Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if there is any suggestion or movement to move the military to another island?
Probably not...and probably wouldn't solve much of anything. But it seems like real estate in Oahu is scarce and will continue to become more scarce.
That being said, maybe the military provides a lot of local jobs, so without them, Oahu might be worse off.
Just curious your take on that, or other poster's take on the military moving to another Hawaiian island besides Oahu?
Actually, thinking about it, I suppose Pearl Harbor makes a lot of sense - a beautiful harbor and largely cut off from the public. But was thinking up in the middle near Shoffields and such...
I don't have any solutions, you could get rid of the bases to build more houses and you would just get more people living there. It might drive prices down in the short run but I think the demand will always be around because of the natural beauty, climate, surf, etc... Not trying to be a bummer, you just gotta pay to play if you wanna live in a nice place. That is all.
I wonder if there is any suggestion or movement to move the military to another island?
Probably not...and probably wouldn't solve much of anything. But it seems like real estate in Oahu is scarce and will continue to become more scarce.
That being said, maybe the military provides a lot of local jobs, so without them, Oahu might be worse off.
Just curious your take on that, or other poster's take on the military moving to another Hawaiian island besides Oahu?
Actually, thinking about it, I suppose Pearl Harbor makes a lot of sense - a beautiful harbor and largely cut off from the public. But was thinking up in the middle near Shoffields and such...
Military has Barking Sands on Kauai and training grounds on Big Island, as well. Barking Sands is a specialized missile range and there's no reason for any other military presence there ... Big Island military reservation land is for keeping the troops fit in maneuver exercises ... no other advantage to moving anything there. Besides the advantage of sticking with existing systems and infrastructure, it's all about Pearl Harbor for the military. Pearl is the only truly safe all weather harbor of any size and scope in all of Hawai'i state ... all services benefit strategically and operationally from the Navy at Pearl ... there are no other options ... it will never change ... it is why Hawai'i became a state.
And yes, the military provides lots of civilian employment and revenue for the state.
But I spoke to a homeless guy once. Only 21 yrs old, ate one donut per day if he was lucky. He was not that skinny. He walked everywhere with a really heavy backpack and a rusty guitar. I bought him dinner once and he couldn't even finish. He was full after 2 bites. It was unreal. Then, it makes sense to me because his stomach has shrunk so much due to being hungry. It's become efficient in maximizing his small intake and converting it into sufficient energy.
I asked him why he wanted to live this way. He said he didn't want to be a part of the capitalist system. He liked his freedom. But he came from a foster home where he was treated badly. I think his reasons for staying homeless are a disguise for his traumatized childhood and perhaps fear or low self-esteem. Still the nicest young man on the planet, careful to never litter, always polite...
Thanks for that story, and for the empathy and understanding you've showed this person where most people would just lash out at him for his stated reasons instead of looking deeper.
--
It is true that there is less overall housing in Hawaii. In many places on the mainland, there is a glut of excess, vacant, totally unused housing where many homeless and working poor can try to squat with varying success. That's more difficult to find here, and definitely on Oahu.
I think trying to pinpoint this phenomenon on the mainland or California really misses the point that the entire human population has tripled in the past century; people had to move somewhere, and with policy shying away from family planning, sustainability, and an all-inclusive economy/society, a lot of places wound up crowded, polluted, changed, with a lot of people on the outside.
Personally, I think Hawaii can and should move towards independence and sustainability, not growth, investment, or attracting more people/industry. It would be great for the military to leave the islands (and I don't just mean Hawaiin islands; but also Okinawa, P-Rico, Chagos...) completely; they do occupy valuable land and leave a footprint.
Personally, I think Hawaii can and should move towards independence and sustainability, not growth, investment, or attracting more people/industry. It would be great for the military to leave the islands (and I don't just mean Hawaiin islands; but also Okinawa, P-Rico, Chagos...) completely; they do occupy valuable land and leave a footprint.
I'm not in the military or associated/employed by the military - but I suspect if you take the $12 billion annually the military spends in Hawaii (18% of GDP) and the over 100,000 jobs (think state taxes) - you'd have a devastating impact on the economy, especially things like schools, small businesses, real estate (think about how it would impact housing equity), and even tourism. Prices would skyrocket without the miltary subsidy - it wouldn't be a sustainable economy to eliminate over 10% of the employed in Hawaii.
