sure it is clear that it is just that - opinion or conjecture. Using fear to prevail on an issue only divides us."

The writer of the foregoing email does not provide a single example of misinformation or distorted facts he alludes to.  Is it because he couldn't find any?

Here is my invitation to all.  If any of you think or know our web-site contains an error, or a twisted/distorted fact, please provide the specifics, so that I can double check your input, and if necessary correct what is wrong.  I do not knowingly place incorrect information onto any of our web-pages, nor do I torture facts known to me through research.  When it comes to facts, I have no ego.  Moreover, 'Against' does not employ fear, in order to prevail on this issue.  We received WasteStream's mailing, which states their intentions in print, and what some individuals express verbally, contradicting the written word, concerns me not.  If WasteStream wants to retract some of their written public announcements, let them do so also in writing, in another mailing, and this time to all residents, and not just a few.  Too many residents did not receive their last mailing.

Please use the comment section of this blog to give your specific input on any matter you think needs correction.  This way, myself and others can verify your point, and comment as well.

Thank you.

Bio-Fuel Generation ... At What Price?

I just learned that HECO (Hawaii Electric Co.) let a contract, worth $320,000,000.00 to build another 'White Elephant'; the plant is advertised as the answer to our energy needs.  It is reported, by Honolulu News Jan. 6th 2011, "In a major step to ease the state's reliance on fossil fuels, Hawaiian Electric Company announced, what it calls a historic partnership that will supply bio fuels for electricity."... "Fallow sugar cane fields in the Kau region on the Big Island will soon become fertile land for biofuels."  If you care to read the entire article, follow this link: http://www.kitv.com/news/26395836/detail.html 

Pacific Business News' article, on this topic, of  Jan. 6th 2011, reports, in part, "Honolulu-based Aina Koa Pono will be growing agricultural feedstocks on 13,000 acres of leased land on the Big Island’s Kau Energy Farm. Aina Koa Pono’s contract with Hawaiian Electric includes an undisclosed fixed price for the biofuel and an escalator to account for operational expenses. The negotiated price is expected to add $1.55 to $1.86 per month to a typical residential electric bill for customers statewide. The fuel has the potential to be exported to other islands, according to Robbie Alm, executive vice president of Hawaiian Electric."

Read more: Aina Koa Pono wins contract; plans to build $320M plant | Pacific Business News

I was fortunate that my British contact, Richard Strauss, provided me with the following link, which contains presentations by the world renown expert on incineration, and Professor of chemistry, Dr Paul Connett (with whom I am also in contact), who speaks on the subject of 'Incineration'.  I let you all be the judge to make up your own mind, after you have heard what the professor had to say.  If you are like me, you will be alarmed, to say the least.  See link below.

They claim that the project will generate 150 permanent jobs for the 20 year contract duration, and that is about the life span of these types of plants.  So, after 20 years it will be scrapped, as have many been before.
When doing the math. each year it costs us 16 million dollars of investment (320M/20 years), not counting the energy it takes to run this monster plant.  Each job costs 2.13 million dollars initially (320M/150 jobs), and then there is of course the payroll, including the costs of benefits, etc.  And, that would all be fine if it were not for the health price we pay for it.

The people in Kau, and all others who will be exposed to possible fallout, carried by the winds, will pay the price for this so called clean Bio-Fuel.  They claim no toxic emission into the air, but don't believe this propaganda, based on theory alone no doubt.  But, not to worry, some will make out like bandits.

Well, I let Dr. Paul Connett do the explaining in his 20 minutes video talk.   Please follow the link shown below.
http://www.ecoivy.org/index.php/component/content/article/83-dr-paul-connetts-incineration-presentation

Who Is Dividing The Community?

From time to time 'Against' is accused of dividing the community on the issue of the planned waste processing facility near Ainakea homes.  Here are two examples of what WasteStream supportes had to say.

• Instead of bringing our community together, 'Against' is dividing it.

• In reference to 'Against's" activism, this comment was emailed to me; "... And the harm that is being done in this way can only hinder the great efforts that NKCRC has made to benefit and support this community as well as unnecessarily divide and confuse our community. ..."

