10-19-2008, 07:19 AM
While there's no good reason for me to keep making the same points when they are constantly being misconstrued and inconvenient facts are ignored, I'll try one more time.
However, I do apologize for my past yelling (all caps), which you can chalk up to my reaction to being ganged up on.
Again, it's not the amount of developer and special interest money being taken by Pilago, it's that he said time and time again he would/did not take them. He said it at every public appearance. It was prominent on his campaign web site. It led off the television commercial he ran frequently. It was his No. 1 campaign theme. So if it's "absolutist" for me to think violating that core promise is very wrong, so be it.
Rob, let's get back to the real world you were previously talking about. Do donation checks have to come with "special interest" or "developer" written on them? In your mind, are campaigns that free from responsibility? The Pilagos have admitted (in Hunter's Thursday blog post) that they knew the recipients well (in her post Mrs. Pilago apparently forgot to mention the two donors who are actual developers, not just related to development), so it wasn't merely a matter of identification. And then you return to the old standby Ð Kenoi took more. Talk about absolutist.
And how do you know Kenoi called up the "Big Boys" and asked for money? Do you have proof of that? Lacking that, why is it ok for you to make baseless acccusations while I get excoriated for a contention that everyone (now) admits is true? Isn't that disingenuous?
This next statement of yours can only be described as pure fantasy:
"There is no history here of Angel soliciting or accepting developer money. None."
All I can say is, Mr. Pilago admits he took it, in the past and in the current campaign. Mrs. Pilago (the campaign treasurer) admits it. Do you think if you say it often enough people will begin to believe it? Or have you now adopted Damon's practice of saying whatever just to get a rise out of someone? (As I recall, he was booted temporarily from Punaweb for a while for just that.) And you also conveniently keep ignoring the special interest money he has taken Ð that he said he wouldn't.
And your next comment:
"He has actually returned checks when they arrived and were recognized as special interest money."
Again, rather than parroting the campaign, how about actually providing some proof? All indications are that he has taken everything offered, even a measly $250 from a political action committee. So let's back up that talk.
I realize you and some of the other diehard Pilago fans have not been on the island a long time, which means you bring to this discussion a somewhat limited perspective. Yes, Kenoi has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. So did Lorraine Inouye. So did every other major mayoral candidate before them, except for Harry Kim who was so well known and respected he didn't need any money to get elected. But he is the sole exception in the history of the island.
The reality is, businesses give money to the candidate they think will win. Many, many individuals also gave to Kenoi, yet they are painted with the same broad brush you and others use to condemn the business donors for supporting who you claim is a tainted candidate. Undoubtedly, businesses expect to be recognized for their donation and some are hoping for preferential treatment. But since Kenoi doesn't have a background in elected office, which is pointed out incessantly, there is no track record of such impropriety to cite. So unless you have evidence of some kind of quid pro quo by Kenoi, let's recognize such statements for what they are: campaign rhetoric.
Is it a perfect system? No. But have business and development on the Big Island been so different in the past eight years, under a mayor who took no corporate money? Not in my opinion, which to me means the system isn't quite the bugaboo that Pilago supporters keep making it out to be.
Meanwhile, we do know there was quid pro quo by Pilago at Kohanaiki. About now, someone will bring up what Janice Palma-Glennie wrote in Hunter's blog about that development:
"Without Angel's leadership, 1500 hotel rooms with a marina blasted in the pristine reef -- oil and gasline seeping into the pristine Class AA waters, petting pool for captive dolphins and probably a monorail to get guests to their hotel rooms would have been built on that land. Because of Angel's leadership and ability to unite an unbelievable amount of regular citizens to work toward hugely significant goals, a public park would not have been secured and in the works at Kohanaiki."
We'll never know if those full plans would have been implemented, but a lot of developers were coming out with pie-in-the-sky plans in those days (one was going to build six golf courses above Puako!) which were tempered or killed outright by economic realities. I do know a little about this, having covered development and government for many years, and in my opinion, with the prevailing sentiment and economy in Kona, I doubt it would have been built as planned with or without Pilago's actions. And he was far and away not the only one involved, and there are valid questions about the extent of his involvement.
We do know that for some time public shoreline parks have been mandatory Ð even at Hokulia, that bastion of elitism. What Ms. Palma-Glennie fails to mention in her piece is that the park the public did get at Kohanaiki came with 500 homes and a golf course. And the maximum of $6,000 in campaign donations from its developers to Pilago.