I'm not in the military or associated/employed by the military - but I suspect if you take the $12 billion annually the military spends in Hawaii (18% of GDP) and the over 100,000 jobs (think state taxes) - you'd have a devastating impact on the economy, especially things like schools, small businesses, real estate (think about how it would impact housing equity), and even tourism. Prices would skyrocket without the miltary subsidy - it wouldn't be a sustainable economy to eliminate over 10% of the employed in Hawaii.
Where do you make up all that revenue?
It definitely has an impact, and I am not hating on the military either... just saying that there are positive and negative influences on any place with a military presence. All of the contributions to the economy you cited are completely true but at the same time military bases can be a double edged sword.
- The federal government does not pay state or local taxes on the land they occupy.
- Military are not required to pay taxes on their boats, cars, motorcycles etc... if they do not claim residence where they are stationed yet they are using the infrastructure and contributing to traffic.
- BAH (basic housing allowance) can set the rent prices in the areas around the base. This has been especially bad since the housing bubble because BAH went up as housing went up, now that housing is trying to go down BAH is not dropping so rents are staying high. Look at the Hampton Roads VA forums if you don't believe me. A 1br apartment in a nice part of Virginia Beach or Norfolk cost around $600 a month in 2000, the same apartment costs around $1100 in 2011. Amazingly, the 2011 BAH for a single E1 without dependents is $1100 for that area. In Honolulu right now, the lowest rate (E1 - E4) without dependents is $1512 a month for housing. No kids, living by themselves, $1500+ a month TAX FREE to pay rent... This can distort the balance of wages/cost of living in an area tremendously.
- People getting out of the service but wanting to remain in the area flood the job market and drive down wages.
- Dependence on military money discourages diversifying the economy with private sector investment which leads to the creation of good paying professional jobs in the area. While there are some exceptions, cities with a large military presence tend to not have very diverse economies. I don't have any data to support this, it is more of a general observation which could be wrong but I doubt it.
I am not knocking the military, both my grandfathers served, both my parents served, I appreciate what they do tremendously... that being said, having a huge base in your city is not all it is cracked up to be. Having lived in the Honolulu, HI and Norfolk, VA (biggest navy base in the world) area extensively I can attest to this first hand. There are upsides and downsides in the long run.
It definitely has an impact, and I am not hating on the military either... just saying that there are positive and negative influences on any place with a military presence. All of the contributions to the economy you cited are completely true but at the same time military bases can be a double edged sword...
...- Dependence on military money discourages diversifying the economy with private sector investment which leads to the creation of good paying professional jobs in the area. While there are some exceptions, cities with a large military presence tend to not have very diverse economies. I don't have any data to support this, it is more of a general observation which could be wrong but I doubt it....
...There are upsides and downsides in the long run.
Another very good analysis / post in general ... I would point out however, that in the case of Hawai'i, the alternative to the military would be only more tourism ... and, given the obvious, natural limitations of total geography and "things to do", there isn't a whole lot more room to expand tourism ... it is fairly maxed out as is ... which is why Hawai'i tourism is targeted at the wealthy ... it is an infamously expensive vacation destination, by necessity. So, while the military doesn't pay taxes, etc., in Hawai'i's case, it is a net gain for the community -- where in other areas it is a mixed blessing at best.
Regardless, the military in Hawai'i isn't going anywhere -- ever ... permanent fixture ... it is THE reason, and only reason for Hawai'i's statehood. And if America hadn't annexed Hawai'i, some other nation (esp. Japan) would have. The strategic position is world critical geographically. No other resources required. It would be a major military hub if it were no more than barren, uninhabited rock. Hawaiian independence was doomed centuries ago. I'm not a supported of that reality. Just an observer.
There's been widespread homeless throughout all 50 States since the Reagan years.
Love how the author of the article sees it for the very first time during the 'Obama' administration?
Excellent observation and spot on. Yet another Conservative with selective memory. Problems created during years when Republicans are running the country are ignored. The economy is fine when it's being wrecked by Republicans. Homelessness noticed only when a Democrat is President. Quite pathetic. Shame on the author of the article.
Another very good analysis / post in general ... I would point out however, that in the case of Hawai'i, the alternative to the military would be only more tourism ...
Probably true, but I wonder in the new economy if Hawaii couldn't be a center for non manufacturing related high tech (software, design etc...) given its geographical attractiveness. That kind of work can be done anywhere, so why not in one of the nicest places on earth? You wouldn't think it would be that hard to attract folks with the promise of a good job and year round stable warm weather. Cost of living is high in San Jose and San Francisco as well, California has high taxes like Hawaii, yet they still manage to attract many of the worlds best and brightest. Sure, the universities in HI aren't even close to the ones in California but it still might be feasible. I dunno, just kind of thinking out loud.
