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.
Location: not sure, but there's a hell of a lot of water around here!
2,682 posts, read 7,597,821 times
Reputation: 3882
We ALREADY have an interisland ferry system, and, if the state had any friggin common sense, they would try to ascertain whether or not Young Brothers could conceivably retrofit it's existing barges to accomodate a few passengers on a trial basis.
As for me, given the overall tenor of this conversation, I'm going back to licking slugs
Enough people is interested and want a interisland ferry. Otherwise why would the Hawaii Senators want state to explore interisland ferry system?
Of course they want to explore the inter-island ferry system. Any way for the government to tax everyone for yet another particularly inefficient and costly service we don't need. It's just unnecessary expansion of our incredibly wasteful government.
How did the difference of "special" versus "general" law impact things? I've never read the Appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43
By ships that did not an Environmental Impact Statement.
See, this is where the uninformed but strongly opinionated reveal their ignorance. Let's start with the barges that "did not [do] an Environmental Impact Statement." Probably the reason for that is that they were operating before the EIS law was passed (in the 60's or 70's I think), and were thus grandfathered. Or rather they were operating out of state facilities (ports and docks) that were built before the EIS law was passed. When the state built $40 Million of harbor improvements specifically for the ferry, that triggered the legal conditions of the EIS.
It is possible that if the ferry had built those themselves, they could have avoided the EIS (though that might have been open to lawsuit too--imagine if Hawaiian airlines had the money to build another runway just for themselves at HNL, would the state just let them fill in another thousand acres of reef?).
Also, the barges are subject to later environmental laws, such as spot inspections for invasive species, etc.
So when a new service arrives, you don't think it should fit into the existing laws and regulations? If a new boat design has the potential to kill whales and other endangered sea life, we shouldn't study it to see if it will hurt the species we wanted to protect in the first place? If a ferry service introduces a new way for drugs and stolen good to move between islands, you don't think the police or DAs should have a say in how to prevent that.
By the way, ever see the security around the cruise ships? Shouldn't the ferry be just as secure? In then end you'd probably need TSA-like screenings to get on the ferry, if you really think about it.
About the appeals and state Supreme Court rulings, Hawaiian by heart gave a good summary. One detail that I would add is that the law was ruled an unconstitutional "special" law because it benefited only one company, not the general case of a ferry company. The ferry and the legislators painted themselves into a corner with that one: since they were trying to do everything retroactively, there was de facto only one company that could benefit, the one ferry company that was already using the harbor improvements and operating. So even if they said any ferry would be exempt, it's clear that only one company would and could benefit. So this distinction was critical to the whole case.
To summarize again:
There were laws on the books in Hawaii that said A) that large state expenditures on infrastructure required an EIS before the fact and B) that the legislature cannot make "special" laws that benefit only one specific entity.
The department of transportation (of the executive branch headed by the governor) made large expenditures on infrastructure without an EIS. When concerned groups sued, the state Supreme Court agreed that this violated state law (A above). Because the law specifically said the EIS must be done prior to the infrastructure, they halted its use until the EIS was complete. Then the legislature made a law that said (essentially) ferry infrastructure does not need an EIS. When concerned groups sued, the state Supreme Court agreed that this violated state law (B above) because only the superferry corp could ever be in a position to benefit. This the ferry should still be halted until an EIS was complete, per state law and the previous ruling.
The department of transportation (of the executive branch headed by the governor) made large expenditures on infrastructure without an EIS. When concerned groups sued, the state Supreme Court agreed that this violated state law (A above). Because the law specifically said the EIS must be done prior to the infrastructure, they halted its use until the EIS was complete. Then the legislature made a law that said (essentially) ferry infrastructure does not need an EIS. When concerned groups sued, the state Supreme Court agreed that this violated state law (B above) because only the superferry corp could ever be in a position to benefit. This the ferry should still be halted until an EIS was complete, per state law and the previous ruling.
The radical extremists only dodged a bullet because the Governor and Legislature got bad advice on the law they passed. Had they made the legislation "general" law - Superferry would have kept going. Since they erred on making it to specific the Superferry ran out of time. It was a super fail by elected officials to not know how to make a general law. It isn't the EIS that was the issue - it was the legislation that was faulty.
A private company invested hundreds of millions and went through all the proper permitting processes, only to be bankrupted when people filed lawsuits over it and managed to get it shut down after the fact, based on claims it might not be good for the environment, without anyone proving it.
What I found disturbing was that the company spent millions going through all the proper permit processes, all of which were granted, invested hundreds of millions based on those permits, only to be shut down and bankrupted after the fact.
While the ferry had some permits to operate (from the PUC, and even that was contested), it lacked the EIS that was required by state law (as discussed in my previous post). This is as if you had a vehicle certified by the PUC to carry passengers, but never bothered to pass your driving exam and thus don't have a license.
Do note that the private ferry company required $40 million in taxpayer money to build harbor improvements that only it could use. It also received an $80 million loan guarantee from the federal government (Bush's administration) to buy the boats (imagine you buy a super special car that is only good for your business, and if you default on the loan, the federal taxpayers will pay for it). What's even more fishy is that the person who owned the ferry company also owned the boat yard building the boat. So he was guaranteed $80 million in taxpayer money whether the ferry ever ran or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green_Mountain
If that does not bother people, imagine that you as an individual obtain all the proper permits to build a house, spend your life savings on it, and then some neighbors sue you because they don't like your house and force you to tear it down and you lose your life savings. Shouldn't those lawsuits:
1. Take place before the permit is granted?
2. If filed afterwards, shouldn't the burden of evidence be on the people filing the suits?
Your analogy should be more like this: you live on a hill in an area where buildings are limited by zoning to 3 stories (say 30 feet). You own a legal 30 foot building (that you spent your life savings on) and the lot downhill from you just started under construction. No problem you think, he'll build 30 feet to see above his downhill neighbors, and you'll still have a view from your top 2 floors. Unbeknownst to you, his cousin works in planning and signed his permits for a 50 foot house. When his construction reaches 40 feet, you start to investigate and raise the alarm. By the time you discover the illegal permit and file suit, his construction reaches 50 feet. Just before the judge rules that his construction permit is invalid, he slaps the roof on, has his cousin sign the final permit, and declares the building done and legal.
