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 thought that was a pretty good post. And it actually wasn't fresh in my mind. If I'm reading the jist of that post correctly, you're saying the changing feel of Oahu is being driven more by an influx of large corporations than from migration of people from the mainland.
Am I getting the basic point of that post correct ?
And if so, I can see that to be true.
I can see continued and growing development and investment in Oahu by Corporate interests primarily from the Mainland and Japan. And it does seem as though many politicians, even though they may be local, play into the pockets of those corporations.
Well thats part of it, but if you looked further there are stats showing the population of locals for each town going back 30 years. Much like the change in california with migrating illegals, they effected california so much that california made spanish one of the official languages. In oahu we have proved that the population is getting richer and
If you read the most recent poll closely - you'd also find most of the opposition is from existing Kakaako condo having sour grapes because they might be losing a view.
Regardless, the development of Kakaako isn't for Kakaako residents - it is to develop the urban core and stop the sprawl from the West Side where hopefully people won't always in Ewa Beach - it is to benefit the entire island by developing badly needed housing.
I would love to agree with you honest but its too early to tell who it will benefit because only a few towers have been built. Wait till all 30 towers planed are built. Im sorry to sound like a skeptic but if history is correct? It may mean that kakaako will only benefit the well to do folks the most.
The point of bringing that up was to show that the population of locals has decreased from the last few decades, even if the last few years there has been a bump in births it doesn't even out the loss from 90 to now.
You are being really misleading.
In 1990, Hawaii born residents made up 56.1% of the population, in 2000, is was 56.9%, and in 2009, 54% - so not exactly some huge swing.
Specifically, Oahu was 54.2% in 1990, 55.8% in 2000, and 53.4% in 2009 - again not a big difference, the lowest swing in all of the islands.
Since I like math - what does that tell us.
In 1990, the population of Oahu was 838,534 - or about 454,485 local/born residents.
In 2009, the population of Oahu was 907,574 - or about 484,644 local/born residents.
From 1990 to 2009, Oahu increased the local/born population by 30,000
Read the tables closer.
If you read even more closer to the actual data, the islands really losing "local born" is Hawaii County with over 11% reduction in 20 years and Maui County losing over 10% of "local born".
The data is the data - Click the link below for the actual data
^^^^
54 percent, to be exact — were born in the state. Hawaii’s mark is 33rd of 50 states, placing it just above historically transient California. And despite the fact that some Hawaii families measure their time here not in years but in generations, the state actually has a lower proportion of local-born residents than the United States as a whole.
decade ago, Hawaii ranked 32nd with its 56.9-percent mark. Hawaii’s 5 percent reduction was the third largest in the country behind only South Carolina and North Carolina.
Further, stats don't say migration between the islands. I know we have a few on here who are from Oahu but moved to the big island and other islands because the cost of living and the changes.
Nearly 50 years ago, at statehood, Hawai'i residents outnumbered tourists/transplants by more than 2 to 1.
Last edited by hawaiian by heart; 03-31-2015 at 04:16 PM..
Further, stats don't say migration between the islands. I know we have a few on here who are from Oahu but moved to the big island and other islands because the cost of living and the changes.
The stats say this exactly:
In 1990, Hawaii born residents made up 56.1% of the population, in 2000, is was 56.9%, and in 2009, 54%.
Specifically, Oahu was 54.2% in 1990, 55.8% in 2000, and 53.4% in 2009
Since I like math - what does that tell us.
In 1990, the population of Oahu was 838,534 - or about 454,485 local/born residents.
In 2009, the population of Oahu was 907,574 - or about 484,644 local/born residents.
From 1990 to 2009, Oahu increased the local/born population by 30,000
No offence viper but nothing is really natural anymore. Even our weather. Right this sec as im speaking its hailing outside and cold here in portland. We had things blooming here in january, but hail in april no that bizarre!
Try thinking things this way, if for 100 years or since the time of the plantation days people in hawaii have spoken pidgin english, taken off shoes when entering homes and other customs. Now after the last 10 or so years according to some no one speaks pidgin english or takes off there shoes when entering homes or other local customs. Now for the sake of argument lets say that the argument of organic/local change is driving the transformation of Oahu is true and not an hostle take over persa. Then what happen to the other 90+ years where you heard pidgin english in public and people where taking off shoes when entering homes? Was there no change in our world? See my point? In a very short period of time things almost went 180%. The only logical choice is to assume outside forces have pushed to create the changes. Anyway. Im done arguing about this. Just look in history to learn that stuff like the lightrail and gentrafication of kakaako was planned by big money decades ago.
[QUO TE=hawaiian by heart;39036356] Wait till all 30 towers planed are built. Im sorry to sound like a skeptic but if history is correct? It may mean that kakaako will only benefit the well to do folks the most.[/quote]
Geez, we're buying the poor people out in Kapolei a 7,8,9,10 billion dollar choo-choo. Can't they ever be happy? I don't know why the city didn't make them build those towers out there so we wouldn't need the train. All that infil is just going to make getting to town from the east that much harder then we'll need a $25-40 billion subway out to Hawaii Kai!
The dynamics of the population has changed also combined with foreign money and corporate interests have changed hawaii.
Which is a neutral fact, neither good nor bad.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
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.
