Tent Bill (103) vetoed by Mayor Kenoi

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulW

Bob, what's the reality?

---

The reality is the bill was never going to make it into law. This entire issue was designed to create an illusion. The withdrawal of the first bill, the reintroduction by another Council Member, the unanimous vote for, and the veto was orchestrated. This is a play and they are following the script. Only which of the two transitions to the final act is being decided during this intermission. But, the final scene was decided before the new bill was introduced.

[Dave Smith]

Billy was an executive assistant like Charmaine Shigemura, Craig Kawaguchi, Bobby Command and Kevin Dayton are now.

[Rob Tucker]

Thanks Dave,

Duly noted.

[Dave Smith]

Bob, do you honestly believe the mayor had a part in this other than the veto?

[Bob Orts]

Dave, I personally believe that everyone was part of this orchestrated process.

The overriding issue is if the bill can survive a legal challenge. Based on Hawaii law, odds are it will be ruled illegal. However, this was known to everyone before the vote. The Executive Branch's legal Counsel recommended necessary changes that would enable the bill to possible survive a legal challenge. Not one item of that clear recommendation was done. Without those modifications, it is unlikely that it would survive one day as law and an injunction almost certainly would have been issued.

So I ask, why was the legal advice and recommendation completely ignored?

The first bill introduced was dead before the ink was dried. It was withdrawn due to lack of any support. Passage wasn't even a remote possibility. Suddenly the same bill is resurrected by another Council member but this time a Puna only clause was included. Now instead of almost everyone opposed, you have everyone in favor. Legal advice was to include a detailed reasoning why this applied only to Puna and make sure that the "experimental" nature is clearly defined. That was not included.

So a vote is taken, it passes. The original Councilmember has a feather in her cap for getting her baby passed. All the other Council members don't have to worry about tent city slums in their districts while playing nicy-nice to the Huns. But there are those in other districts that want tents and there are those that don't want tents. Same goes for the people of Puna.

The dilemma is the Council needs to say they passed the bill but also they need for the bill never to become law. This way nobody can blame them. So, enter stage left, the Mayor and his veto. In his veto, he is setting the stage for rejecting the bill and giving each Council member the ability to get out from any negatives about the bill.

The Council has only three options:
1. Let the bill die with the veto. They will cite the potential legal issues as their reasoning for not voting to override the veto. It’s not them not passing the bill; it’s really the legal system keeping the tents off the land.
2. Override the veto but know that the legal challenges will probably keep the bill from ever becoming law. They show support for the Huns, and stay in their good graces. Again, it’s not us, but the legal system that is keeping tents from the people.
3. Introduce a new bill that includes all districts. Since no other Council member wants ghettos in their neighborhoods and they want Puna to remain the official slum of the Big Island, this option will never happen!

This could not have been successful unless everyone already knew their parts and played it as written. They needed the legal challenge issue to be made public and that was done in the Mayor's veto message. If this was done without everyone’s involvement, there was no guarantee there would be a veto, not have resulted in passage to the level it did that elevate a certain Councilmember, make sure people knew the law could be challenged, kept the pawns in place while ensuring they never had to worry about slums in their districts, and ensure the bill would never become law.

[Dave Smith]

I see your reasoning, but believe the only conspiracy here involves the other eight members going along with Emily as long as it did not affect their home districts.

As for why the legal advice was ignored, I'd say that lies with Emily's staff. I doubt any of the other council members cared enough about the legislation to worry about any technical issues. They were probably relieved to be more or less removed from the matter.

[Frankie Stapleton]

I, too, feel this was an orchestrated action/inaction. And the mayor's veto also helps out Emily Naeole even tho' it's her bill.

It seemed to me Emily introduced the bill primarily in response to family members' needs (her brother lives in a tent and squats on Nanawale Estate parcels that do not belong to him, according to the Nanawale Community Association manager who is charged with the responsibility of getting him off the lands!) and the Hawaiian community living on Uncle Sam's lot there on the Makuu homestead properties. Hawaiian Home Lands has rules forbidding longterm camping on its property. And, yes, there were others in the community seeking legislation legalizing longterm tent living, but those mentioned above are "her people." (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

So the mayor's explanation for his veto gets everyone off the hook, including Emily as well as those other councilmembers, currently in the "minority," who voted for the bill as a way of "punishing" Puna for electing Emily!

[JerryCarr]

Methinks Frankie may have figured it out. What stuck in my mind throughout all this process was the fact that there were already quite a few people living in tents and other makeshift arrangments on a long-term basis all over Puna. There has been virtually no enforcement of whatever ordinances may prohibit such arrangements. While legalizing the practice may have prevented some construction site thefts (something I certainly agree would be good,) the County's lack of will to enforce the sanitary, setback, and other regulations attached to Emily's bill would open a Pandora's Box of nasty unintended consequences. Like Frankie, I think she was throwing a bone to some segment of her base.

[Bob Orts]

I don't know the true motivation for what was done, but I've seen the same Broadway production "How to Pass a Law That Will Never Be Law and Still Come Out Looking Good" played over and over before in political circles.

[Kapohocat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Smith...Kevin Dayton ....

---

Was he a writer for the HTH years ago?