Should UH manage Mauna Kea's summit?

[punaticbychoice]

Just some information on SB3090 SB1-
Hearing has been rescheduled to 10:30 AM 2/23/2018.
so a little more time is available to submit testimony.
If you care, PLEASE do so.
Thank you.

[TomK]

"If you look at the balance of the proposed 7 person Mauna Kea Authority panel doesn't it seem a bit biased?"

You can compare the proposed membership of the new management authority with the one that currently exists. At the end of this post is the proposed membership from SB3090 SD1, the current management (OMKM) is listed here:

http://www.malamamaunakea.org/management

Note that OMKM also takes input from Kahu Ku Mauna, the membership of whom is listed here:

http://www.malamamaunakea.org/management/kahu-ku-mauna

As I mentioned a little earlier, the bill seems to be quite blatantly trying to remove any input from the observatories. It's also unclear to me if the bill is just for the science reserve or the whole of Mauna Kea including the areas managed by the DLNR, but it is clear they are trying to remove free access to the mountain unless you are a native Hawaiian cultural practitioner.

SB3090 SD1 proposed membership:

"(1) An expert in astronomy who is not currently employed at an astronomy facility or the University of Hawaii's institute for astronomy;

(2) A land management expert;

(3) Two business experts whose expertise is in real estate, property appraisal, accounting, finance, economics, or innovation;

(4) An environmental expert whose expertise is in environmental sciences of relevance to the natural resources and ecological attributes of Mauna Kea, as evidenced by a college or post-graduate degree in biology, ecology, or other relevant field, or work history that demonstrates an appropriate level of knowledge in Mauna Kea's natural resources and ecological attributes;

(5) A practitioner or lineal descendant of practitioners of Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices associated with Mauna Kea; provided that such representative shall have been appointed from a list of nominees submitted to the governor by the office of Hawaiian affairs; and

(6) An individual with demonstrated expertise in Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices or Hawaiian history, [...]"

[TomK]

More from the SB 3090 hearing earlier this month:

http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2018/0...questions/

It becomes interesting towards the end. I've explained a number of times here how the rent for the observatories on Mauna Kea works and what the TMT deal involves. I'm sure most here now know more than the legislators trying to get SB 3090 through. It pisses me off that legislators don't even understand what they are trying to replace. It's their job to do so and it doesn't take a lot of work.

[punaticbychoice]

TomK @ 22:36:48 02/21/2018-
Put my testimony in.
Our legislators- well, I am sometimes at a loss for words.
Thanks Tom for your comments and understanding of the issues.

[TomK]

The latest hearing on SB3090 SD1 was held today. I haven't heard any news yet on how it went, but am sure we'll see updates soon. You can read the testimonies for and against the revised bill here:

Large PDF file: https://goo.gl/UhQptc

I am not sure this is the final or only list of testimonies. I suspect not. In any case, from the astronomy side, the most relevant testimony is from David Lassner, UH president, which starts on page 111, and that from the Mauna Kea observatories, which starts on page 125. Many of the points they make are also the concerns I've mentioned in this thread.

Note that as for SB3090, the testimonies overwhelmingly oppose SB3090 SD1.

[TomK]

<this was a reply to Obie who has since posted he deleted that post>

With the nominal fee going to pay the new board members and OHA. Unless you're a cultural practitioner, of course, you get free access. But as many of those who testified pointed out, the bill might mean the end of astronomy on Mauna Kea. All it does is monetize Mauna Kea for the benefit of the proposed board members and OHA while attempting to remove something around 5 to 10% of the economy of the island. And it doesn't offer any solutions to the perceived problems it says it's trying to fix since many of those have already been addressed and fixed by the OMKM.

[TomK]

PS. Let's not forget all the money that the state will likely need to spend on breach of contract lawsuits that'll likely occur if the bill is successful. That's was pointed out by the Dept. of the Attorney General on page 1 of the link I gave above.

PPS. More testimony on the bill has just been published:

https://goo.gl/UfGMMd

[TomK]

No problem, Obie, thanks for saying so. You did hint at stricter control of non-4WD vehicles traveling to the summit, and that's something I can sort of agree upon. Happy to debate that further at some point.

[TomK]

Obie - I preferred your previous post in which you said you deleted your previous post, which you have since deleted. This could have become a Monty Python sketch in the old days...

[Eric1600]

I assume you were having some kind of late night argument....

Anyway SB3090 appears to be quite unpopular with all parties involved. I've been seeing a lot of social media from anti-tmt crowd calling for people to testify and stop it. Then of course it seems ridiculous that the organizations (observatories) that literately have billions invested in the mountain and are the #5 driver to the economy here get zero say in the process.