On shaky ground ADVERTISING On shaky ground I was at Puu Huluhulu on Tuesday, Oct. 7, with almost 300 of my ohana and kupuna, participating in a potent cleansing and healing ceremony for Mauna Kea — a peaceful action in
On shaky ground
I was at Puu Huluhulu on Tuesday, Oct. 7, with almost 300 of my ohana and kupuna, participating in a potent cleansing and healing ceremony for Mauna Kea — a peaceful action in response to the Thirty Meter Telescope’s ill-timed groundbreaking while appeals of its state approvals are still in the courts.
Not wanting to be tempted to act out of frustration or anger, I chose not to go up to the summit. Some of us have been trying, since before 1995, to correct the land mismanagement practices of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the University of Hawaii on behalf of the University of California, the California Institute of Technology, the international astronomy industry, and local construction companies.
No doubt the actions of my more energetic and younger ohana raised strong emotions among the invited dignitaries, Office of Mauna Kea Management staff and rangers, county police and the respected Rev. Daniel Keala Akaka Jr.
I am grateful to all at the summit that there was restraint, no physical violence, and no arrests, despite the ill-advised blocking of a public road by the Office of Mauna Kea Management and county police.
I also chose not to go to the summit because I’m confident our legal appeals in the state Supreme Court and in the Third Circuit Court will ultimately halt this further industrialization of the mountain’s conservation district.
Astronomy officials and TMT supporters should harbor no illusions. Dubious shortcuts through state and federal laws, judicial rulings made with incomplete records and risky sleight-of-hand maneuvering with a short-term TMT sublease all leave the proposed telescope on very shaky legal grounds.
Nelson Ho
Sierra Club
Response to Ho
The Sierra Club’s statement from Nelson Ho that appeared (in West Hawaii Today on Oct. 15 and today in the Tribune-Herald) contained erroneous information in reference to the closure of the Mauna Kea Access Road during the scheduled groundbreaking ceremony for the Thirty Meter Telescope on Oct. 7.
I was there; Nelson Ho, by his admission, was not.
As the former chair of the Mauna Kea Management Board and a member for 12 years, I have firsthand knowledge of the critical importance the Office of Mauna Kea Management places on open access to this resource. OMKM instituted the ranger program to protect the natural and cultural resources and to guard against unsafe conduct that might endanger lives.
The OMKM Public Access Plan, approved by the state Board of Land and Natural Resources, states that the highest management priorities for public access in the UH management areas are public health and safety, and the conservation of natural and cultural resources. The plan also states that road safety for all users on the Summit Access Road will be a high management priority.
The OMKM worked with the Hawaii County police and fire departments, sheriff’s office and DLNR’s Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement Branch to develop a plan to keep summit access open while providing for a safe environment for all, and to keep an emergency lane clear. OMKM rangers and staff were also on hand to see to the safety of everyone – making sure those who were not feeling well could receive medical attention.
The Mauna Kea Access Road, including access to the summit, was not closed by OMKM or the Hawaii County police. The road was blocked by individuals protesting the groundbreaking ceremony. The road leading to the groundbreaking site is a narrow and rocky one-way lane.
Keeping it free and clear was a paramount public health safety concern. I was dismayed to learn that an ambulance transporting a sick individual down from the high-altitude summit was delayed at the blockade, and rangers had to intervene and request an opening in the road to allow passage.
Further, “dubious shortcuts through state and federal laws” as intimated by Mr. Ho, are nonexistent. The university followed and complied with all procedures. The various legal procedures and court decisions included a careful review of all the facts and evidence, including those presented by the opponents. I feel confident in the court’s decision thus far.
Barry K. Taniguchi
Hilo
