TMT groundbreaking - live

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

It's the law.

Was OHA formed to facilitate the five points listed? If not, who is?

I know Kamehameha Schools is private and non-profit institution, but they seem to help provide for some Hawaiian education in their private schools.

But what about OHA? Are they the agency in charge of oversight for education and the land resources under their management? It so, would their stewardship be considered acceptable by the average Hawaiian citizen?

[rainyjim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by snorkle

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" Actually, rainyjim, there is. At my children's school, since 80% of the children fall under being "at risk", All the kids are offered a free lunch. I know..., disgusting; But they don't have access to much STEM curricula or equipment. Makes it more difficult to break the cycle of poverty.

---

Yeah, as someone already pointed out - it's not free - someone else is paying for it ... Which will eventually affect you down the line - whether or not you can see that now.

It's this lack of foresight and understanding of money, society, politics, and the process therein that leads many a "Haole" to turn a deaf ear to the demands of protesters.

I'm not saying that's right - just pointing out - impatience at having to reeducate people on basic principles of our society and government that they should have learned in school and are more than free to avail themselves of before trying to participate in a discussion involving those aforementioned aspects.

I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs snorkle - I am trying to get you to understand where the other side is coming from.

Listening to the other side and understanding where they are coming from - what they think - and why they think that - that's the first step in a discussion - especially one as polarized as this topic.

I hope that we can try and initiate that kind of discussion instead of a bland your on this side of the fence so your my enemy scenario.

[PunaMauka2]

ironyak, your psuedo-objective rationality awash in fawning adulation is becoming amusing.

[rainyjim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by snorkle

rainyjim asks;
" Why does anyone feel entitled to a handout from the telescope in the first place?"


It's the law.

At the time of annexation, the former Crown lands were given ("ceded") to the US Federal Government. When Hawai#699;i became a U.S. state, the lands were transferred to the state. The federal act authorizing the transfer required that the lands be held in trust and that revenue from the land be used for five purposes: (These excerpts actually came from the Statehood Act 1959)

1. Support of public education
2. Betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 (The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 1920 did not exist in 1893)
3. Development of farm and home ownership
4. Public improvements
5. Provision of lands for public use

---

So, we are delving into the land of lawyers at this point snorkle. But as you brought it up...

I recognize the validity of what you have linked - quoted above - however I interpret this differently than you (apparently?).

I interpret the above not to equating the TMT is to generate revenue - but that any revenue generated on said land mentioned above is to be used for the numbered points above.

So, there is no requirement that use of the land directly contribute to society via revenue...however, in the event that the TMT did generate revenue it would seem appropriate that the details above were observed.

I think the TMT, and indeed all of the observatories, contributes enormously to the community in multiple ways. I hesitate to list them because of my lack of familiarity with the observatories as compared to others that post on this site (Tom) but nonetheless I will list a few.

There's now a nice road for all of us residents and yes tourists (cha ching) to use to get to the summit.

There's a huge trickle down effect of hosting some of the most advanced scientific communities in the world - astronomers. They are paid well and they spend a lot of money here - there's no avoiding it - from rent, to restaurants, groceries, and gas etc etc

International recognition as a place of high science puts our island on the radar for things other than pakalolo and GMO/GEOthermal debacles. (A mention here for the volcanoes - can't leave those 5 out)

Funding for STEM subjects in local schools who are among the worst in the nation - some complain that it's not enough funding - to me it's better than nothing. What reasoning is behind there should be more? I've yet to hear any.

I'm sure I could go on - or rather Tom and those more knowledgeable in this area could go on. For instance try read my other thread in punatalk about UH protection of Mauna Kea (funded in part by the observatories FYI)

Anyways once again, this is not an attack but an opportunity for you to see the viewpoint of the other side. How's the old adage go? Keep your friends close - keep your enemies closer?

Anyways, Aloha mai kakou

Remember we are all neighbors and after this telescope is built we will all still have to live with each other.

[snorkle]

rainyjim says;
"I interpret the above not to equating the TMT is to generate revenue - but that any revenue generated on said land mentioned above is to be used for the numbered points above."

I respect your point jim; but the fact is.....the TMT willgenerate revenue, just as the existing Telescopes do. When are they going to be held accountable? The Win/Win solution would be for the commercial facilities, past and present, to step up and honor the terms of the original agreement.

[ironyak]

Originally posted by PunaMauka2
ironyak, your psuedo-objective rationality awash in fawning adulation is becoming amusing.

Well, I never - is that an ad hominem? And from the most unlikely of sources. How the esteemed have fallen to stoop to such tactics! (All pseudo-jesting and amusement aside, your posts on this topic seem oddly out of character IMO.)

If you are referring to my note to opihikao, her voice will be missed, not because I agree with her (we almost never do) but precisely because we don't agree in ways that are both challenging and eye-opening. Also, she tends to raise both the mood and standards of the conversations she takes part in (as she's done here), which is clearly much needed of late.

We have lost many valuable members recently, often because of ugly behavior from a small few. This lack of viewpoints and participation is a real loss to us all and something I think we should all consider how to prevent and remedy.

If you are referring to my response to you and rainyjim, perhaps you can tackle the substance of what I said? How do you not see the Mauna Kea issue as an example of the tradition of principled protest?

In reviewing this thread I feel I've laid criticisms on both sides of the issue, both against those who I do hold in respect, and those who it is best not to even acknowledge (Dawn take you all! - I read somewhere that should work

Not to fawn, but given what appears to be a keen intellect you've better demonstrated elsewhere, I am honestly interested in your views and welcome any response either here or by email. Cheers!

[TomK]

dakine,

All sorts of documents including drawings and financial statements regarding the TMT can be found here:

http://www.tmt.org/documents

[leilanidude]

the TMT willgenerate revenue, just as the existing Telescopes do. When are they going to be held accountable? The Win/Win solution would be for the commercial facilities, past and present, to step up and honor the terms of the original agreement.
------------
Revenue. That really should be defined because revenue does not equal profits. The telescopes get paid "rent" from various institutions and governments for their use, but I rather doubt that any of them are actually making a profit. Most of the scopes seem to be owned in whole or part by governments and were never designed or thought of, as a profit making entity.

[TomK]

None of the observatories make profits. They are non-profit organisations. The partners for each pay the operating and any development costs, no "rent" is charged as such.

I think people get confused because they hear things like "it costs $30,000 a night to run telescope X", but that is simply the operating cost of the telescope divided by 365. It's not an additional charge the observer has to pay on top of the regular operating cost.

[TomK]

Just correct another piece of misinformation above, the observatories do not pressure wash their domes.