Probably true, but I wonder in the new economy if Hawaii couldn't be a center for non manufacturing related high tech (software, design etc...) given its geographical attractiveness.
Just the geographical location alone - hub of the Pacific Rim.
There are some Peace Studies, Conflict Resolution types of programs, where Hawaii basically takes on the entire Pacific Rim, all the way around.
I think of it is a beautiful connection from all around the Pacific Ocean to what ties it all together
It could continue to be THAT place...a center for earthquake and tsunamis around the Pacific, a research center for peace, conflict types of activities, and just have it's hub right there. Oceanagraphy types of things as well.
I guess that would be under technology, information, etc. I guess you could make an argument it could be done anywhere, but why not in the most central part of that entire geographic Pacific Rim area.
Probably true, but I wonder in the new economy if Hawaii couldn't be a center for non manufacturing related high tech (software, design etc...) given its geographical attractiveness. That kind of work can be done anywhere, so why not in one of the nicest places on earth? You wouldn't think it would be that hard to attract folks with the promise of a good job and year round stable warm weather. Cost of living is high in San Jose and San Francisco as well, California has high taxes like Hawaii, yet they still manage to attract many of the worlds best and brightest. Sure, the universities in HI aren't even close to the ones in California but it still might be feasible. I dunno, just kind of thinking out loud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Beer
Just the geographical location alone - hub of the Pacific Rim.
There are some Peace Studies, Conflict Resolution types of programs, where Hawaii basically takes on the entire Pacific Rim, all the way around.
I think of it is a beautiful connection from all around the Pacific Ocean to what ties it all together
It could continue to be THAT place...a center for earthquake and tsunamis around the Pacific, a research center for peace, conflict types of activities, and just have it's hub right there. Oceanagraphy types of things as well.
I guess that would be under technology, information, etc. I guess you could make an argument it could be done anywhere, but why not in the most central part of that entire geographic Pacific Rim area.
Yes, and yes ... and no, and no.
The reasons that Hawai'i will not ever become the potential you both list are:
1. land / housing (and consequently its pricing) can't be fixed ... (I know, I know: Pele is adding new real estate every day to the B.I. ) ... grow hi-tech, finance, and other remote-possible industry and you bring in people to live where? And why would those of us who love Hawai'i want to develop its limited lands even more? ... furthermore, those industries are higher paid than agriculture and manufacturing, which industries round out mainland economies ... this higher paid base will result in driving up real estate even further ... thus pushing the service community further to its own brink, as well ...
2. most people, however much they love 'getting away from it all', love to 'get away from it all' for a vacation time frame, and then crave the access to greater variety and ease of travel ... plus the ever-present separation anxiety for familial proximity, etc.
3. the 'brain-trust' thing of having many business, university, and research centers clustered and mutually accessible and inter-connected is HUGE
For the reasons cited above, it is more desirable for business people trading the Pacific Rim to travel the extra few hours when crossing the pond than living isolated in the middle on a small, resource-and-infrastructure-limited rock. And all considered, trying to build a better economy out of non-manufacturing industries simply does not allow for a balanced, affordable community that supports the specialized industry folks as well.
Hawai'i is just what it is ... and, personally, I don't mind its limitations. I don't value realizing greater and greater 'potential' through ever expanding economic and infrastructure growth. That is the definition of consumer capitalist society -- and, quite curiously, very closely parallel to the definition of cancer. (“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” -- Edward Abbey.)
I leave almost no footprint wherever I go, so I am happy and do not contribute to the problem ... I bring and spend only a very modest amount of money, but use almost no resources, while also occupying no space at expense of others. That said, I do not advocate for my lifestyle. Like Hawai'i: it is what it is ... it works for me ... few people would ever be capable and happy living as I do for long. Thus the point of the thread for those considering Hawai'i: unless you are bringing what I would define as an awful lot of money with -- perhaps a half million at least -- or already have invested in real estate here long ago, or have strong family and connections here, few of you will last in any real happiness.
Just come visit ... often ... bring money ... enjoy ... leave.
Aloha
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) ... grow hi-tech, finance, and other remote-possible industry and you bring in people to live where? And why would those of us who love Hawai'i want to develop its limited lands even more? ... furthermore, those industries are higher paid than agriculture and manufacturing, which industries round out mainland economies ... this higher paid base will result in driving up real estate even further ... thus pushing the service community further to its own brink, as well ...
