The Superferry decision continues to dominate the news, and offers another “two newspaper” take on the issues.
The Advertiser leads to day with a good Derrick DePledge story on the insistence from the beginning by Superferry executives that there be no formal environmental review, and the pressures on state officials to “make it come out right” by waiving the EIS process. It’s the first I’ve read that a key condition of the federal loan guarantees was that the project receive all environmental approvals from the state. That could apparently have been accomplished by proceeding with an environmental assessment or via the Superferry’s strategy of bullying the state to waive those requirements.
The Star-Bulletin leads with a “Black Eye for business” headline which is a straight he said-she said story with little value added.
Still unexamined is the role of the political clout of the lead investor, John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy, member of the 9-11 Commission, considered the father of the 600 ship Navy. In 2004, while key Superferry decisions were being made by state officials, Lehman was named as a leading candidate to replace George Tenet as head of the CIA. Clearly Lehman was is a man with lots of connections that would likely have been used in defense of his huge investment in the Superferry project, and the Bush administration certainly been willing to trade off the public interest to private investors, but digging into this political back story will likely prove difficult.
There’s no doubt that the Superferry issue has people on both sides eager to offer up opinions. Several of you have offered comments here already. Karen Chun on Maui commented on her personal involvement during the lead-up to the current crisis, which I found informative and useful.
Maui citizens DID go to the PUC meeting for the Superferry. However the Chair had already sent a letter indicating how great the superferry was BEFORE the hearings so the decision had most likely been made BEFORE the hearing. We all went, brought up the problems with interisland freight, traffic, paddlers, etc. etc. And they totally ignored us. I think you can still request the video of the PUC meeting on AKAKU where a packed room of Maui citizens testified against the Superferry.
Even before the PUC meeting I was in numerous meetings with DOT over the Superferry and the various incarnations of the proposed addition to Pier 2.So we definitely went through all the hoops. This started in 2004 when fortunately a paddler saw a notice about the proposed Pier 2 changes mere days prior to the closing of comments. Although DOT claim they informed the canoe clubs, I was on the Board of Na Kai ‘Ewalu at the time and we never received any notice. I was also on the board of MCHCA and they never received any notices that their race course was imperiled.
On the issue of EIS for freight and cruise ships. The fact that the cruise ships with all their problems (dumping sewage in the ocean, overwhelming us with traffic, hogging the pier and causing our freight to have to put out to sea for days waiting to unload) did not have to do an EIS was another sneaky end run of the EIS system by the administration. Cruise ships are one reason we are so adamant that this won’t happen to us again.
On freight, every 5 years or so all the harbor improvements go through an EA process. Now to be fair, this process is so wired by ‘Oahu DOT to ignore Maui’s input that the process is basically a big fake where they do exactly what they want to do regardless of our input.. But they DO go through the EA for every new project. So in that sense it is not correct to state that the other harbor users do not go through an Environmental Assessment process. Also Matson and YB have existed since before the EIS law was created which is why they didn’t do an EIS prior to commencement of operations – the law didn’t exist at that time. Its just silly to make this argument.
This recurring theme that the other harbor users need to do EIS if Superferry does completely ignores Superferry borrowing all that federal money and getting a handout of $40,000,000 of state money (actually $10,000,000 more because DOT had to take over more land due to the squeeze caused by Superferry.) That’s the difference. They other harbor users PAY. The Superferry gets a handout.
Matson was squeezed out of their dock at Kahului by the cruise ships. Matson put up the money to build a new dock (which they’ll be paid back for over the next years) This dock is used by many companies – not just Matson. Unlike the Superferry barges that are not used by anyone else and that we had to put the money up for with no guarantee of repayment.
The disinformation that the Superferry PR puts out is clever but disingenuous.
Although the Superferry spin is to dismiss the protesters as a “small minority”, it’s clear that support for a full environmental review runs much deeper, with the neighbor island county councils all on record in support of an EIS.
I just keep wondering why, if the Superferry backers believe its impacts are so minimal, they didn’t jump on the chance to produce a quick environmental assessment at the front end and get past all of these issues?
The Maui News on Friday reports that Hawaii Superferry offered during confidential settlement talks to do a private environmental review, an offer which was turned down. Some quoted in the story see this as startling, but attorney Isaac Hall’s reasons for rejecting the offer seem appropriate. After all, the legal process, while not perfect, has evolved over time to include some teeth and some rights for the public, which a wholly private review would clearly lack.
The lengthy Supreme Court opinion is going to take some time to read through, though, especially for us non-lawyers trying to get a handle on the legal implications going forward.
Still no leads on the identify of the Biscuit Burglar. But we did find more evidence. This empty Milk Bones box was found in front of our neighbor’s house when we started our walk yesterday morning. Note the tear in the front of the box, although had been open at the top. I’ve had to secure the dog biscuits downstairs instead of leaving them in the garage, which was more convenient for quick departures in the early a.m.
The Superferry owners wanted to be free from the constraints of law because the law adds costs. The executive branch of the state was agreeable to this “law avoidance” [query: is shoplifting any more or less a "law avoidance"] Many in the legislative branch are complicit in the executive branch’s law avoidance scheme. The judiciary and the public are not. The superferry [query: What's so super about it anyway?] owners gambled, thought the house [the executive branch and many of the legislative branch] would fix the table. Law enforcement [the judicial branch] and the “posse” [the enraged citizenry] showed up with a rope and hung the outlaws.
All the superferry owners had to do was play it straight in the first place and not try to cheap it out by placing their avoided costs on the environment and the residents.
Cutting corners results in losses. If the “super” owners were willing to cut legal corners, one wonders what “safety” and environmental corners they actually are cutting. False in one thing, false in all things.