The Mauna Kea Plan

[Obie]

"Where were "the" Hawaiians when Safeway+Target "desecrated" 13 acres of prime Hilo real estate?"

Over at Walmart clogging up the aisles.

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalakoa

[i]
I refer to this as the "sacred surcharge", but then people think I have a "bad attitude".

Where were "the" Hawaiians when Safeway+Target "desecrated" 13 acres of prime Hilo real estate?

---

Simple answer to that: at the front of the line...

Safeway and Target sit on DHHL land; the Legislature doesn't provide funding at a level that allows them to develop infrastructure on their lands at an adequate rate; DHHL leases some of their lands to provide income that can be used for that purpose (and I have no problem with that - the DLNR could do a tremendously better job leasing some of their land to generate funds for the State as well, but are too incompetent and indifferent to make that happen).

You've heard of situational ethics? This is situational sacredness: if I no get paid, this is sacred lands, brah, no can... I get paid, maybe not so sacred... (cf. ethnic extortion).

[kalakoa]

Safeway and Target sit on DHHL land; the Legislature doesn't provide funding at a level that allows them to develop infrastructure

The larger issue becomes: why is the State funding DHHL infrastructure in the first place?

Neither State nor County fund infrastructure for the vast "private" subdivisions, and people are managing to live there just fine. Other ethnicities get a subsidy? How is that fair?

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalakoa

Safeway and Target sit on DHHL land; the Legislature doesn't provide funding at a level that allows them to develop infrastructure

The larger issue becomes: why is the State funding DHHL infrastructure in the first place?

Neither State nor County fund infrastructure for the vast "private" subdivisions, and people are managing to live there just fine. Other ethnicities get a subsidy? How is that fair?

---

Define "Fair"...

It was a Federal commitment made nearly 100 years ago - based on ethics and attitudes (politics) that existed at the time. No point in debating their validity today - an entitlement given is a perpetual obligation until it is fulfilled. My own attitude is that it's best not to start reneging on those prior commitments because you don't know where that road leads...

As an example: why all the angst over the protestors blocking the road? Maybe, because the State government has laws that entitle public roads to be used by all; that State laws ensure that everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law; etc.

Unfortunately, in recent times, our political system is in a perpetual battle to offer entitlements as a means of getting elected, whether those entitlements can be fulfilled over the long term without seriously damaging the broader community.

[kalakoa]

an entitlement given is a perpetual obligation until it is fulfilled

The agency tasked with fullfilling that entitlement has failed to do so. That's why it's so important to retaliate against an outside third party and the public in general.

the State government has laws that entitle public roads to be used by all

I doubt that "by all (the public)" was intended to include "to the exclusion of other members (of the public)". Case in point: protestors blocking construction equipment at Sherwood were promptly arrested until the blockade was cleared. Are they less "the public" and therefore not "entitled"?

Not that these issues are relevant unless/until the State decides to take action, up to and including a decision against taking further action.