07-26-2015, 06:06 PM
ophikao, I'll jump in....to facilitate for flyingsurfer;
You wrote in your prior post;
"They" did....for years. Decades. No one ("of decision making" stature) listened. Thus, we are where we are. "
Presumptively in your sentence "They" were the past protestors or opponents against the uses that DLNR was approving at that time. These "decision makers" who, you say, "weren't listening" we're, from flyingsurfers perspective, listening but not agreeing with the arguemets then being made.
In other words, by the laws of Hawaii, due process was followed, arguments by opponents were heard, decisions were then made, and therefore the "protectors" have no legal basis for what they are doing.
It's not correct to say no one listened. The arguments of Piscotta, et al, were heard, and the BLNR, Circuit Courts, etc didn't agree with their arguments. But they did have a significant effect in that they slowed the process down and gained meaningful concessions.
So... They listened but didn't agree.
You wrote in your prior post;
"They" did....for years. Decades. No one ("of decision making" stature) listened. Thus, we are where we are. "
Presumptively in your sentence "They" were the past protestors or opponents against the uses that DLNR was approving at that time. These "decision makers" who, you say, "weren't listening" we're, from flyingsurfers perspective, listening but not agreeing with the arguemets then being made.
In other words, by the laws of Hawaii, due process was followed, arguments by opponents were heard, decisions were then made, and therefore the "protectors" have no legal basis for what they are doing.
It's not correct to say no one listened. The arguments of Piscotta, et al, were heard, and the BLNR, Circuit Courts, etc didn't agree with their arguments. But they did have a significant effect in that they slowed the process down and gained meaningful concessions.
So... They listened but didn't agree.