+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Puna Politics (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 (/showthread.php?tid=10099)
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - Rob Tucker - 01-16-2013
I stand corrected on that content. Must need my reading glasses.
Too bad HPP was not able to take advantage of the best opportunity to have a voice at the table. James Weatherford
did his best to prevent that. That $1.5 million in study money was the best chance to weigh in without Shipman
standing on the scales.
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - james weatherford - 01-16-2013
Rob,
Here you go again telling lies.
Anyone looking to do business with you should be aware that you have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth means nothing to you and you are quite prepared to lie to meet your own ends.
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - Rob Tucker - 01-16-2013
Ah James...
Perhaps you could clarify what ends of mine I am trying to achieve. You with the PhD. Can't you speak clearly?
And what lie have I told? Inform us or shut up.
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - kalakoa - 01-16-2013
Here we go again.
Personally, I could care less about the mudslinging, I just want some facts that explain the obvious anti-Puna prejudice. Please, no fantastic stories about "seeking input from the community about its needs", this "process" is demonstrably a sham (PCDP anyone?).
Alternately, if County doesn't want to have anything to do with Puna, fine -- but they have to leave us "all the way alone", starting with a blanket exemption on building permits.
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - Rob Tucker - 01-16-2013
Yeah Kalakoa, In the end it seems the PCDP was a sham.... at least on the CoH side of things. Hawaii is still seriously locked in the paternalism of the plantation. You'd think with the failure of the plantation system they'd be over it but not true.
The whole mentality of the county toward Puna is that they don't quite know what to do about the tens of thousands living here now. They ignore Puna as best they can and are largely successful... they will continue to be successful as long as Puna is at odds with itself. So the PCDP was an opportunity for Puna to get organized within itself and for it's own purposes.
My beef with Weataherford is that I am willing to accept and promote the determinations of the Punatics in the PCDP and Weatherford wants to undo it. At least as far as PMAR is concerned. So I have James lumped together with Kenoi, Yoshimoto and Shipman. I've always been very upfront with my opinions and purposes.
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - csgray - 01-16-2013
I really don't care about water under the bridge in terms of the cronyism of Big Island politics, and who did what. Although, James Weatherford was not an elected official and I don't see how he killed anything as just one volunteer on the various boards he has served on. My concern is with the present and the future of transportation for Puna. We need a PMAR, I think virtually everyone in Puna agrees with that, the question is how to build it while doing the least possible damage to the lives of all the people who already live in the subdivisions that will be "connected" or "bisected" by the new road (depending on your perspective.) The part of me that still believes in fairness and equity is just offended by the power of one family to determine the fate of an entire district on an issue as important as the PMAR.
Anyone who believes that the PMAR will go anywhere except exactly where the Shipman interests want it is fooling themselves.
Carol
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - Rob Tucker - 01-16-2013
Well then Carol, sit back and watch nothing happen.
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - punaticbychoice - 01-16-2013
Rob:
Yes, with Shipman utilizing nimbyists.
Maybe clogged roads will overcome that.
What will happen when in the face of an
oncoming disaster when we can't get out of Puna Makai
in a safe and timely fashion- or at all?
This is and will be a classic case of "what were
they thinking of?"[?]
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - james weatherford - 01-16-2013
Rob,
You lied when you said I "sabotaged" PCDP.
You lied when you sad I kept HPP from having a voice.
Your ends? Perhaps just to make personal attacks. Like any bully, only you seem to know.
RE: Hwy 130 lane expansion mid-2013 - JerryCarr - 01-16-2013
I suggest doing a search for PMAR here on Punaweb, and you will get a vast array of opinions and information. I'm not going to go over all of it for the umpteenth time when it's obvious most people have made up their minds.
I feel, however, that I need to say that HPP's Committee on PMAR was made up of five persons of diverse opinions, and James Weatherford as an individual did not sabotage anything. (And in case you're wondering, I haven't supported James' recent political aspirations, so I'm not a left over campaign shill.) I was the committee chairman, and there was a consensus among us that the Planning Department was neither truly interested in listening to us nor interested in scoping (defining the project) in advance of an EIS. That's why we insisted on a strategic reset of the process, which is in progress. We have never officially said "no way, never" to PMAR. We await the Planning Department's next move.