+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access (/showthread.php?tid=16163)
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - opihikao - 07-11-2015
For reference to this current debate, reading the Hawai'i State Constitution, Article 12; Section 7, re: Cultural rights. Then, reading Chapter 171-6 / Sub-section 15; paragraph 3.
Additionally, Act 132, passed in 2009, is current law (aka known as the University Autonomy Bill). Clear parameters have been laid out, utilizing the words "shall" not "should".
On the Federal level, there is case history and precedent set when Kaho'olawe was the issue. The Federal Government ordered 24 hour access, 7-10 days a week per month, via the cycle of the full moon, along with full military escort to Kaho'olawe, ruling against the petitioner (military). Our Aunty Emma DeFries was Kahunanui at the time, and related her position to the Feds. They listened to her, and others.
Many will request Contested Case Hearing(s), which is allowed by U.S. law, if filed within ten (10) days. The reading referenced above will clearly dictate the law, and at least a couple of the BLNR board members will surely understand the legal jargon. The current AG really disappoints in his presentation; came off as unsure, and made a couple misstatements right at the beginning of his dissertation. Nerves abound.
The BLNR has opened up the biggest can of ugly worms, and they're all going to crawl on the floor around their feet on the way to Ige's office. Further, this action will only take this confrontation to the next level, which will not benefit anyone. No one.
My hope is this ruling will be overturned, and cooler heads prevail, and both sides continue to work towards peaceful resolution.
Our ohana is so torn about this, on both sides, it begs the question of what is truly "right"? As the anger rises, and the incredible restraint shown on both sides begins to wane, then what?
All who are not personally connected with this, I would ask your patience, as the confrontation will occur sooner than later with this ruling, if the rules are enforced. Unless those who have common decency, and reasonable thinking step forward (again, on both sides), this is going to do irreparable damage to our communities, and our State.
Pu'uwai (heart) is very heavy.
JMO.
ETA: For clarity/typo
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - lo-ka-hi - 07-11-2015
I don't see why there can't be a compromise. There are telescopes to be decommissioned and the biggest one ever to be built. Okay, so why not wait and built TMT on the footprint of the first telescope to be decommissioned instead of disturbing another part of this pristine mountain, the northern plateau.
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - HereOnThePrimalEdge - 07-11-2015
The northern plateau is one of the least visible areas near the summit. The TMT is larger and taller than the other telescopes, but from that location it will only be seen from 14% of the island, Hamakua area.
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - lo-ka-hi - 07-11-2015
The incentive is that the land is be restored after decommissioning, how that will be done which each telescope having underground foundations and tanks is an issue itself. Hence my suggestion of a compromise to build where 1 or 2 if needed decommissioned telescopes once stood.
So if it's not good for you - what's your suggestion for a compromise?
(I would love to hear other people's ideas too!!!)
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - TomK - 07-11-2015
1) None of the current observatories have large enough footprints to accommodate the TMT (except, perhaps the SMA);
2) The Mauna Kea Master plan does not allow a new observatory to be built on the site of a decommissioned observatory.
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - lo-ka-hi - 07-11-2015
Well, even a master plan can be altered if reasons for that arise (I don't know who made the master plan and who can change it, but it can be changed if change is warranted).
Okay, for the sake of compromise: 2 telescopes, that are side by side thus providing enough room for TMT, are decommissioned.
Any other ideas for a compromise, for a peaceful resolution?
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - MarkP - 07-11-2015
The protesters have been quite clear that they don't want a compromise. Their actions surely don't suggest that compromise is on their mind. We may just have to fall back on the rule of law and build the thing as provided for by the lengthy permit approval process.
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - PunaMauka2 - 07-11-2015
compromise sounds so fair and diplomatic on the surface of it.
when does "compromise" become closer to extortion?
one good indication may be when those who claim to be offering a compromise are in the process acting outside the law, let alone an extremely lengthy permitting process.
-------------------------------------
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - TomK - 07-11-2015
Lo-ka-hi,
The master plan was already a compromise, the idea being that in the future, as telescopes decommission, new ones simply wouldn't be built in their place. Your compromise would have UH and the observatories going back on their word and not carrying out clear promises and legal agreements they have made. That just isn't going to happen given the current political climate.
In addition, even if two neighboring observatories decommissioned on the summit ridge, I still can't see how that would make space for the TMT, plus then it becomes visible from just about anywhere on the island, something the TMT have tried hard to prevent.
The only spot I can think of, other than the current site, is the area surrounding the CSO and the JCMT, but I would need to see what ancient sites would need to be destroyed if the TMT were built there. In addition, it is not a good spot for optical/IR telescopes, that's why none are down in submillimiter valley.
Please, this is not simple, and I'm only touching on the complications. What about agreements already in place with other countries and organizations for instance?
RE: Potential restrictions to Mauna Kea access - opihikao - 07-11-2015
SMFH (Again). Promises made must be kept. Promises made have not been kept to date in total, admitted by Ige himself. Shameful (hilahila).[
!]Need to take a break from this BS, it's overwhelming, and at the end of the day, where do we stand?
In conflict. How freaking sad. Heart is sore. Our ohana will make kupuna proud; that is our charge.
Hui hou, malama.
JMO.
P.S. PW has turned into a real bottom feeder forum. Apologies to Mr. Tucker, who I have to utmost respect for. I shudder to think of the posts forthcoming when Tutu Pele continues her travels. E Pele E. Noho nani mai.