09-08-2008, 11:21 AM
Accepting the TMT as initially offered, without conditions or negotiation, would be unwise and bad business. For one thing, the rent money paid by the astronomy sector, currently $1 per year, needs to go up across the board, and not just for the TMT. Something more reasonable would go a long way toward funding Sen. Inouye's scholarships and/or other initiatives to advance educational and cultural causes on the Island.
It would also help if TMT offered a training program for technical support positions that would guarantee the hiring of local residents. If done in conjunction with UH-Hilo or the Community College, such a training program could become a permanent asset and money maker by attracting students from around the world once the TMT is staffed. With first use of the telescope anticipated in 2018, there is plenty of time to get such a program going, and they could even start with middle and high school age students. By diverting just 5% of their overall budget to such efforts, they could do a lot.
The TMT people have at least chosen a somewhat less prominent site on the mountain, and that stance might indicate a willingness to be more sensitive on other points. And as noted in my first post, they really need to get some verifiable economic data out front.
So I do not propose offering TMT carte blanche on their proposal. They need to be prepared to offset the tangible and intangible costs of what they plan to do. They really should have thought about a lot of this stuff way before now. If they had, they could end up doint a lot less damage control and remedial PR than they might otherwise.
Cheers,
Jerry
It would also help if TMT offered a training program for technical support positions that would guarantee the hiring of local residents. If done in conjunction with UH-Hilo or the Community College, such a training program could become a permanent asset and money maker by attracting students from around the world once the TMT is staffed. With first use of the telescope anticipated in 2018, there is plenty of time to get such a program going, and they could even start with middle and high school age students. By diverting just 5% of their overall budget to such efforts, they could do a lot.
The TMT people have at least chosen a somewhat less prominent site on the mountain, and that stance might indicate a willingness to be more sensitive on other points. And as noted in my first post, they really need to get some verifiable economic data out front.
So I do not propose offering TMT carte blanche on their proposal. They need to be prepared to offset the tangible and intangible costs of what they plan to do. They really should have thought about a lot of this stuff way before now. If they had, they could end up doint a lot less damage control and remedial PR than they might otherwise.
Cheers,
Jerry