Sunday, September 1, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 17

    Reform permitting process to cut inequality, favoritism and delays

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Reform permitting process to cut inequality, favoritism and delays

    By Keli‘i Akina

    All permit applications are equal, but some are more equal than others.

    With apologies to George Orwell, that was the thought that kept running through my mind as I read Honolulu Civil Beat’s new exposé on wait times at the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting.

    Keli’i Akina

    In Orwell’s 1945 classic “Animal Farm,” the many animals of a farm work together to overthrow their dictatorial human master. But once the revolution has passed, some of the pigs slowly seize power and change the last of the farm’s “seven commandments” from “All animals are created equal” to “Some animals are more equal than others.”

    And that’s how it seems sometimes when trying to obtain a building permit in Hawaii.

    It is common knowledge that Hawaii has some of the worst permitting delays in the nation, which contribute to the high cost of housing in our state. According to the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawai‘i, the average delay for a permit in Hawaii is three times the national sample mean.

    Permit applicants in Hawaii sometimes have to wait more than a year for approval, and horror stories abound of people waiting years for approval of their renovation and construction projects.

    A local acting group, The Actors Guild, even performed a play, titled “Building Permit,” to sold-out crowds about their five-year ordeal of trying to obtain a permit to renovate their new theater at the Dole Cannery in Iwilei. The play, which ran Sept. 15 through Oct. 1, resonated with a lot of people, and I can understand why.

    The biggest surprise that came from Civil Beat’s investigation of Honolulu’s permitting woes, though, was not the tales of the long waits, but of the short ones. Reporter Christina Jedra found enormous disparities in wait times between similar projects, raising questions about why some permit applications get special treatment while others languish for months or years.

    As expected, some of that special treatment was the result of bribery and corruption. Two architects who have been charged with bribery enjoyed quick permit turnarounds — one of them consistently received the speediest approvals, while the other typically received his approvals in less than half the time of similar projects.

    But not all of the disparities can be explained by bribery. Jedra’s investigation revealed dozens of examples of applicants who consistently obtained their permits approved in record time.

    For example, the average wait for a permit on a project that includes alterations with electrical and plumbing is 135 days, but Jedra found 20 applicants who consistently received their permits in half the time. Seven of those applicants, with 164 permit applications between them, each waited fewer than 50 days for approval.

    Differences between plans and architects might explain some of the disparity, but Jedra’s research suggested it couldn’t account for the vast gulf between very similar projects.

    She looked at four different applications of a single project type — a new building expected to cost about $850,000 with electrical, plumbing and solar. From fastest to slowest, the turnaround times in days were 45, 170, 217 and 345.

    Why do some permits get stuck for a year and others fly through approvals?

    Jedra found cases of some permits getting bumped to the front of the line after an inquiry from the mayor.

    There is also the persistent impression that the permitting department rewards personal relationships and small niceties, such as fruit baskets and boxes of manapua — a cultural problem identified by law professor Randall Roth.

    And of course, there is the basic fact that Honolulu’s permitting department is simply overwhelmed by its responsibilities.

    Addressing the ethical issues should be straightforward. A commission convened last year by the Legislature identified ways in which the state could better prevent this kind of corruption and favoritism.

    On a more practical level, simply speeding up wait times by reducing the burden on county permitting departments could cut the temptation of contractors, architects and others to curry favor with department officials.

    The Honolulu City Council and mayor made progress on that front in June by approving Bill 56, which exempted certain small home projects and repairs from needing building permits. This will remove thousands of applications from the wait line, leaving permitting officials more time to focus on the remaining ones.

    Currently, the Council is considering Bill 6, which would allow applications to be reviewed by third-party professionals. If approved, this too would help reduce delays.

    Still, there is more that we can do, such as increase the value thresholds for permit exemptions, increase the number and types of projects that do not require permits, look to private contractors to help address the permitting backlogs, and create avenues for preapproved plans that require minimal review.

    Reducing the permitting workload for both applicants and the DPP would eliminate our favoritism problem at its root. Then, all permit applications really would be equal.
    __________

    Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    Tourists, Keep Out!

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    Tourists, Keep Out!

    In Vermont, there is a small town known as Pomfret.  It has one of the most picturesque areas of the country for fall foliage, called Sleepy Hollow Farm.  The town decided to close two of its main roads to tourists for the seasons.  Why?  According to NBC News, the tourists who showed up “damaged roads, had accidents, required towing out of ditches, trampled gardens, defecated on private property, parked in fields and driveways, and verbally assaulted residents.”  Videos showed tourists entering the farm (private property) to take pictures in defiance of a “No Trespassing” sign posted.  Obviously, this description was not true of all tourists, but apparently there were enough instances of bad behavior to irk the people who live there.

    As West Maui recovers from the devastating wildfires of a couple of months ago, residents, with some justification, are afraid of similar things happening to them.  People whose homes burned down and are now living in hotels temporarily are worried that the hotels will kick them out in favor of paying tourists.  People who worked in the visitor service industries don’t want to deal with tourists asking them about whether they were displaced and otherwise forcing them to relive the horrific wildfire day.  (Can’t they just say to nosy or busybody tourists, “I’m sorry but I prefer not to talk about that”?)  Maybe people are concerned that they won’t appreciate tourists who do dumb or disrespectful things like taking selfies in the burned-out shell of a car, or what used to be one, on Front Street.

