11-15-2010, 09:19 AM
Somewhat sorry to see the discussion focused so much on an individual, Bill Walter, but he has certainly, and probably necessarily from his family's estate's point of view, put himself into the public spotlight. This is a little bit of history from my brief involvement with him and some observations from my experience.
I worked with Bill on the Growth Management subcommittee of the PCDP. I found him to be a good listener with a welcome quality of reasonableness in his statements. From many discussions in the meetings, I believe that his values are largely rooted in his family's history in Puna as well as his mainland experiences. Several times he expressed frustration at the effects of the increasing complexity and regulation on business enterprises in Puna. Many times he expressed his desire to do the pono thing for Puna, commonly relating what Shipman has done in the past.
But beyond my perceptions of his values (and I am not a mind reader), I also observed his approach to problems and the concepts he expressed to deal with them. I have also kept track of Shipman's actions subsequent to the PCDP being turned over to the Action Committee. From all this my conclusion is that Mr. Walter's public actions are guided primarily, if not exclusively, by the needs of high-end capital management. Basically he is a developer, the developer of his family's estate.
Having worked in professional and management positions in several high tech companies, including a couple of venture capital-funded organizations, the language and positions are very familiar. Believe me, the average small businessperson or worker does not converse in the terms or concepts that Bill Walter does. But people who manage large sums of money for profit do. For instance, the Shipman Estates investment into "maintaining the plantation era look" can be interpreted in venture capital terms as a good investment in the future of a development. For the marginal value achieved, product polish can be an important increment to the bottom line and can often be one of the signature symbols of the corporation.
Possibly Bill and Shipman Estates will all do the right things in concert with the PCDP principles that we all signed off on. However, Shipman Estates intervention in the Bill 194 process and the particular alterations and deletions requested, beyond the typos and small ambiguities, indicate to me that is possibly not the case.
In the context of Puna's changes going into the future, Bill Walter and Shipman Estates should be viewed, in my opinion, as simply developers, no different than other developers, whatever their values as individuals. They are subject to the same financial imperatives, including performance, that other developers are subject to. Perhaps Shipman is closer to the 'aina than most mainland developers, but I think we must regard their actions and directions as being in the service of capital accumulation, like any developer. Many honorable principles die at the foot of the alter of capital accumulation.
I worked with Bill on the Growth Management subcommittee of the PCDP. I found him to be a good listener with a welcome quality of reasonableness in his statements. From many discussions in the meetings, I believe that his values are largely rooted in his family's history in Puna as well as his mainland experiences. Several times he expressed frustration at the effects of the increasing complexity and regulation on business enterprises in Puna. Many times he expressed his desire to do the pono thing for Puna, commonly relating what Shipman has done in the past.
But beyond my perceptions of his values (and I am not a mind reader), I also observed his approach to problems and the concepts he expressed to deal with them. I have also kept track of Shipman's actions subsequent to the PCDP being turned over to the Action Committee. From all this my conclusion is that Mr. Walter's public actions are guided primarily, if not exclusively, by the needs of high-end capital management. Basically he is a developer, the developer of his family's estate.
Having worked in professional and management positions in several high tech companies, including a couple of venture capital-funded organizations, the language and positions are very familiar. Believe me, the average small businessperson or worker does not converse in the terms or concepts that Bill Walter does. But people who manage large sums of money for profit do. For instance, the Shipman Estates investment into "maintaining the plantation era look" can be interpreted in venture capital terms as a good investment in the future of a development. For the marginal value achieved, product polish can be an important increment to the bottom line and can often be one of the signature symbols of the corporation.
Possibly Bill and Shipman Estates will all do the right things in concert with the PCDP principles that we all signed off on. However, Shipman Estates intervention in the Bill 194 process and the particular alterations and deletions requested, beyond the typos and small ambiguities, indicate to me that is possibly not the case.
In the context of Puna's changes going into the future, Bill Walter and Shipman Estates should be viewed, in my opinion, as simply developers, no different than other developers, whatever their values as individuals. They are subject to the same financial imperatives, including performance, that other developers are subject to. Perhaps Shipman is closer to the 'aina than most mainland developers, but I think we must regard their actions and directions as being in the service of capital accumulation, like any developer. Many honorable principles die at the foot of the alter of capital accumulation.