Posts: 603
Threads: 60
Joined: Mar 2008
quote:
Originally posted by hookupu
I have to agree. If its not right for you the dont go there. Too many people move over here and as soon as they are unpacked their container try to make changes so everything is to their liking. This beach is and always has been clothing optional. It is a fairly hard climb up and down so it keeps a lot of people from enjoying it. The area at the bottom of the trail is usually for the less adventuresome. The State probably could put some portapoddies at the road by the parking area but access to the beach area would be nearly impossible. I ask kimo wires who started this thread how big do you think it should be before it can be a nude beach? And it isnt a nude beach its clothing optional. If you are uncomfortable wear cloths and enjoy the view dont stare at the people...
DITTO! Why do people even move elsewhere if they want to make it just like the place they left? What audacity to think that it's acceptable to move to a new place with a different culture and mores than you may have and then get offended by that and try to change the accepted rules to make yourself comfortable! Shame on you, I say. You might get over yourself a bit or consider moving along to Vatican City or something. If people don't mind their kids seeing the natural state of a person then it isn't your place to worry about it. The perverse part of nudity is the shame that's instilled in innocent children by their misled parents. If clothes are what separates us from animals, I'd say animals are the smarter species (except where clothes are needed against the elements). Actually, I think anyone who tries to separate themselves from animals is detached. Humans are animals. The worst sort sometimes.
YurtGirl~
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Posts: 4,531
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
I bet this is the same aurgument the locals and Captain Cook had??? [  ]
Or the locals and the missionaries?[  ]
The urban legend is the missionaries went so far as to plant kiawe (aka mesquite) so the locals would have to wear shoes...[  ]
What about a group like Malama O puna (as an example only) getting some funding for a porta lua at the top in the parking area? That SMA Assessment application probably would not be as difficult as closer to the shoreline elevation itself.
Catherine Dumond
Blue Water Project Management
808 965-9261
"We help make building your dream home a reality"
Posts: 603
Threads: 60
Joined: Mar 2008
I was thinking of the same prime example (missionaries/Kiawe) when I was writing my comment Cat. Just because a person or group of people does/do things differently than another doesn't mean one or the other is 'right' or 'wrong'. If a person/group is the new comer, even to a small corner of Earth that is nearby but that you don't often frequent, it's sad that they would choose to be close minded instead of trying to see a new and positive experience. But it is inexcusable to demand a change for your comfort zone. With thinking like that the world would all soon be full of the same automatons and life would cease to hold as much amazing diversity.
I do agree with the lua problem though... kinda yuck to think of, did Naeole try for the top parking lot? Pohoiki was against lua's for a long time too, same with South Point. They feel it will bring more people. I think that's as silly as not putting in better roads for the same reason. The people are going. They'll keep going (in more ways than one!), so take away the hazards of it already.
YurtGirl
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Small kine correction:
South Point is owned by Dept of Hawaiian Homelands. They have no obligation to make the spot visitor friendly; they don't want the tourists there ... Kehena is public.
And speaking of its public nature, although I'm against forcing mainland values on Hawai'i, isn't Kehena a bit of the situation where certain segments of the public knowingly deter other members of the public?
The word alternative implies there's a mainstream beach, but Greg is pointing out that the other beaches there used to be are gone. So with one good beach left for a whole area, maybe the long time Kehena goers could consider compromising in order to share with the general public. It IS a public beach and the public is short of beaches.
Whether or not the human body is a lovely natural thing, we wear clothes in public most places and a lot of people are comfortable with that and enjoy a little coverage, and don't enjoy looking at strangers unclothed ... and there should be a local beach they can enjoy where they feel comfortable.
