May 1992

Home   Newsletters June 1992

July 1992

President's Message (Arlene Ellis) League Testifies Viewpoint Membership National Voter Registration Act Voter Service Good to Hear from - Mildred Walston (Mildred Walston)

Viewpoint MAY 11, 1992 As a result of the actions of the 1992 legislative session, voters will again be called upon to decide several proposed constitutional amendments in the fall elections. It is clear from recent attempts to amend the constitution that there was a lack of information regarding the issues and little legislative effort was made to explain them. It was not surprising then, that during the discussion of one of these proposals for this year, on legislator lamented that the voters would surely be confused over the issue. Instead of wringing your hands, Mr. Legislator, shouldn't you and other legislators make sure the questions are clearly written so that the voter can understand them? Shouldn't you all be out explaining the proposed amendments and presenting both sides of the issues to your constituents and the public at large? If legislators feel it is important enough to propose these constitutional amendments, then, they have an obligation to explain them to us, tell us why they have proposed them, and why we should vote for them. Similarly, those who opposed them should tell us why and urge us to vote against them. MAY 18, 1992 We strongly endorse the letter written to the U.S. House Transportation subcommittee urging no funds for Honolulu's rail system by the four anti-rail Councilmen. The Advertiser editorial of May 12 criticize the Councilmen for ignoring the "unprecedented pro-rail consensus" of government and big business represented by the Chamber of Commerce. They omit any reference to the public. Well, what about them? What about the majority of people who like government and big business executives, will not be using. rail and are not willing to pay for it forever. The Councilmen are further criticized for rightfully depicting Oahu as an anti-transit island because they cited the results of the recent Star Bulletin poll showing 71% saying "no" to transit and 77% saying "no" to increasing the excise tax to pay for it. The Advertiser conveniently forgets its own polls taken five months apart last year showing an increase from 48% to 57% for those who thought the system was too expensive. As people learn more about the burden of the tax surcharge and the inconsequential benefits to be derived, they become more vocal in their opposition. The editorial ends with a reminder that "many see Honolulu becoming less livable without a rail system, as gridlock determines both business and recreation." Such idiocy! Surely with staff and reporters available for research, the paper must know that the City's most recent projections of daily auto miles traveled in the year 2005 show a reduction of only 1.1% with rail as compared with doing nothing. Obviously we are being asked to approve the expenditure of $2.7 billion and still live with traffic congestion. We recommend the Advertiser turn to page 4-15 of the SDEIS and check the figures. If they . must tout the rail system, we wish they would at least get the facts straight. MAY 25. 1992 The excuse one pro-rail Councilman is giving for supporting rail transit is that it's a great planning tool that can be used to direct development and growth. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to have read the official analysis putout by the City just 2 months ago. Page S-26 states that "land use impacts from either TSM or the fixed guideway alternative would be unlikely to result in changes in the amount of overall trend of existing or planned development at the regional level." It further states on page S-1 that "case studies in other urban areas have found that fixed guideway transit facilities produce no net change in growth and development at the regional level." It continues with "the location & rate of development and/or redevelopment within the study corridor is a function of the existing strong economy market forces, and local planning policies and practices; these factors are and would remain, independent of the TSM alternative or the amended LPA." On page 5-4 it reiterates that "at the corridor level, no impact on development projects is expected with the amended LPA." And ends with "The proposed TSM alternative or amended LPA would produce no substantive impact on the distribution of trends related to population, employment, housing, or income characteristics of the Honolulu area or within the study corridor." Does the Councilman know something the City does not?

May 1992

Home   Newsletters

July 1992