Click here for an excellent podcast about the work being done in Chiapas for collective economic advancement.
Walter Ritte: “This tells the true story of our battle to save La’au and to save Molokai. Please pass it on.”
The following editorial was published in The Molokai Dispatch on September 24, 2007.
http://www.themolokaidispatch.com/node/1155
John Sabas recently outlined the Molokai Property Limited’s (MPL) shoreline access plan for La’au, where MPL hopes to develop a 200-lot luxury subdivision. MPL is seeking “an exception to the mandated 1500′ beach access rule,” arguing that it will protect subsistence fishing. With only 2 public-access points, Sabas says, fishermen will be “forced to take home only what they can carry [on] the trail.”
Having only 2 public accesses points goes against existing law which “requires rights-of-way to be created where land fronting the shoreline is subdivided.” According to this law, MPL would be required to create 16 public access rights-of-way along the La`au Point development. The County “may” grant exceptions to this rule; however the law states that any exception “shall not differ substantially from that which would be required [for] standard rights-of-way.”
While it is conceivable that the required 16 access points could be whittled down to as little as 10, having only 2 would “differ substantially” from the normal requirement. There is also nothing preventing future litigation that could force additional accesses.
It is important to understand that this requirement for rights-of-way takes effect ONLY if MPL develops.
Without development, La`au’s shoreline access would simply remain as it is. The development wouldn’t CREATE access, because State law (HRS 115-1) already GUARANTEES public access to the sea and shorelines of La`au.
One of the reasons this law was created was to prevent “mounting acts of hostility against private shoreline properties,” by people who can’t easily access the beach. By allowing millionaire newcomers preferential access to the shoreline and making locals walk, MPL is indeed re-creating the very situation that the law was enacted to avoid. Read the rest of this entry »
Ke Aloha Aina received this from a UH alumna who has been following the UARC controversy.
In a conversation today (September 28, 2007), the student member to the BOR, Mike Dahilig, attempted to defend his decision to support the Navy UARC at UH despite the overwhelming student opposition to the proposal, including multiple votes against the program from the Association of Students at UH and the Hilo Student Caucus.
He said personally for him it came down to a question of academic freedom. He said the three-year moratorium on classified research was “a fair compromise.” Ultimately, he said, “the pros outweighed the cons,” so he voted for the military research program. And that he felt comfortable with the tiers of restrictions in the contract; that while classified research would be unacceptable, publication restrictions on the naval research were acceptable. He said that while he is “not 100% proud” of the vote, that he felt he “tipped his hat” to the overwhelming student opposition by voting yes with reservations.
He defended his decision by saying that he spoke with many of his professors, many of them from SOEST, and failed to find strong opposition from scientific professors.
He explained that he saw his role as “a decisionmaker and not an advocate.” He said that the student member to the Board of Regents is obligated to make decisions on behalf of the university as a whole, not just for students. He said that while he has an increase sensitivity to students’ needs, he is “a regent before a student, not a representative of the students.”
When asked why he chose not to abstain in light of the contradiction between his personal perspective and that of his fellow students, Mr. Dahilig said “I don’t like to do that.”
The Regents of the University of Hawaii voted to approve the Applied Research Laboratory contract, formerly known as UARC (“University Affiliated Research Center”). There was one vote in opposition, registered by Regent Haynes of Maui.
In a surprising move, the student regent on the board voted for the contract as well, in spite of numerous resolutions to the contrary from student organizations throughout the university system.