Posts: 664
Threads: 67
Joined: Mar 2016
quote:
Originally posted by pahoated
TMT Corp will be looking at going all the way back to a new EIS, new negotiations UHH, then starting the 2 to 3 year permit process again. Maybe not, but it looks like what is happening.
There would be no reason to do another three EIS studies as the results would not be any different.
quote:
Attorney Richard Wurdeman, who represents the original contested case petitioners, argued the state attorneys advising the state Board of Land and Natural Resources and Amano are not impartial, citing their involvement in prosecuting protesters on the mountain last year. He said the state should hire outside legal counsel.
“It’s not about convenience,” he said. “It’s about doing what’s right.”
David Louie, a former state attorney general attending the meeting as special legal counsel for the state, said there is a “heavy burden” to proving that legal counsel should be dismissed.
Wurdeman also argues a new conservation district use permit application should be submitted since the original document from 2010 listed TMT Observatory Corp. The observatory project is now under a separate entity, the TMT International Observatory.
Amano said she would take those matters under advisement and issue a ruling. http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news...ng-motions
Wurdeman basically wants the state to spend tons of money bringing in an outside legal team to review everything and force everything to start over. Both of those are going to fail. His reasoning for outside legal council (if you read the motions) is pretty weak. And there is no reason to start all over. Wurdeman other weak arguement is because TMT's organization had a name change they they need to re-apply all over again using the new name -- TMT Observatory Corp. vs. TMT International Observatory.
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
Aloha ahiahi, Eric1600. Agreed. However, the vagaries of the law still hover over this hot mess. Wurderman is the attorney who argued the case to the Supreme Court, and won. He is no slouch.
Again, if this was done right in the first place, we would not be here today. TMT suffers, we all suffer (at our "taxpayer" expense) due to the manipulation of US law (by ALL parties), and the State of Hawai'i usurping our own State laws. Period.
As an aside, we do have a new BLNR Board member (FWIW).
There is balance to be found. Judge Amano is quite capable of helping to find that balance.
JMO.
ETA: Didn't see your edited post, therefore, my response is based on your original (did not quote it, sorry.)
Posts: 14,111
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
There would be no reason to do another three EIS studies as the results would not be any different.
Completely correct, and also not the point.
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
There would be no reason to do another three EIS studies as the results would not be any different.
Completely correct, and also not the point.
LMAO! Kalakoa, you slay me... Mahalo.
JMO.
Posts: 10,216
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
Again, let me remind everyone. The TMT have effectively given the State a deadline. According to TMT sources, a decision will be made early 2017 as to the TMT's location. This is driven by science requirements and funding pressures.
If the current hearing results in things having to be done again (I think that's unlikely), the TMT will relocate. If the result is for TMT construction restarting, it will be appealed, and even if construction does start again, then protests will resume on Mauna Kea. At that point, Ige will have to involve himself again, and I suspect we know what that means - powerless and ineffective leadership. And then there's the possibility Amano won't reach a decision by the TMT's deadline.
Posts: 10,216
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
Eric1600 wrote:
"I'm going to ignore your repeated demonstration of confusion over astronomy [...]"
Don't worry, pahoated ignores it as well.
TomK
Punatic
USA
4472 Posts
Posted - 08/15/2016 : 01:44:42 Show Profile Email Poster Visit TomK's Homepage Reply with Quote
Eric1600 wrote:
"I'm going to ignore your repeated demonstration of confusion over astronomy [...]"
Don't worry, pahoated ignores it as well.
Maybe TomK should take a similar lesson away from this,, as well.
Posts: 664
Threads: 67
Joined: Mar 2016
quote:
Originally posted by opihikao
...the vagaries of the law still hover over this hot mess. Wurderman is the attorney who argued the case to the Supreme Court, and won. He is no slouch.
He won simply on the fact that the state issued a construction permit before the decision on a previous contested permit was completed. I've read most of his motions and I don't really find anything new or interesting there. I think this whole mess was really just caused by a procedural mistake. Even if Armano decides the case, they have already laid a lot of ground work for appeals if it fails in hopes someone will agree with them, but their case is not very strong.
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
There would be no reason to do another three EIS studies as the results would not be any different.
Completely correct, and also not the point.
It was pahoated's point, not mine. The EIS studies were really comprehensive. I can't imagine anyone who who's bothered to read them thinking a redo would change anything.
Posts: 14,111
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
I can't imagine anyone who who's bothered to read them thinking a redo would change anything.
The need for a redo has nothing to do with the validity of existing reports; it becomes a procedural issue. In some cases the EIS "expires" and cannot be re-used.
Posts: 820
Threads: 106
Joined: Mar 2006
quote:
Originally posted by pahoated
This judge is looking at her case strictly as a permit compliance case. If she finds the permit process was incomplete, she is going to do the same thing any other judge does with a permit problem -- send them back to the beginning of the permit process and get it right. Very likely, that is going to happen here, TMT Corp will be looking at going all the way back to a new EIS, new negotiations UHH, then starting the 2 to 3 year permit process again. Maybe not, but it looks like what is happening.
You're talking about apples and oranges. The legality of the EIS is out of the purview of these proceedings. That document is legally binding since no one contested it within 60 days of acceptance in 2010.
That being said, Judge Amano could require the CDUP application be redone, but I don't expect that to happen. The original petitioners claim the name on the application is slightly different than what it was 6 years ago, which is a legally weak argument.
|