As I said, it's not a perfect system. But for myself, I'd rather not go with the candidate who has actually done what his supporters can only accuse his opposition of intending to do.
However, I do apologize for my past yelling (all caps), which you can chalk up to my reaction to being ganged up on.
Again, it's not the amount of developer and special interest money being taken by Pilago, it's that he said time and time again he would/did not take them. He said it at every public appearance. It was prominent on his campaign web site. It led off the television commercial he ran frequently. It was his No. 1 campaign theme. So if it's "absolutist" for me to think violating that core promise is very wrong, so be it.
Rob, let's get back to the real world you were previously talking about. Do donation checks have to come with "special interest" or "developer" written on them? In your mind, are campaigns that free from responsibility? The Pilagos have admitted (in Hunter's Thursday blog post) that they knew the recipients well (in her post Mrs. Pilago apparently forgot to mention the two donors who are actual developers, not just related to development), so it wasn't merely a matter of identification. And then you return to the old standby Ð Kenoi took more. Talk about absolutist.
And how do you know Kenoi called up the "Big Boys" and asked for money? Do you have proof of that? Lacking that, why is it ok for you to make baseless acccusations while I get excoriated for a contention that everyone (now) admits is true? Isn't that disingenuous?
This next statement of yours can only be described as pure fantasy:
"There is no history here of Angel soliciting or accepting developer money. None."
All I can say is, Mr. Pilago admits he took it, in the past and in the current campaign. Mrs. Pilago (the campaign treasurer) admits it. Do you think if you say it often enough people will begin to believe it? Or have you now adopted Damon's practice of saying whatever just to get a rise out of someone? (As I recall, he was booted temporarily from Punaweb for a while for just that.) And you also conveniently keep ignoring the special interest money he has taken Ð that he said he wouldn't.
And your next comment:
"He has actually returned checks when they arrived and were recognized as special interest money."
Again, rather than parroting the campaign, how about actually providing some proof? All indications are that he has taken everything offered, even a measly $250 from a political action committee. So let's back up that talk.
I realize you and some of the other diehard Pilago fans have not been on the island a long time, which means you bring to this discussion a somewhat limited perspective. Yes, Kenoi has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. So did Lorraine Inouye. So did every other major mayoral candidate before them, except for Harry Kim who was so well known and respected he didn't need any money to get elected. But he is the sole exception in the history of the island.
The reality is, businesses give money to the candidate they think will win. Many, many individuals also gave to Kenoi, yet they are painted with the same broad brush you and others use to condemn the business donors for supporting who you claim is a tainted candidate. Undoubtedly, businesses expect to be recognized for their donation and some are hoping for preferential treatment. But since Kenoi doesn't have a background in elected office, which is pointed out incessantly, there is no track record of such impropriety to cite. So unless you have evidence of some kind of quid pro quo by Kenoi, let's recognize such statements for what they are: campaign rhetoric.
Is it a perfect system? No. But have business and development on the Big Island been so different in the past eight years, under a mayor who took no corporate money? Not in my opinion, which to me means the system isn't quite the bugaboo that Pilago supporters keep making it out to be.
Meanwhile, we do know there was quid pro quo by Pilago at Kohanaiki. About now, someone will bring up what Janice Palma-Glennie wrote in Hunter's blog about that development:
"Without Angel's leadership, 1500 hotel rooms with a marina blasted in the pristine reef -- oil and gasline seeping into the pristine Class AA waters, petting pool for captive dolphins and probably a monorail to get guests to their hotel rooms would have been built on that land. Because of Angel's leadership and ability to unite an unbelievable amount of regular citizens to work toward hugely significant goals, a public park would not have been secured and in the works at Kohanaiki."
We'll never know if those full plans would have been implemented, but a lot of developers were coming out with pie-in-the-sky plans in those days (one was going to build six golf courses above Puako!) which were tempered or killed outright by economic realities. I do know a little about this, having covered development and government for many years, and in my opinion, with the prevailing sentiment and economy in Kona, I doubt it would have been built as planned with or without Pilago's actions. And he was far and away not the only one involved, and there are valid questions about the extent of his involvement.
We do know that for some time public shoreline parks have been mandatory Ð even at Hokulia, that bastion of elitism. What Ms. Palma-Glennie fails to mention in her piece is that the park the public did get at Kohanaiki came with 500 homes and a golf course. And the maximum of $6,000 in campaign donations from its developers to Pilago.
As I said, it's not a perfect system. But for myself, I'd rather not go with the candidate who has actually done what his supporters can only accuse his opposition of intending to do.