From where I stand, the opposite is the case; 'Against' has brought the community together in this common cause, to oppose this heartless selection of the current site for a waste processing facility.  If there is indeed a division than it is dividing about 10 WasteStream members and a few potential beneficiaries from the rest of the community.  So far the ratio appears to be 327 to 11 or 12, i.e., at best, 327 against and 12 for the current site selection.  I must say, I like this kind of a division. It is WasteStream, and its supporters, who by their actions have separated themselves from the mainstream of our community.  It tells me that WasteStream does not know, or refuses to understand  the simple requirements of our community; requirements such as,

 Clean air
 No damage to our coastline and the ocean
 No groundwater contamination
 No fallout of any kind
 Quiet neighborhood
 No increase in road noise and carbon monoxide pollution
 Safety for our children walking to and from school
 Leaving only access road free from traffic congestion for emergency traffic
 Keep rodents away from homes and children at play
 No noise from a waste treatment plant
 No stench from a waste treatment plant
 No harm to North Kohala’s reputation of its unpolluted pristine nature

Our community is not confused, as the writer, quoted above, thinks.  We know exactly what we want, and what we don't want, and that is why well over 300 residents have already rejected WasteStream's present site proposal/plan.

Well over 300 Residents Have Registered In Opposition So Far (revised)

As it stands right now, we have 308 plus residents officially/openly in opposition to the current location of the planned waste processing facility near Ainakea homes.

Our good neighbor Aurelio Asencion collected 176 signatures.
At the Takata store bulletin board we collected 40 signatures; more are still on the board.
On-line we have 84 registered residents.
It all adds up to 308 plus residents registered in opposition.
Please pass on this good news to your neighbors, who are without a computer.

We expect that others, who have printed the petition forms from our web-site, will soon report their results in the new year.  Let there be no doubt, our communities (Kapaau and Hawi, etc.) are strong, and we will work together for this common cause to save our quality of life, and the health of our residents of every gender and age.

Thank you all for your 'Social Concern', and your willingness to stand up and be counted.  I wish all of you a Happy New Year.

County Pays For Expert Advice And Then, Apparently, WasteStream Ignores It

One of our registered residents made me aware of the Zero Waste Implementation Study, discussed below. 

The County hired and paid consultants to evaluate Zero Waste Implementation, and then WasteStream paid no attention to the fact that these consultants concluded, that 6 sites, our current Hawi transfer station included, "have sufficient land to add more reuse, recycling, special discards handling and composting collection, processing and educational facilities and programs.”  See below for relevant excerpts from report.

WasteStream claim the opposite, in their opinion our transfer station cannot be expanded.  It is hard to understand, how they could reach such a conclusion, in light of the expert study paid for with our tax dollars.

Recycle Hawai‘i • Richard Anthony Associates
March 14, 2009

"Zero Waste Implementation Plan for the County of Hawai‘i • Recycle Hawai‘i • Richard Anthony Associates"

"Prepared under contract for:
County of Hawai‘i
Department of Environmental Management
25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720"

"Researchers:
Paul J. Buklarewicz, Executive Director
Linda Damas, Special Projects
Recycle Hawai‘i
PO Box 4847
Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
(808) 969-2012

Richard Anthony Associates
Richard Anthony, Principal
3891 Kendall Street
San Diego, California 92109
(858) 272-2905

Rich Flammer, Hidden Resources
Neil Seldman, PhD, Institute for Local Self- Reliance
Gary Liss, Gary Liss & Associates"

The following is quoted from the study: (For full text click on link above)
“The forward-thinking management of discards generated from products produced on the island or imported from the mainland or other countries outlined in this report represent job creation and economic stimulation that would not be achieved through land filling or incineration. Zero Waste involves mindfulness of the triple bottom line: Profit, people and the environment. A Zero Waste system encompasses economic growth and sustainability, a strengthening of community and social endowment, and enhancement of both local and global environmental quality. All are considered and included in the recommendations that follow.” Emphasis added.

“Six sites  (Kea‘au, Kalapana, Hilo, Kaauhuhu (Hawi), Ke’ei-Kailua and Waiohinu) have over ten acres and are located throughout the island. These larger sites have sufficient land to add more reuse, recycling, special discards handling and composting collection, processing and educational
facilities and programs.”  Emphasis added.

Frankly speaking, the above conclusion by these consultants makes a lot of sense, and matches the opinion expressed by many residents, myself included.

Let Us Employ The 1994 Presidential Order No. 12898

It is time to involve the EPA, and have them follow Presidential Order No. 12898

Excerpts from http://www.epa.gov/region9/annualreport/08/EPA_Reg9_PR_2008.pdf

“In 1994, the President’s Executive Order 12898
required EPA to address environmental justice
in low-income and minority communities. Under
this mandate, EPA has worked toward a
fundamental goal—that all communities and
people enjoy the same degree of protection
from environmental and health hazards, and
equal access to the decision-making process
that secures a healthy environment in which to
live and work.

