08-21-2008, 01:27 AM
Perhaps the "chummy" atmosphere Hunter Bishop described at the forum on his blog was a reflection of the candidates' realization that the voters are tired of belligerence and tempermental outbursts as a part of our representation on the Council. I agree with Hunter that there was not a lot of difference among the group as far as environmental issues are concerned. (I think it was a shame that the main part of the forum was limited to environmental issues, but that is the sponsors' prerogative.) It's when you come down the practical nuts and bolts of getting the job done that they are either different or lacking a clear direction.
My observations of the candidates:
Ms. Stocksdale really seemed out of her league when it came to being prepared for what were largely predictable questions. She was the only one, however, to clearly state that we need to be looking at jobs and economic development in Puna instead of finding better ways to get to Hilo. Some of the other candidates should take a cue from this.
Ms. Naeole, as usual, could be counted on for comic relief, but did not present any new ideas or initiatives. She did, however, take the very large step of endorsing more geothermal power. I never thought I would hear that from her. It surprised me that Ms. Naeole was not asked more questions in an effort to get her to explain some of her gaffes and outbursts.
Mr. Joseph seems thoughtful and easy-going, but he was almost too eager to agree with the ideas of the other candidates instead of proposing anything really original of his own. He did come across as somebody who could work well with other Council members, but you have to wonder how good he would be in a tough negotiating atmosphere. Still, he has potential, and he has reconsidered the four-laning of Highway 130 and wants to try roudabouts for traffic improvement.
Mr. Gumapac stuck primarily to his resume as a member of the Kanaka Council, the origins and means of election to which are still unclear to me despite a question being asked by a member of the audience. I would have more confidence in his ability to lead if he were to broaden his points of reference for what are some decent policy positions. Mr. Gumapac lost some credibility with me for the "feel good" proposal to build light rail from Puna to Hilo. He obviously has not studied the population densities or financial resources required for light rail. We have neither.
Mr. Safarik did not come across to me as I had expected. He was thoughtful, well educated on key issues, and congenial. Since each member of the audience was only allowed one question, I was torn between asking Ms. Naeole about some of her news-story episodes and asking Mr. Safarik why we should give him another chance. I chose to query Mr Safarik. We should not fail to note that the new fire station and the improvements to Isaac Hale Park were initiated and funded during Mr. Safarik's tenure. On the other hand, nearly every influential person I know has a tale to tell of Mr. Safarik being belligerent, disdainful, or unwilling to listen. Has he really changed? I don't know, but he said all the right things that night.
So there it is. Sorry this is so long. By the way, I still haven't decided for whom I will vote. Any more Council forums coming up?
Cheers,
Jerry
My observations of the candidates:
Ms. Stocksdale really seemed out of her league when it came to being prepared for what were largely predictable questions. She was the only one, however, to clearly state that we need to be looking at jobs and economic development in Puna instead of finding better ways to get to Hilo. Some of the other candidates should take a cue from this.
Ms. Naeole, as usual, could be counted on for comic relief, but did not present any new ideas or initiatives. She did, however, take the very large step of endorsing more geothermal power. I never thought I would hear that from her. It surprised me that Ms. Naeole was not asked more questions in an effort to get her to explain some of her gaffes and outbursts.
Mr. Joseph seems thoughtful and easy-going, but he was almost too eager to agree with the ideas of the other candidates instead of proposing anything really original of his own. He did come across as somebody who could work well with other Council members, but you have to wonder how good he would be in a tough negotiating atmosphere. Still, he has potential, and he has reconsidered the four-laning of Highway 130 and wants to try roudabouts for traffic improvement.
Mr. Gumapac stuck primarily to his resume as a member of the Kanaka Council, the origins and means of election to which are still unclear to me despite a question being asked by a member of the audience. I would have more confidence in his ability to lead if he were to broaden his points of reference for what are some decent policy positions. Mr. Gumapac lost some credibility with me for the "feel good" proposal to build light rail from Puna to Hilo. He obviously has not studied the population densities or financial resources required for light rail. We have neither.
Mr. Safarik did not come across to me as I had expected. He was thoughtful, well educated on key issues, and congenial. Since each member of the audience was only allowed one question, I was torn between asking Ms. Naeole about some of her news-story episodes and asking Mr. Safarik why we should give him another chance. I chose to query Mr Safarik. We should not fail to note that the new fire station and the improvements to Isaac Hale Park were initiated and funded during Mr. Safarik's tenure. On the other hand, nearly every influential person I know has a tale to tell of Mr. Safarik being belligerent, disdainful, or unwilling to listen. Has he really changed? I don't know, but he said all the right things that night.
So there it is. Sorry this is so long. By the way, I still haven't decided for whom I will vote. Any more Council forums coming up?
Cheers,
Jerry