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).

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.