EPA’s Pacific Southwest Regional Office has
not only focused a great deal of work in specific
low-income minority communities, but also has
considered environmental justice as a guiding
principle in all agency actions.

EPA is committed to working on the biggest environmental
challenges facing the most vulnerable communities
bearing disproportionate impacts from
pollution and toxins.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation and enforcement
of environmental laws, regulations
and policies.

Children are our future, and protecting them
from toxins in the environment is a high priority.
Children are more vulnerable to toxins than
adults—their bodies are small and still developing,
and exposure to toxins in this critical period
can permanently alter the way the child’s
biological system operates. They’re also more
likely to play on lawns and floors, where pesticides
and toxins can get on their hands, and
then into their mouths.”   (Changed all words “toxics” in the original text, to the correct word “toxins”)

Please write or email to the following addresses, and refer them to our web-site http://against.homestead.com.  Urge them to become involved for the good of our low-income minority communities, such as Kapaau and Hawi.  See sample email text below.
_____________________________________________

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator
EPA Pacific Southwest Region
Email: blumenfeld.jared@epa.gov
Phone: (415) 947-8702     
______________________________________________
 Waste Management Division
(415) 947-8708
Director: Jeff Scott
email: scott.jeff@epa.gov
Deputy Director: Steven Barhite
Associate Directors: Tom Huetteman, Arlene Kabei, Rich Vaille
 _____________________________________________________

USEPA REGION 9
75 Hawthorne Street
Mail Code: WST-7
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attention: Ms. Eileen Sheehan
sheehan.eileen@epa.gov
Tel. 415-972-3287
_____________________________________________

USEPA Region 9 - Pacific Islands Contact Office
P.O. Box 50003
300 Ala Moana Boulevard Room 5124
Mail Code: OPA-3
Honolulu, HI 96850
Mr. Dean Higuchi
Tel. 808-541-2711
higuchi.dean@epa.gov

www.epa.gov/region9

Sample email text: Subject: Planned waste facility near Ainakea homes
Dear Sir/Madam,

We the residents of Ainakea Village in Kapaau, Hawaii, 96755, and adjacent areas (low-income and minority communities), are in serious danger of having our quality of life and health adversely affected, by a group called WasteStream and the County of Hawaii, who propose to build a waste treatment facility within 700 yards or less from homes.  Please read their mailing to residents at: http://against.homestead.com/files/WasteStreamPropagandaNo2.PDF

November 10, 2010 WasteStream held a public meeting, which was attended by over 125 residents, who voted, by a show of hands, 100% against this planned waste facility near Ainakea homes.

Also, please visit the web-site of 'Against' (Action Group Against Inappropriate New Station Threat) to learn the concerns of our communities, at: http://against.homestead.com

Presidential Order No. 12898 requires the EPA to address environmental justice in low-income and minority communities.  Your intervention is urgently needed, and will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

The Trouble with Inequality in Bargaining Position, etc.

There are a few people, who asked, why is ‘Against’ still active in opposition?  They actually believe the problem is solved.  Although Peter Klika, a resident of Ainakea, offered to help WasteStream to find another location, away from homes, there is no guaranty that such a location is actually desired by the interest group, given the lack of will thus far shown by all connected with the prior process.

Under the current conditions, as is explained in more detail below, ‘Against’ is indeed justified not to sit back, and hope for better things to come.  Many residents, who have signed the petition opposing the current site selection, are very suspicious of this new search effort, because WasteStream and the County have not demonstrated good faith and fair dealing, by not removing permanently the current site, regardless of the outcome of a new search.  This must be a precondition for most of us to believe this new search, is on the level.

1.  What is an Agreement to cooperate?

“… promises without legal obligation.” Barron’s Law Dictionary

2.  What is inequality of bargaining power?

“Inequality of bargaining power is a concept used in social sciences and humanities, particularly law and economics to denote the situation where freedom of contract ceases to be real and markets fail.

The concept denotes the situation where one party to a "bargain", or some kind of contract or agreement, has more and better alternatives than the other party. This results in one party having greater "power" than the other to choose not to take the deal and makes it more likely that this party will gain more favourable terms.

