Your Views for April 6

Admit more keiki

Admission rejection letters for Kamehameha Schools-Hawaii’s ninth-grade class (2014-15) have been sent out. I can’t help to wonder if the legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop’s foundation is being properly served.

Out of 127 students, only 36 were granted admission. That is a startling low number.

I read about all the real estate development and the remodel of the Kapalama Campus, and yet here on the Big Island, entrance into high school was 36 children.

How shameful. How are the children of Hawaii being prepared to initiate change, and make a difference for the future, if it is impossible to be chosen for this elite school. Is it time for an audit?

Tamara Lupoloff

Hakalau

Opposed to foster bill

Regarding the story about the proposed increase for the foster family allowance (Tribune-Herald, March 27): I find it interesting how a foster parent makes $529 a month to care for one child, but parents who are less financially fortunate or disabled are expected to do the same (actually better) with a quarter of that amount.

What the foster parent forgot to mention is those children who arrive at her home with no shoes, no clothes, etc., do come with emergency vouchers. She also stated $529 a month isn’t enough to raise a child. I happen to know a single disabled parent can raise four children, pay bills and not be in “need” with less than $1,000 a month and food stamps.

If a full-time employed single parent can raise those same four children and pay rent, utilities, provide for the house and have gas to get to work on an income of less than $1,500 a month, why would a foster parent need any more than the $2,116 one would be receiving had they fostered four children?

The foster parent claims, “It becomes a burden eventually to feed these kids.” If it’s a burden to feed a child on $529 a month, a foster parent shouldn’t be one.

Foster children should be cared for, not paying people’s mortgage. Bill 1576 is, if passed, a big waste of money.

Timothy Snedeker

Pahoa

Ranch vs. HELCO

Regarding Parker Ranch’s efforts to reduce electricity costs (Tribune-Herald, March 27): Mahalo to the ranch’s progressive thinking. As a newcomer to the island, I find it shameful as to HELCO’s response to the proliferation of photovoltaic (PV) and the apparent problem with the grid (really?)

Then, there’s the plan to truck trees down the coast 50 miles to burn in Pepeekeo for energy on an island with a stagnant population and huge amounts of renewable energy. Millions of dollars have been poured into a plant on an ocean bluff for such a venture. How and why could this plan ever been conceived? I don’t get it. But I’m new here.

Then, last week I opened the Tribune-Herald to a page 3 column regarding renewal energy and cheaper rates. HELCO or a government proposal? Wishful thinking.

The powers to be at Parker Ranch state the obvious regarding the island’s gifts of wind, solar, geothermal and ocean waves and simply say, yeah, time for a microgrid to cut costs and serve the ranch and the communities of Waimea and Kohala in the future. Key word: future.

Man has been burning whatever for energy since he harnessed fire. Of course, for power companies, change means costs. So, they keep burning and burning … and raising rates!

Having lived for 60-plus years in Southern California, basically a 12-million-person populated suburb, allow me to remind you just how special and privileged we are to call home this island paradise and blessed to be the most remote island from any continent on earth.

We must we wary of monopolistic power companies (government granted, yes) but insist on transparency, as well as a proactive Public Utilities Commission to serve the public’s best interests.

Most importantly, applaud and follow the lead of the folks at Parker Ranch, and move into the 21st century regarding our resources of energy that abound on these islands.

Bob Smith

Pepeekeo