Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
A couple of days ago, a "blank" bill regarding geothermal regulation was sent by the state house of representatives to a senate conference committee with only six voted opposed. The content is to be added later without any public testimony. This was reported in the Honolulu daily, and in one of the worst bits of jounalism I've seen recently, neither the number of the bill nor the names of the six legislators who sensibly opposed it were given. The lame reason given by a member of the Democratic leadership was that "the Big Island legislators are divided on this."
I have done multiple searches using Google, and have come up with no details. Does anyone know more about this, and most importantly, how Joy Sanbuenaventura voted on it? I'm keeping this in the political forum because I would prefer to discuss the backroom political element of this rather than start yet another thread on the pros and cons of geothermal.
Posts: 4,902
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2535&year=2016
It is a Senate bill so the House passed it and kicked it back to the Senate.Its intent is to take away county meddling in geothermal.It had plenty of public testimony while it was in the Senate.
Joy Sanbuenaventura voted aye with reservations.
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
Thanks, Obie. Your hawaii.gov search skills are obviously better than mine. IMO, the "aye with reservations" vote is just a copout to avoid taking a stand. Why would our representative literally give a blank check on a critical issue to a conference committee with or without public comment?
I understand the state's point in overruling county obstructionism. I just have a problem with the opaque process being used here.
Posts: 4,902
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
I had been following it from the beginning and I submitted testimony.That is how I knew about it.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
"the Big Island legislators are divided on this."
As they should be; they represent the Big Island, which is where the geothermal is actually located.
overruling county obstructionism
What a lovely excuse! Funny how it only applies when there's money at stake...
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
I would be just as concerned if the process were skewed the other way. This is an example of doing in the dark what should be done in the daylight. Goes on all the time.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
I would be just as concerned if the process were skewed the other way.
It never is, which is part of the problem.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Here's an excellent counterexample:
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news...lls-killed
Two bills that would have provided funding to combat invasive pests on the Big Island are dead in the state Senate.
Opinion: the "single State government" doesn't work across an island chain where each island has its own local problems.
As relates to parent topic: maybe if the Big Island becomes uninhabitable, geothermal wells can be drilled everywhere without any complaints from the residents. After all, it's just a resource which would better serve to greenwash Oahu and its rail system.
Posts: 352
Threads: 6
Joined: Mar 2013
The reason for making a bill a short form bill for conference is to basically kill it. This allows new related language to be inserted during conference committee that will most likely not be agreed upon, hence killing the bill outright.
If a legislator votes no on a bill at third reading, they cannot serve on the conference committee. By voting "aye with reservations" those legislators can serve on the conference committee and help kill the bill.
Edited for typos and clarity.
_________________________________________
Don't speak unless you can improve on the silence.
_________________________________________
Don't speak unless you can improve on the silence.
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
I've been following the convolutions of Hawaii politics long enough that what Anxious Messiah says actually makes sense. But why not just send a straightforward bill to conference for a cards on the table process? It still smacks of backroom dealing and not wanting a public airing of the issues.
