it is sick and it is sad...
to see today's Advertiser editorial.
which tells us OHA's new plans should not be considered because it is not the "highest and best use of the kaka'ako land". which means it isn't a 40 story condo tower . Editorial also sez OHA should not push this through here because it could become the headquarters for a Native Hawaiian Government. Advertiser tells us this is a valid reason to NOT push the project through. (the paper uses this to reject the proposal, 'tho the project's native Hawaiian cultural center and all it will offer is all that is needed to definitely rush this worthy project.)
The paper forgets; the state is basically a foreign entity. It is telling the major representative of the host culture what to do!?
Advertiser says this should not be rushed. the Hawaii State Community Development Authority, (that's a bully's title if there ever was one.) needs to proceed cautiously. This means take a look at all out of town developer's proposals and choose the one where the most hands are greased, and the project which will allow the ocean frontage to become another concrete wall.
As for waiting and proceeding cautiously, this is just one of too many examples of projects over the years that were rejected for no good reason, except; "we must move slowly on these things." Good example: the kaka'ako pump station... meanwhile, cost estimates for renovating, redeveloping and/or making the pump house useable to any degree is escalating as we see the state allow this landmark building to crumble faster than any of their permitting of projects that really should be in place here.
it's funny; these deaditorials (unintentional typo) are usually full of the standard pontificate phrase; "blahblah... is worth looking at." "so and so is worth pursuing."
But here we have the beginnings of a project shutdown by a big business with influence, which views a possible source for a rise in their daily paper sales, (and advertising revenue) dissappear. If MORE condo towers are NOT built on Oahu, the advertiser loses money. So of course, they will be against ANY development that proves to NOT be "the highest and best use" of any land.
And this mindset in action, exhibited by the 'state' and the paper, across the board is reprehensible. Downright morally corrupt and mentally sick, especially when it comes to the rejection of a Native Hawaiian project "worth pursuing".
to see today's Advertiser editorial.
which tells us OHA's new plans should not be considered because it is not the "highest and best use of the kaka'ako land". which means it isn't a 40 story condo tower . Editorial also sez OHA should not push this through here because it could become the headquarters for a Native Hawaiian Government. Advertiser tells us this is a valid reason to NOT push the project through. (the paper uses this to reject the proposal, 'tho the project's native Hawaiian cultural center and all it will offer is all that is needed to definitely rush this worthy project.)
The paper forgets; the state is basically a foreign entity. It is telling the major representative of the host culture what to do!?
Advertiser says this should not be rushed. the Hawaii State Community Development Authority, (that's a bully's title if there ever was one.) needs to proceed cautiously. This means take a look at all out of town developer's proposals and choose the one where the most hands are greased, and the project which will allow the ocean frontage to become another concrete wall.
As for waiting and proceeding cautiously, this is just one of too many examples of projects over the years that were rejected for no good reason, except; "we must move slowly on these things." Good example: the kaka'ako pump station... meanwhile, cost estimates for renovating, redeveloping and/or making the pump house useable to any degree is escalating as we see the state allow this landmark building to crumble faster than any of their permitting of projects that really should be in place here.
it's funny; these deaditorials (unintentional typo) are usually full of the standard pontificate phrase; "blahblah... is worth looking at." "so and so is worth pursuing."
But here we have the beginnings of a project shutdown by a big business with influence, which views a possible source for a rise in their daily paper sales, (and advertising revenue) dissappear. If MORE condo towers are NOT built on Oahu, the advertiser loses money. So of course, they will be against ANY development that proves to NOT be "the highest and best use" of any land.
And this mindset in action, exhibited by the 'state' and the paper, across the board is reprehensible. Downright morally corrupt and mentally sick, especially when it comes to the rejection of a Native Hawaiian project "worth pursuing".
Comment