Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

[joshuatree]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Its an obvious attempt to stick the finger at the court from my vantage point. Its pretty cut and dry, a EIS needs to be done before HSF can commence service. By commencing service they are breaking the law.

Hmm, you lost me. Based on this link, HSF can still sail and it is the state that has the burden of EIS. That's the reason why the anti-HSF folks said they will file an injunction. So I believe this acknowledges HSF setting sail on Sunday is legit and can't be considered a finger.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...123865497.html

[Miulang]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

True, true. Which is why I noted that without an injunction, they're not exactly going against anything. Just public perception. And there's a lot of perceiving going on, from both sides of the debate!

When I first heard about this, I figured an injunction was inevitable, and hence the rush to service. But the more I think about it, I'm not sure. The Hawaii Supreme Court said the state should not have given Hawaii Superferry a waiver from the EIS requirement, yes?

So one, Hawaii Superferry has good faith grounds as an operator, saying, "We received the waiver and planned our launch accordingly." The screw up is the state's, and hence the state should bear most of the adverse results. So now an EIS will be required... but that doesn't necessarily preclude active use of the facility in question. Look at Makua Valley. (Er, or maybe that's a bad comparison...)

And two, a very likely outcome of an EIS would be, "More mitigation efforts needed," not, "Evil evil evil must stop immediately!" Better traffic control, more monitoring or reporting, other infrastructure improvements, and so on. These are things that can be implemented concurrent with operation, IMHO.

It's not HSF's fault for this screwup; it's really the DOT (starting with Rod Haraga and having the errors compounded by Barry Fukunaga). In many ways, I don't blame HSF for taking advantage of the situation. It's really more the fault of the DOT. And HSF still will have to comply with any EIS mitigations that either the EIS that they now promise to do as "things progress" once they have started service and/or the EIS that the DOT is doing for the Year 2030 Kahului Harbor Master Plan. And in that one, all harbor users are impacted, so the mitigations will be pretty severe for HSF unless NCL pulls out completely, because of the traffic situation. They are still liable for an EIS, whether they sail or not. No one---not HSF, the State or any of the other litigants is saying that HSF doesn't have to have an EIS done in some form or other; the issue has always been the timing. By State law, because the State provided funding for the harbor facilities, HSF does have to submit to an EIS. The next date in court for the first suit that Judge August ruled on regarding traffic mitigation will be Nov. 3 on Maui when HSF and the DOT have to present their findings.

Miulang

P.S. Here is the State law that the pro-EIS groups are using to prove their point.

§343-5 Applicability and requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided, an environmental assessment shall be required for actions that:

(1) Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds, other than funds to be used for feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or funds to be used for the acquisition of unimproved real property; provided that the agency shall consider environmental factors and available alternatives in its feasibility or planning studies; provided further that an environmental assessment for proposed uses under section 205-2(d)(9) or [205-4.5(a)(13)] shall only be required pursuant to section 205-5(b);

[Sprite]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

... Ultimately, this is turning out to be a surprisingly delicious game of chess.

LOL! You're terrible! I agree that any fixes needed can be done while HSF conducts its business. I think this is the only compromise available at this point. I think Schrivener suggested this earlier also... yes, here it is...

Schrivener said, "I'm not saying no to the ferry. In fact, I think it should be allowed to proceed, with the condition that an EIS be conducted within the next X months."

This seems, to me, a reasonable and intelligent solution.

[zztype]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

More power to 'em. I'll be dialing like crazy tomorrow morning trying to get on the freakin' boat!

[Composite 2992]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

It's all so annoying.

Spread of invasive species? Vehicles carried by barges dwarf the number of cars expected to be carried by the Superferry. Numbers of passengers moved, along with their soiled shoes, are far greater by the airlines. And the cruise ships, more than twice as large as the Superferry and carrying four times as many passengers, put a much greater burden on the harbors.

Yet only the Superferry needs to get an EIS done?

I'm not against getting things done right. But they also need to be conducted fairly and reasonably. Any controls imposed upon the Superferry must also be imposed upon all other carriers. If environmental protection is the purpose of these controls, then they must be applied to all modes of travel. No exceptions.

Otherwise, what's the purpose except to specifically prevent the Superferry from conducting its business?

[1stwahine]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

I'll be dialing for my daughters and son-in-law. I gotta start work soon.

Good Luck to all who can get on the SF!

With the Special Price or not, My Ohana will be customers!

