i L i n d . n e t

It’s by bye, Times Select. News junkies got something to cheer about yesterday when the New York Times announced it is dropped its fee for selected editorial content, including most of its archives and popular columnists. But will those of us who paid up front get refunds?

Congressman Neil Abercrombie was a featured guest on Andy Bumatai’s NightTime in KFVE last night. Neil showed up with a copy of his decade old novel, “Blood of Patriots“, commenting that when you’re on television, it seems that you’re supposed to pitch a book.

In their banter, Neil commented on how people in Washington love Hawaii and how the gift of a box of chocolate macadamia nut candy can help get things done. Bumatai quipped: “Maybe two boxes can get us out of Iraq.”

A Star-Bulletin legal advice column gave some bad advice today regarding pets in condominiums. The question is what are a pet owner’s rights when a condominium changes its rules to limit or prohibit pets. Are existing pets “grandfathered”?

The answer, apparently provided by the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii, states:

Generally, it’s up to the condo association to implement the rules and guidelines regarding grandfathering. Some condo associations allow owners to replace an animal that has been grandfathered under previously existing rules. Others do not.

Not so fast. Actually, state law does appear to grandfather existing pets when the rules change. Here’s part of Section 514B-145 Hawaii Revised Statutes:

[§514B-156] Pets. (a) Any unit owner who keeps a pet in the owner’s unit pursuant to a provision in the bylaws which allows owners to keep pets or in the absence of any provision in the bylaws to the contrary, upon the death of the animal, may replace the animal with another and continue to do so for as long as the owner continues to reside in the owner’s unit or another unit subject to the same bylaws.
(b) Any unit owner who is keeping a pet pursuant to subsection (a), as of the effective date of an amendment to the bylaws which prohibits owners from keeping pets in their units, shall not be subject to the prohibition but shall be entitled to keep the pet and acquire new pets as provided in subsection (a).

So pet owners, don’t give up your rights.

Isn’t that interesting? After two men filed objections to a state Department of Transportation request to award the contract for the Superferry environmental assessment without competitive bidding, DOT withdrew the request. The request was withdrawn by DOT on September 14, 2007, according to the State Procurement Office (scroll to the bottom of the file). The process would have been put on hold anyway while state officials considered the object and any appeals of their initial decision, a process that could take a considerable period.

I went looking yesterday for more Superferry primary materials yesterday afternoon and found the resolutions passed by Hawaii County and Maui County calling for an environmental impact statement for the Superferry. I haven’t found the Kauai County reso yet, but you’ll get the flavor from these two. Hawaii County renewed its concerns with a second resolution late last year opposing the start of ferry service until economic, social, and environmental issues are addressed. I have to plug Honolulu’s document system, which made it simple to dig through several years city paperwork for items relating to the Superferry.

Maui County also has a transcript of testimony presented at a July 2006 meeting on the Superferry, which gives a good unedited look at the range of concerns being raised earlier in this process.

Maui Tomorrow offers a useful listing of news stories published over the past year. I just wish the PUC files were available online.