Pointless thread

[kalakoa]

I apologize to everyone for enabling

I apologize for continuing to point out the obvious; it's clearly not affecting the outcome.

[dmbwest]

"I apologize for continuing to point out the obvious; it's clearly not affecting the outcome."

So why then ?

[kalakoa]

So why then ?

Same reason people rubberneck when driving past an accident.

I suppose we should all just sit quietly and wait for the State to make a decision -- they broke the process and must remediate -- even though the success or failure of TMT doesn't really affect them.

I don't know why the State is working so hard to make Hawaii completely irrelevant; this might make a better thread topic, but as nobody really knows what's going on (except State, and they're not telling) it would just be more speculation, almost as pointless as this thread already is.

It's really too bad Mauna Kea and the Capitol aren't on the same island.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

too bad Mauna Kea and the Capitol aren't on the same island.

Yes. The observatories on Mauna Kea have the capability to see light years distant, and billions of years into the past. Government officials in Honolulu can't see 200 miles away or 13,000 feet up.

"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives." -Annie Dillard

[kalakoa]

Government officials in Honolulu can't see 200 miles away or 13,000 feet up.

Not even for $1.4B, apparently.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Not even for $1.4B, apparently.

If it was a pCard available funds balance they'd see it.

"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives." -Annie Dillard

[kalakoa]

If it was a pCard available funds balance they'd see it.

That's actually an excellent point: State can detect the wrongdoings of others, but never finds blame in its own failure.

[kalakoa]

DLNR chair (not board) to select the next hearings officer:

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/news/loca...gs-officer

In his ruling, Nakamura is requesting the board consider the following questions:Since the permit no longer exists, should consent for the sublease be withdrawn?

If the sublease remains in place pending the outcome of the contested case, is the board again placing the "cart before the horse?"

Should parties in the contested case for the land use permit be given similar standing regarding the sublease?

How will the board fulfill its "affirmative duty to fill the state's constitutional obligations" in absence of a contested case for the sublease?

I suggest that by not deciding these points, the Court has left the way open for future challenges, perhaps that is exactly the intent.