Your Views for April 11

Should have killed it

I was disappointed to read that a committee of the County Council agreed to forward the Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder insurance resolution to the full council with a positive recommendation (Tribune-Herald, April 7).


The resolution is bad management, bad economics and even bad social policy, and the committee should have stopped it in its tracks.

Bad management: The county currently has a Voluntary Housing Buyout Program that is designed to reduce the number of private properties located in high-risk inundation areas.

Why would the county subvert the objectives of that program with an artificially inexpensive insurance plan that would simply encourage property owners to keep their land instead of selling it back to the county?

Bad economics: Econ 101 suggests high-risk land is going to cost less than low-risk land, but insurance coverage is going to be commensurately more expensive simply because the risk of insurance payout is greater.

So why would the county ignore that elemental reality and put the county on the hook for an expensive payout?

Bad social policy: By offering below-market insurance rates for land in a potential inundation area, the county is shifting the cost of risk from the risk-takers to the taxpayers. Ask those taxpayers if that’s good social policy.

Instead of passing the buck on a really bad idea, the committee should have sucked it up and shut it down.

Skip Sims


Regarding Kapela

I recently received in the mail something from my state representative.

What struck me was that nowhere on the envelope, nor the item enclosed, was any indication as to who paid for the production, printing and mailing. Why not?

As indicated in the enclosure, here are some of the things state Rep. Jeanne Kapela is doing (for me?).

1. Increasing taxes on the wealthy, corporations and investors. But somehow lacking was any mention that members of the state Legislature will be receiving a 10% increase in their compensation. Why is that? Perhaps possibly to overlook how the Legislature can’t do with the limited amount of funds they receive in salary. If any member of the Legislature thinks they cannot live on the existing compensation, they should not have run for office!

2. Legalizing cannabis — something I totally agree with, even though I would never think of ingesting pot. Yet, why was no mention made of doing the same for gambling? Likewise, I would never think of throwing my money away at a chance to score big, but others should have that right. After all, churches always seem to have “Las Vegas nights” on the mainland (compensation to claimants of sex crimes, perhaps?)

3. Transition to clean technology. I’d be all in favor of this if there was some means of providing electricity without the use of carbon-producing products, such as oil or coal. Solar and wind, I don’t think that they can provide all our energy needs all the time.

4. Establishing a legal “personhood” for Maunakea. That’s a very good idea where the state will spend countless amounts of money to alleviate the religious concerns of a few native individuals.

Let’s see how many of these items reach fulfillment based on the almost one-party rule of the Legislature.


Michael L. Last


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Star-Advertiser's TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email