New gut and switch HB1585 MK again, and worse

[TomK]

rainyjim - I'm not sure I follow this:

"So, Kahele did a good job of exposing why OHA gets/wants their 20% cut. Basically it's written into law. OHA gets 20% of profits derived from public land trusts (ceded lands)."

The observatories do not make profits.

[leilanidude]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK

rainyjim - I'm not sure I follow this:

"So, Kahele did a good job of exposing why OHA gets/wants their 20% cut. Basically it's written into law. OHA gets 20% of profits derived from public land trusts (ceded lands)."

The observatories do not make profits.

---

It is simple. It isn't about observatory "profit".

OHA wants more than 20% of $1 a year.

[TomK]

As I have said more than once here, the rent the observatories pay is access for UH, which amounts to several millions of dollars in operational costs every year. If the observatories have to pay 20% rent to OHA, the operational costs stay the same but each observatory has to raise a further 20% in funding and UH no longer get access to the observatories. It's lose-lose.

[Guest]

Careful "TOMK",


Slander / libel and all that.


Many people read this thread and what you WRITING.

[rainyjim]

Good evening gentlemen,

Please have a second look at what I said.

I never said anything about the observatories making profits.

I just said Kahele explained why OHA wants/gets a 20% cut.

It's because there are five purposes for a public land trust (ceded lands): (1) Support public schools and educational institutions (2) betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians (3) development of farm and home ownership (4) public improvements (5) public use.

So, OHA figures it gets 20% as 1/5 is 20%. This is law currently and there is not much we can do about it besides complain its unconstitutional because its taxing everybody to give money to one racial group - i.e. trying to change the law (which I would support changing).

You can look up ALL the provisions in HRS Chapter 171 - that defines and governs public lands, and HRS 10-13.5 - that mandates that OHA receive 20% of all funds derived from public lands trust.

Again, so there is no confusion - I don't agree with it - I just said I understand the legal basis now because Senator Kahele explained it clearly.

Further, I don't support ANY of Senator Kahele's legislation (I am unsure if HB 1767 relating to 4wd access to Mauna Kea was introduced by him, but I DO support this bill).

What's more, I deplore the use or threat of violence and have no respect for Walter Ritte.

I am clear that the observatories don't turn a profit and I have never suggested that they do, nor do I think Kahele is suggesting they do; more so I think Kahele is suggesting that we [read: a state entity] COULD charge them more money for rent as well as any intellectual property rights (patents) from discoveries made by the observatories in order to generate money - of which 20% of that could go to OHA.

I understand that this would be incredibly short sighted and cause more problems for our community than what little help would go to native Hawaiians through OHA; not to mention the incredible failures of OHA revealed in the 2018 state audit report.

I think that Kahele views himself as a representative of native Hawaiians first and foremost - more so than a representative of Hawaii residents - in that way he seems himself as acting justly.

I'm not saying that I support him, but merely pointing out that he is not evil. It is hard to step back and acknowledge that other peoples ideas and opinions are valid. I don't personally believe that 'sacred rocks' are more important than the potential knowledge the TMT or any of the telescopes could unlock, but I DO understand and accept that others feel differently than me. Does that make my opinion more valid than their opinion - there is really no answer to this and in this case it really doesn't matter because I am not in the Senate or House of Representatives. You can bet on it that I will be contacting my Representatives, but to be honest I have little faith or respect for their cognitive or moral abilities.

I hope this cleared up anyone of the cognitive dissonance created by my recent posts. I am merely trying to point out that Senator Kahele is not an EVIL person and that regardless of how this all plays out he and those that think like him will still be our neighbors when all is said and done. If the TMT is built, or if it is not built - either way - we do not want to live in a divided, hateful and distrusting community.

[TomK]

rainyjim - I was simply trying to understand the point Kahele was trying to make about taking 20% of profits when the observatories don't make profits. In addition, astronomical discoveries aren't patented, so that's a non-starter.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

If the observatories have to pay 20% rent to OHA

It seems there is a disconnect concerning how non-profits operate, and the difference between operating costs, profits, and in-kind exchanges. Yes, the observatories cost millions, even billions of dollars to build, but generally that money is from multiple sources, it's pooled from universities and other partners to reach the total amount required for the project.

Some people see dollar signs, and believe where there is money, there must be even more money. But sometimes it's simply not possible for a business, or non-profit, or volunteer organization to come up with an additional 20% for rent, or a bribe, on top of their other yearly operating costs, and the entity simply ceases to exist. Watching these gut and replace bills move through the Hawaii house and senate, that tactic appears to be their exact intention. The sponsors don't care whether they 1) receive rent or 2) raise observatory operational costs so high it will make it impossible for them to exist. They're happy with either outcome. For them it's a bizarro win-win. For the 75% of the Hawaiian people who wish to see astronomy as a viable activity in the state, it's lose-lose.

Thanks for nothing state reps and senators. That's what these bills offer. Nothing.

“Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Guest]

Mr. Rainy Jim,

Amazing summary.

Don't worry, you have never been more clear.

Others might read in what they want. Not your problem.

Really happy to read your words,
mahalo, rwr

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

mandates that OHA receive 20% of all funds derived from public lands trust.

In the case of the observatories, what exactly would that be?
In the case of activities on Mauna Kea, OHA would request their 20% of funds from where?
The only entity I can think of that generates income from operations on the mountain are the tour buses.
Or, if the Aloha Checkpoint is legitimized as an operational arm of OHA, they could charge a few dollars to visitors driving up the summit. But then, if they claim the authority to charge a toll on the access road, would they also take over road maintenece costs and liabilities?

“Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[TomK]

HOTPE,

If HB 1985 passes, then the only people who will be able to visit the summit area without paying a fee will be cultural practitioners - as long as they use a 4WD vehicle.

https://legiscan.com/HI/text/HB1985/id/1778396

"(1) A nominal fee shall be charged for all non-Hawaii residents traveling to the Hale Pohaku Visitor Center; and

(2) No privately owned vehicles shall travel to the Mauna Kea summit unless they are:

(A) Four-wheel-drive vehicles; and

(B) Used to provide access for customarily and traditionally exercised practices protected under article XII, section 7, of the Hawaii State Constitution or as otherwise provided by permit or rule;"

All other visitors will have to use a commercial shuttle service. For a fee of course.