Auntie Lynn

[Konaguy]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Hmm, you lost me. Based on this link, HSF can still sail and it is the state that has the burden of EIS. That's the reason why the anti-HSF folks said they will file an injunction. So I believe this acknowledges HSF setting sail on Sunday is legit and can't be considered a finger.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...123865497.html

Its pretty clear to me. The HSF is starting service before the environmentalists file their injunction motion. To me that is sticking the finger at the judiciary.

[LikaNui]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

I would not want to be on one of the first trips to Kahului, especially not if I'm taking my car with me. If you want to be part of an experiment, go ahead.

Indeed. This is the very first time in recorded history that there's ever been a ferry, and also the very first time in recorded history that a ferry has ever carried vehicles. Yes, Miulang, HSF spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an "experiment". Uh-huh. Right.
On the other hand, you have just helped show the one or two doubters the reason that I feel obligated to chastise you when you post something, you know, egregiously STUPID from your ivory tower there in Seattle.

Oh, and don't forget the Dramamine, and always stare at the horizon and don't stuff your face too much (...) Oh, and make sure you bring your patience and not your road rage, because it's going to take you awhile to get off that boat.

Okay, I'm curious. Is everyone this ridiculously biased on the planet you come from?

[Karen]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Its an obvious attempt to stick the finger at the court from my vantage point. Its pretty cut and dry, a EIS needs to be done before HSF can commence service. By commencing service they are breaking the law"

Konaguy, they are not breaking any law! My goodness, and why is it so important for an EIS before they start service when all of the cruise ships aren't held to the same standard? barges? I hear nah....

No law is broken. They didn't give the finger to the court, but to the tree huggers, yeah...and justice is sooo sweet. The people want the ferry, watch. It'll be full and used.

[Konaguy]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Konaguy, they are not breaking any law! My goodness, and why is it so important for an EIS before they start service when all of the cruise ships aren't held to the same standard? barges? I hear nah....

No law is broken. They didn't give the finger to the court, but to the tree huggers, yeah...and justice is sooo sweet. The people want the ferry, watch. It'll be full and used.

All I'm saying is this, HDOT erred in exempting the HSF from doing a EIS.It should've been done before HSF commenced starting up service.
But the boneheads at HDOT thought it was cool to exempt HSF. Thus putting all taxpayers at risk.

HSF is breaking the law pure and simple. Citing what Miulang wrote a few posts back. If State facilities or money was not involved, a EIS would not
be necessary. That is difference why YB/Matson/NCL are exempted from doing a EIS.

§343-5 Applicability and requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided, an environmental assessment shall be required for actions that:

"(1) Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds, other than funds to be used for feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or funds to be used for the acquisition of unimproved real property; provided that the agency shall consider environmental factors and available alternatives in its feasibility or planning studies; provided further that an environmental assessment for proposed uses under section 205-2(d)(9) or [205-4.5(a)(13)] shall only be required pursuant to section 205-5(b);"

That all being said, HOPEFULLY clear heads will prevail and this service will be able to move forward with a EIS being done concurrently with the service.If not the State of Hawaii and us taxpayers will be on the hook for lots of money.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Translation: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Damm! Beat me to it!

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

HSF is breaking the law pure and simple.

No, the state broke the law in issuing an exception. The HSF company did everything that was asked of them. Yes, a law was broken, but it was the state who broke it, not HSF.

I think I understand what you are trying to say - that the law says "x" and "x" was not done, therefore it's illegal. But the details of "who" is as fault is a major detail in understanding where this is going.

Now the question I have is what is the scope of the required EIS? A know some people are concerned about the whales, invasive species, etc. But it seems the courts are most concerned about the vehicular traffic. Of course, the environmental wackos, having pre-determined the desired answer ("no") will use any and all legal excuses to halt HSF. Even if issues they pursue don't have anything to do with their real concerns.

[Karen]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Okay, spill the beans...who from HT has reservations for Sunday? Monday?

I know! those that need to be back on Oahu for Monday can ride the ferry one way and fly back for twenty bucks before bedtime Sunday night.

[joshuatree]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

HSF is breaking the law pure and simple. Citing what Miulang wrote a few posts back. If State facilities or money was not involved, a EIS would not be necessary. That is difference why YB/Matson/NCL are exempted from doing a EIS.

But doesn't YB/Matson/NCL use state facilities when they dock? I don't believe any of those companies actually own the piers.

[mel]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Okay, spill the beans...who from HT has reservations for Sunday? Monday?

I'm thinking about maybe just spending only $10 for a roundtrip on the same voyage going and coming without stepping off the boat... just for the ride and maybe catch some pictures of the islands along the way (to Maui).....

Haven't made up my mind about that yet....