Fact: a few days before the state Supreme Court ruled on the legality of operating without an EIS, the ferry started operating anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green_Mountain
To be clear, my issue is not that there are people opposed to the ferry. My issue is that there should be a period during which opposition can be mounted, once the opposition fails and permits are issued, the burden to stop a project should be much higher.
The irony is dripping on this one. The period during which public opposition can be mounted is called... wait for it... an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The ferry corp, with the help of the law-breaking executive branch, did everything it could to avoid an EIS. It even went bankrupt to avoid an EIS. Because it did not want to consider any input from concerned locals about how to run the ferry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green_Mountain
My thinking is if the department of transportation erred, then let them reimburse the company that invested hundreds of millions based on that error.
So eventually (after many more lawsuits and politics) your neighbor's house gets torn down because it was illegal, but because a government official made the mistake, and he want along with the mistake to his benefit, the government has to pay him the 10 million cost of construction for the house? Hey, the bigger and more illegal it is, the more money the taxpayers will owe him. That logic is flawed.
Why should the company get money back if somebody did something illegal (and they were probably encouraging it under the table). All investment is risk, there are no guarantees in business. That is why good businessmen hire lawyers to advise them about doing things within the law and avoid such risks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green_Mountain
Just as business should be held accountable for their actions, so should government agencies. The ferry situation was a fiasco.
Finally something I agree with. I'm still not sure why the Lingle administration was not impeached over this. Her ties to the ferry CEO were clearly about political favors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green_Mountain
Or order the environmental impact statement be done, but allow the company to continue to operate in the mean time, since it was the state of Hawaii that made the error.
That might be possible IF the law was written that way. But it's not, according to the interpretation of the state Supreme Court.
Finally something I agree with. I'm still not sure why the Lingle administration was not impeached over this. Her ties to the ferry CEO were clearly about political favors.
That is a huge stretch since the legislation for the Superferry was approved by the extremely dominant Senate and House controlled by the Democrats. Impeach them?
It was a rare display from both sides of the aisle agreeing on legislation.
BTW, I think it's funny how everyone keeps mentioning the 30-minute flight while ignoring the fact that you should show up at the airport 60 minutes early. Now add in your 30 minute car rental and you're at 2 hours.
Nobody's ignoring it. You essentially have to show up at the ferry 60 minutes early to, so that part is equivalent to flying, so we are not taking it into account. Except it seems like processing, organizing, and loading 100 vehicles would take more than 60 minutes.
Although maybe those that took vehicles on the ferry can give us some insight into how long it took, from driving into one port and out the other.
See, this is where the uninformed but strongly opinionated reveal their ignorance. Let's start with the barges that "did not [do] an Environmental Impact Statement." Probably the reason for that is that they were operating before the EIS law was passed (in the 60's or 70's I think), and were thus grandfathered. Or rather they were operating out of state facilities (ports and docks) that were built before the EIS law was passed. When the state built $40 Million of harbor improvements specifically for the ferry, that triggered the legal conditions of the EIS.
It is possible that if the ferry had built those themselves, they could have avoided the EIS (though that might have been open to lawsuit too--imagine if Hawaiian airlines had the money to build another runway just for themselves at HNL, would the state just let them fill in another thousand acres of reef?).
Also, the barges are subject to later environmental laws, such as spot inspections for invasive species, etc.
So when a new service arrives, you don't think it should fit into the existing laws and regulations? If a new boat design has the potential to kill whales and other endangered sea life, we shouldn't study it to see if it will hurt the species we wanted to protect in the first place? If a ferry service introduces a new way for drugs and stolen good to move between islands, you don't think the police or DAs should have a say in how to prevent that.
By the way, ever see the security around the cruise ships? Shouldn't the ferry be just as secure? In then end you'd probably need TSA-like screenings to get on the ferry, if you really think about it.
About the appeals and state Supreme Court rulings, Hawaiian by heart gave a good summary. One detail that I would add is that the law was ruled an unconstitutional "special" law because it benefited only one company, not the general case of a ferry company. The ferry and the legislators painted themselves into a corner with that one: since they were trying to do everything retroactively, there was de facto only one company that could benefit, the one ferry company that was already using the harbor improvements and operating. So even if they said any ferry would be exempt, it's clear that only one company would and could benefit. So this distinction was critical to the whole case.
To summarize again:
There were laws on the books in Hawaii that said A) that large state expenditures on infrastructure required an EIS before the fact and B) that the legislature cannot make "special" laws that benefit only one specific entity.
The department of transportation (of the executive branch headed by the governor) made large expenditures on infrastructure without an EIS. When concerned groups sued, the state Supreme Court agreed that this violated state law (A above). Because the law specifically said the EIS must be done prior to the infrastructure, they halted its use until the EIS was complete. Then the legislature made a law that said (essentially) ferry infrastructure does not need an EIS. When concerned groups sued, the state Supreme Court agreed that this violated state law (B above) because only the superferry corp could ever be in a position to benefit. This the ferry should still be halted until an EIS was complete, per state law and the previous ruling.
No what I don't see is how they could be grandfathered in. New law? New requirements for interisland shipping. Not sure why that is ignorant.
__________________ ____________________________________________
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.