Where bargaining power is persistently unequal, the concept of inequality of bargaining power serves as a justification for the implication of mandatory terms into contracts by law, or the non-enforcement of a contract by the courts.”  Emphasis added.  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

3.  What is implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?

“implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing n. a general assumption of the law of contracts, that people will act in good faith and deal fairly without breaking their word, using shifty means to avoid obligations, or denying what the other party obviously understood. A lawsuit (or one of the causes of action in a lawsuit) based on the breach of this covenant is often brought when the other party has been claiming technical excuses for breaching the contract or using the specific words of the contract to refuse to perform when the surrounding circumstances or apparent understanding of the parties were to the contrary. “Emphasis added.  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com


A. First of all, the public agreement of November 10, 2010 between Bob Martin and Peter Klika, by handshake, is a promise without legal obligation, per 1., above.

B. In addition, we have a case of inequality of bargaining power, because WasteStream and/or the County has more and better alternatives than the other party, the Ainakea residents, per 2., above.  WasteStream and the County can always go back to the current site selection, since it was never permanently scrapped.  On the other hand, residents of Ainakea have no fallback position.

C. WasteStream and the County are not acting in good faith, and are dealing unfair with the residents of Ainakea, because they have not permanently scrapped the current selected site, regardless of the outcome of a new search.

The fact that WasteStream and the County have their fallback position, the current site selection, they have less incentive to be very serious about this new search effort, and the slightest obstacle could be reason enough for them to revisit the current site, claiming it to be the only site ultimately suitable.

Considering all of the above, it should be no surprise to anyone, that ‘Against’ cannot and will not pause their activism against this very troublesome site selection, because it will affect not only the quality of life in our area, as we know it, but will also adversely impact our health.

Over 200 Residents Signed The Petition In Opposition So Far

When it comes to walking a petition from door to door none is better than our neighbor Aurelio Asencion.  Aurelio came to see me last evening to get more petition forms as he was on his last page, and he is not done yet.
What a guy!  He collected, so far, 123 signatures, and when added to the 86 on-line registrations, we have 209 residents in opposition to the current waste station location.  And we are still counting.

We need more like Aurelio, who are committed to our community.  So please let us be energized by his example and have petition drives everywhere outside of Ainakea.  We need numbers, and I mean big numbers to convince the intended spoilers of our quality of life, that they are on the wrong path.

Peter Klika, Esq. is meeting soon with WasteStream, and the more activity we have on our petition drive, they more cooperation he will receive from them and the County, in his effort to help them find a better location for their pet project, away from homes.

You can view the signed pages by clicking on this link.
 

Blog Has Foreign Visitors - And Call For Action

Guess what?  Our blog is read not only by Hawaii based individuals, but also by foreign visitors, as follows:

United  States  (Hawaii) 1,067 Russia 4 Taiwan 3 Malaysia 2 Germany 1 France 1 Netherlands 1

Social concerns are universal, as are the problems associated with big money trying to either steal common property, or as a minimum pollute it for profit.  We are experiencing, all over the world, people organizing to take back common resources, such as land, water from rivers and wells, forests, etc., etc.

Our struggle is not unique, similar played out in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, where despite major public outcry against waste incineration (Gasification), the politicians went ahead with this harmful project anyway.

Some of us like to think that our fight is over; I say think again.  We do not know the kind of cards they hold close to their chests.  The controversial site near Ainakea, we are told, unofficially, is off the table, for now .  But I say, let us not repeat history!  The good folks in Vancouver worked hard, I am sure, and lost; we must fight even harder.

This Canadian situation brings back memories of the beginning of WW II, every country that had signed a peace agreement with Hitler was in short order occupied by Hitler's armies. I still remember the news cast showing British Prime Minister  Neville Chamberlain stepping off a plane, and waving a piece of paper (his peace agreement with Hitler), and we all know what happened to England.

Currently we are walking petitions from door to door in Ainakea, but we also need the same effort in your area, like Hawi and other areas outside of Ainakea.  Our web-site has the petition posted, so it can be printed and used by anyone.  Follow this link: http://against.homestead.com/Petition.html

It is important that the person walking the petition from door to door be a local born on the island, known and respected by the community.  If you fit this wish-list, please step up to the challenge, your community needs you.

Completed petitions can be mailed to:
FJM, PO Box 995 Kapaau, HI 96755

Let us not fall asleep at the switch; time waits for none.  I think it was Reagan who said, "trust but verify".  Since we have no way of verifying their actions, we must be prepared, and dig trenches (our petitions).