Posts: 10,988
Threads: 749
Joined: Sep 2012
we need is a new zoning/land-use designation for "sacred lands"
What is the blood quantum requirement for automatic Special Use Permit approvals on Sacred Lands?
If I know what I shall find, I do not want to find it. Uncertainty is the salt of life. - biochemist Erwin Chargaff
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 14,083
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
What is the blood quantum requirement for automatic Special Use Permit approvals on Sacred Lands?
Irrelevant, as County does not recognize this particular land-use.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
Questions also posed in Hawaiian DNA (Not sure which thread is best for this discussion; let us pick one.)
Questions to the critics of TMT (gypsy and others) from a less-informed Punatalk commentator so some of us can better understand this issue.
1. Are you not only opposing TMT construction but asking for the removal all telescopes on Maunakea?
2. If TMT project is withdrawn, are you adamant that you are going to continue protesting for all telescopes’ removal?
(Can someone give the number of existing telescopes for discussion purposes? I believe this topic might be complicated by one or more telescopes having an array of subsidiary structures, leading to some disagreement over the exact number of telescope sites.)
3. If you concede to allowing the existing telescopes to remain, would you allow the periodic decommissioning of one (or more) older telescopes and then replacing them with newer (technologically advanced) telescopes?
(I believe this might have been or is being proposed by TMT proponents. One of the concepts here, I believe, is that the reuse of sites would minimize further damage to the mountain environment.)
4. I understand that there might be issues related to the TMT permit process (improperly expedited?), but that is a separate issue.
Questions 1-3 are long-term questions. What are the positions of the TMT opponents here?
Thank you for the clarification.
Posts: 10,988
Threads: 749
Joined: Sep 2012
should all be decommission... back to their original state... I do not believe in... unfulfilled promises... mismanagement of Mauna Wa Kea... Enough is Enough, No more further Desecration...
gypsy,
Sometimes I think you're channeling Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff of Huxley College:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cry-4pyy8
If I know what I shall find, I do not want to find it. Uncertainty is the salt of life. - biochemist Erwin Chargaff
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 45
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2017
quote:
Originally posted by alaskyn66
quote:
Should we all just start building stuff up there and claim it's for religion?
Seems like that's what's already happening.. I'm mildly surprised the ufo boinking crowd hasn't built a landing pad yet..
There is a UFO landing pad in Puna - the Hawaii Star Visitor Sanctuary.
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-ne...cated-puna
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
Thank you, gypsy. Could you elaborate on your statement If the Kanaka's and state agree to lease the land once again it probably won't be for a $1 a year again.
(I understand that your responses are just your personal views.)
It seems to suggest that you folks are open to some use of the mountain top at higher lease rent. What would that use be, if not telescopes?
I cannot imagine any other use up there other than a public park for mountain top viewing. We certainly wouldn't want any kind of vendors up there. Hence there would be no party with a lease, it seems.
(A much higher lease rent than $1 a year is a valid cause, IMO. Money could go to DLNR or general fund.)
MarkD, Again you are asking another good question.
I am not Hawaiian and have no pull for the state so your question should not and cannot be answered by me in my opinion. I will give you my Opinion's only.
The Hawaiians are very kind and forging people who really want to be respected and recognized today in their homelands. They were shafted on this last lease of the summit, these crown lands have practically been stolen from them now. The $1 a year, millions in desecration and lack of Equal Opportunity promised looks like they have been seriously disrespected. Meanwhile Their Piko Mountain of Mauna Wakea has become the Astronomy capital of the world in only a few decades. I don't think the Hawaiians or Island residents were agreeing to the Mass development of many Telescopes back in the 60's, Maybe one or two small telescopes but not this kine Disneyland.
Hawaiian Culture and traditions, better and Higher Education, Equal Opportunities and control of their own "resources" seem to be important issues to the Hawaiians I know or grew up with (screw the DLNR). If the current lease is allowed to be ended and telescopes are decommissioned as once promised and not renewed before 2033 by the same suppressors. Then Some Hawaiian time may be needed once the original lease expires as to heal both the Mountain's sacred land's and it's many oppressed people. Ideas for use of the once leased land should and can come after the year 2033. Many other prospects or possibilities for that summit land can come after they resolve who's land it really is to begin with.
P.S. Why can't the Hawaiians have their own telescopes on their own mountain using their own water and electricity to better the lives of Hawaiians? Their discoveries may have a Hawaiian name but they would still benefit all mankind. This could be what's needed to ensure the Hawaiian people don't become extinct or further endangered. At this point in time or current development direction, the TMT project is expected to out live the Hawaiian race. jmo's
Mahalo, MarkD.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
Thanks for your views, gypsy,
Some comments: Re "crown lands" I think you are saying that the top of Maunakea is ceded land that was distributed between 1848-1893 during the Great Mahele (to Overthrow)?
So is much forest land at lower elevations in DLNR forest reserves, I believe.
1) Are you saying the mountain top should be viewed just like Hawaiian Home Lands? (A bit of info I found to show (improper?) use of HHL: Gov. George Ariyoshi activated...National Guard in 1978 because protesters threatened to close the Hawaii island airport to dramatize the fact that the airport was built on Hawaiian homelands without compensation.)
2) Fair lease rent is an issue. The problem with advancing this matter after native Hawaiians have spoken of the mountain's sacredness results in a situation that has arisen with other native peoples: An assertion that development on sacred land is a desecration and then a subsequent deal to allow said use for compensation. This suggests the claims of sacredness were contrived or exaggerated.
The following seems to be the case:
1) If the sacredness views are widespread and sincere, perhaps there should not be any compromise: No projects.
2) If compensation is a primary factor, that argument can be advanced in other ways. I sympathize with the philosophy of "localism." The term has a multitude of definitions; I use it to mean the idea that the initial peoples or cultures on a land (i.e. native peoples) have a priority over newcomers. A primary justification for this is the history of Europeans and other technologically advanced peoples dispossessing native peoples from their lands.
Current societal arrangements reflect that past misappropriation. Therefore, IMO, land disputes often need to be weighed in favor of local people, not more recent arrivals--not just because they are recent arrivals, but because their wealth and legal support give them disproportionate influence over local politicians.
(Interesting how we have land issues with newcomers on both public shorelines and the use of native lands. How about an alliance: shoreline use and mountain use.)
3) Your quote: Why can't the Hawaiians have their own telescopes on their own mountain... I don't follow. The telescope folks are very good at what they do. What additional role would the Hawaiians have? What should come to native Hawaiians other than money, if they agree that a certain number of telescopes can operate on the mountain in an environmentally appropriate way?
Posts: 10,165
Threads: 343
Joined: Apr 2009
Just to be clear, the MK observatories pay several millions of dollars in "rent" every year. It comes from having to provide observing time to the University of Hawaii which comes out of the observatories' operating costs. This is the deal that they were given and the free observing time saves the university money which helps improve higher education in Hawaii, something Gypsy says is important to Hawaiians.