So forget the luas, let's just get the County to make a new beach. [  ]
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
Nuff already... go get naked and swim in raw sewage then. It's not 4 me. I really don't care...Like I said I'll be at Pohoiki and not at Crap sand beach.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
Posts: 2,981
Threads: 177
Joined: Aug 2006
Ewwwwww! Kimo! Man, you turned me off to Kehena now. Hey, where is this Black Sand Beach that Rob is talking about.....is that the one that you walk to from Verna's parking lot, where all the coconuts are? That place sounds nice.
quote:
Originally posted by kimo wires
Nuff already... go get naked and swim in raw sewage then. It's not 4 me. I really don't care...Like I said I'll be at Pohoiki and not at Crap sand beach.
You do know which way the currents go don't you[:0][ ] This is part of the problem, is that what is happening down there... affects the entire coastline.[} ]
Well not the naked people[ ]
-------
General Election Unofficial Poll
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
The currents generally go towards Kalapana from Kehena.
Posts: 603
Threads: 60
Joined: Mar 2008
quote:
Originally posted by KathyH
Small kine correction:
South Point is owned by Dept of Hawaiian Homelands. They have no obligation to make the spot visitor friendly; they don't want the tourists there ... Kehena is public.
And speaking of its public nature, although I'm against forcing mainland values on Hawai'i, isn't Kehena a bit of the situation where certain segments of the public knowingly deter other members of the public?
The word alternative implies there's a mainstream beach, but Greg is pointing out that the other beaches there used to be are gone. So with one good beach left for a whole area, maybe the long time Kehena goers could consider compromising in order to share with the general public. It IS a public beach and the public is short of beaches.
Whether or not the human body is a lovely natural thing, we wear clothes in public most places and a lot of people are comfortable with that and enjoy a little coverage, and don't enjoy looking at strangers unclothed ... and there should be a local beach they can enjoy where they feel comfortable.
So forget the luas, let's just get the County to make a new beach. []
Aren't all beaches 'Public'? I'm pretty sure that there's a law stating that beaches can't be owned by anyone and are open to the public... Access is often blocked by private land owners... but the actual beach front up to 10' back from the shorebreak (or some distance like that) is open to all. Someone correct me if I've got it wrong.
Kehena beach is widely known to have naked people there fairly often. It isn't as though everyone is naked, or that nudity is pushed on anyone. But people that are any kind of informed know that it's a distinct possibility that some people may be nude there. It is a beach that embodies a large portion of Pahoa's community attitude of freedom and acceptance. Try to take that freedom away and see what happens! That would be a sad day. [V]
The vibe at Kehena beach on many Sundays when they are having the drum circle and dancing is one of joy, acceptance, gratitude and delight. A few naked people sunbathing and swimming is not synonymous with raw sewage. [xx(] They are two separate subjects. The naked people aren't the cause of the lack of facilities and again, they are a definite minority there.
Also, it isn't the only beach in the area. It may be one of the most written about, but it isn't the only one. There are several entries along that area if a person is willing to look for them.
By the way, a disclaimer, I don't go naked there, so don't anyone go thinking that they'll see YurtGirl nekked down there! [:I] But I don't take offense that others are, I just smile at their unashamed naked frolicking and am glad that there's a place like that. If you take offense, then don't go! Or go and just ignore it. But I just think, enough with the "there ought to be a law" and "I'm not comfortable with it, so it needs to be changed" mentality. The only shame going on there is the lack of lua's anywhere near there, because that is actually harming the area and its surroundings and is dangerous to people as well. [ ]
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Hi Yurt Girl --
You asked about the ownership of beaches. Public up to a certain line, yes, which I think is handily defined as the "mean high water" or "upper reach of the waves" "debris line" or the much used, "vegetation line."
So once there is vegetation it can be private, although there have been lawsuits about it.
I don't think any of the area at Ka Lae that people visit qualifies as public beach. There is a hei'au closer to the ocean than the parking. When I said South Point, I didn't mean Papakolea/ Green Sand Bach). I meant Ka Lae, which is where DHHL told the community group to remove the portaluas it had placed there.
Anyhow, as you can see, the part of the shoreline that is public is also the part of the shoreline that is sometimes under water. The idea that the law covers all "beach" in front of private property is a bit misleading.
|
