Superferry shut down for good

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bystander

Um...I don't think so. The E in EIS stands for ENVIRONMENTAL. This is not a cost/benefit type of analysis. The negative impact on the community and commerce have nothing to do with the natural environment.

---

Ahh actually, Title 11 Chapter 200 HAR, requires the economic impact and a whole bunch more that is not "E" enviromental. It also requires employment figures. It requires the estimated annual economic return to the County and State. Estimated payroll. It requires cost analysis and where that return will go. What public facilities will be used to support the project. Power consumption. Etc., etc.

[bystander]

What you say may be true but is it not an analysis of the environmental or economic impact the superferry will have and not the impact of not having it?

http://luc.state.hi.us/docs/hrs_343.pdf
http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Docu...1-FAQs.pdf

[carmel123]

Way to go Hawaii - you finally get something right and then some idiot figure out how to screw up a good deal.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bystander

What you say may be true but is it not an analysis of the environmental or economic impact the superferry will have and not the impact of not having it?

---

Yes and no. An EIS is normally prepared for a project that is not operating. Example, the EIS for the TMT talks about the potential economic impact, the potential job creation, the potential this and that and the potential impact on environmental.... In the case of the HSF, the operation was in operation and all the guessing in many areas is now known. So they don't talk potentials, they can talk actuals. This presents a unique problem that in most EIS many people can challenge the results and assumptions, but the HSF already has hard data so it's very hard to challenge what is now known.

As for HRS 343, that is the state law that governs the requirement for an EIS, but HAR spells out all the details of the EIS, what, when, how, who, where, include this, don't include that, what criteria to use on presenting this or that, etc.

As for the FAQ, that was written a year ago based on Act 2 and any alterations from HRS 343, but since Act 2 is now invalid, any alterations to 343 are also invalid and don't apply. So if Act 2 created an expedited EIS that left out some items, the court ruling basically threw those changes out as well.

Although I personally favor the Superferry, if the courts said Act 2 was unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

[dakine]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fireant

Way to go Hawaii - you finally get something right and then some idiot figure out how to screw up a good deal.

---

say what? are you serious? 'get something right'? as in break the law so some special treatment can be given to one company.. is that what you refer to as 'right'? if so you're the idiot! (your word, not mine). My god man, this whole fiasco is purely a product of our elected officials breaking the law, and being taken to task for doing so. And now all those in favor of the superferry are making all sorts of noise rather than admitting to the fact that our elected officials act as if they are above the law and should be accountable for doing so.

[alfastatik]

This project is essential for Stryker transport first and foremost. Kudos to those that see this as the real issue. If this keeps Strykers off Big I. good riddance.

[Bob Orts]

Putting aside the emotions of the case and getting down to the basics - What happened?

1. The SuperFerry wanted to operate between Oahu and Maui. That required some improvements to the harbor by and funded by the State. The law requires an EIS for that type of improvement and operation.
2. The State in interpreting the law felt that a provision in the law allowed for the improvements and operation without an EIS because of the way the law was written. They also believed the law allowed for continued operation.
3. People with standing sued claiming the law did require an EIS. The case ended up before the HI Supreme Court.
4. The HI Supreme Court as the interpreter of the laws, ruled that although the wording did create the loophole the State claimed, the same law didn't allow the State to use that loophole because another section contradicted the section with the loophole. That contradictory section required an exemption be spelled out in law (which it wasn't), not just because they felt it shouldn't apply to them. So the State and the SuperFerry needed to conduct an EIS.
5. The governor and legislators passed a law to write that exemption into law and modify another section of the law to create special requirements. In writing the exemption, they so narrowly defined the operation that it raised a legal question.
6. People with standing sued.
7. Again the HI Supreme Court as the interpreter of the laws, ruled that in so passing the law, the Act itself violated the State’s Constitution because it created a party of one. Thus the Act was unconstitutional and is void. The State and SuperFerry needed to conduct an EIS as outlined in laws in keeping with the courts original ruling.

Now, understand the HI Supreme Court was not ruling on the SuperFerry or environmental issues, or economic issues, or anything else that is being discussed. They first ruled on when an EIS (not the SuperFerry) is required under state law, and they now ruled if a specifically worded legislation (not the SuperFerry) violated the state constitution. In both rulings it was about the law, not the subject of who.

[Obie]

This project is essential for Stryker transport first and foremost. Kudos to those that see this as the real issue. If this keeps Strykers off Big I. good riddance.

Wrong !

The army may just decide to have the Airforce haul them over on C-17's and then drive through Hilo and up over the Saddle road.

Getting rid of the superferry just eliminates another transportation option.

It's a shame we can never have any progress in this state !!


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/ap...de_041508/

[gtill]

What is so bad about the stryker?

[Beachboy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KathyH

You guys who think it's all a few extreme environmentalists are seriously buying into the propaganda of the Superferry backers. The Superferry was funded by big money associated with the defense industry, not public transportation enthusiasts. Stryker transportation, the key element that was open at first, but then they hid it and denied it.

Big money bought off the Governor and key people to railroad it through, and some of the people said we're not taking this kind of government any more, that essentially takes bribe money to favor projects, whether the bribe is cash or political favor in Washington.

The same people here who are against the opposition because it is "treehugger" are also against government that breaks the law and ignores the people, so if you really looked into why it was fought you might be surprised.

The whales were a valid issue, and one of the only weapons to stop the juggernaut, but the main issue was that our governor ignored our constitution. And AS USUAL in Hawai'i they wave the jobs and other things desirable to some people to get them to feel that the project should have support and is needed whether or not it is illegal.

As long as the people here keep favoring bad development and ill conceived projects just because some jobs are promised, our government's corruption will just use us as willing patsies to support their back room deals.

Wake up, Hawai'i has a corrupt leadership and has had for generations, and defeating the Superferry is a message to the power bloc to play by the constitution.

---

right on KathyH!!! All I here is a bunch of whiners complaining about it being halted. It was doomed the day it arrived in the islands. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was because of Linda Dingle's support of it here in Hawaii. It wasn't just environmentalist who opposed this "eye sore", but long time locals who use the ocean for either recreation , or food supply. It appears the biggest supporter[s] of this beast is mostly "newbies". Folks fairly new to paradise, and looking for a cheaper mode of transportation. These are folks that have no concern for the local environment. It's that way only because these newer residents to Hawaii don't fully grasp our local island environment, or at least that's how I see it.

From the outset I was totally 100% against the 'Star Ferry'. But during this past year as our local economy tanked, I started to soften my stand about it. I'm actually happy that that it has fallen to the wayside! I seriously doubt the 'Star Ferry' will ever return to service in our islands.

-----------

Let's get together and over grow the government!!!!