    As a result, local residents delivered a petition with some 14,000 signatures to Gov. Green urging him to bar tourists to the area for a while longer.  They say it’s too soon to invite vacationers back while area residents are still traumatized and are in mourning.

    One thing that we need to realize is that there is only so much our government is allowed to do.

    As we have written about before, citizens of the United States have a constitutional right to travel.  If locals can go to a certain area, residents of other states should be able to go there too.  If the dirt is full of toxic chemicals and government needs to keep all people out, that’s acceptable because government is acting even-handedly.  If the property involved is privately owned and the owner wants to kick folks off, that isn’t a problem either because the owner has a right to do that (especially if the person being kicked has defiled or damaged the property).  But if it’s publicly owned property and locals can readily tread upon it, then tourists have to be allowed to do the same thing.

    And, whether or not government is allowed to bar tourists on a discriminatory basis, is it even a good idea?  Sure, some residents don’t want to deal with the outside world at this time and see tourists as invaders and trespassers. But what about other folks who want to open their businesses to feed their families?  Should government be shoving their faces into the dirt and telling them that they need to starve until some others in the community are good and ready?

    With a tragedy like the Lahaina fires, the persons involved have many choices to make.  Quite a few of these are personal choices, which means you decide for yourself and not for others.  In this situation government should not be there to take choices away without good reason.

    Interstate compacts are painless way we can improve healthcare access

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Interstate compacts are painless way we can improve healthcare access

    By Keli‘i Akina

    Imagine that licensed medical professionals from various mainland states are lined up to work in Hawaii.

    Let’s say they all arrived by plane and are now in a locked room at the Honolulu airport, waiting for state officials to let them come in and start treating people.

    Under current law, they will be waiting there for a long time, since each of them would need separate a Hawaii license to practice here, and it’s a long and costly bureaucratic process to obtain one.

    Keli’i Akina

    Sure, sometimes our governors issue emergency orders that let out-of-state medical professionals practice in Hawaii immediately so they can address local needs, as during the COVID-19 crisis. But that’s only on a temporary basis.

    In general, healthcare workers — doctors, nurses, physical therapists, psychologists, emergency medical service specialists and many more — have to jump through a bunch of hoops before they can leave that metaphorical waiting room and do their part to alleviate Hawaii’s critical healthcare shortage.

    So why am I saying this? Because for doctors, that will soon change.

    This year, the Legislature and governor approved a measure, SB674, that allowed Hawaii to join the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which will make it easier for doctors from member states to practice in Hawaii.

    Currently, there are 37 states that participate in the IMLC, plus Guam and the District of Columbia. Four other states, including Hawaii, are in the implementation phase and will eventually be full members of the compact.

    Once Hawaii is a fully participating member of the IMLC — ideally by the beginning of 2025 — we will start to see measurable improvements in Hawaii’s healthcare access and quality.

    Marschall Smith, executive director of the IMLC Commission, told Grassroot that states generally see a 10% to 15% increase in the number of new licenses issued, and about 45% go to physicians who have chosen to practice in rural and underserved areas. A separate study of IMLC states found that compact participation is associated with better quality hospital care.

    More doctors in Hawaii could mean more specialists, which would reduce the need for Hawaii residents to travel to the mainland for certain medical procedures.

    It also will mean greater access to telemedicine for patients interested in consulting with their physicians over the internet — something that has great potential to improve care in Hawaii, given our geographic limitations.

    Currently, a doctor must have a Hawaii medical license to practice telemedicine in our state. So making it easier for doctors to be licensed in Hawaii will expand the pool of doctors able to provide telehealth services to Hawaii patients, even if many of those doctors are still on the mainland.

    Aside from doctors, can we make it easier for other medical professionals to treat patients here? Absolutely.

    So far, we have opened the door to physicians, but there are other medical compacts that Hawaii could join as well, including the Nursing Licensure Compact, the Physical Therapy Licensure Compact, the Advanced Practice Registered Nurses Compact, the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact, the Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology Interstate Compact and the EMS Compact.

    Our legislators debated joining many of these other compacts during the legislative session earlier this year, but only the IMLC was approved. Next year, the Legislature should consider broadening Hawaii’s compact participation.

    As we explained in a recent Grassroot report, “Joining multiple interstate compacts could be the simplest route to address the difficulties medical professionals face in moving to Hawaii.”

    Given how long it takes to get through the implementation stage, delaying passage of new compact legislation would mean years of waiting before we could start to see any benefits. Rather than drag their feet, state policymakers should leap at the opportunity to join these additional medical licensure compacts.

    Let’s make Hawaii a more welcoming place for healthcare professionals to practice. It’s a simple way to improve healthcare access for all Hawaii residents.
    __________

    Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    Who Really Pays?

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    Who Really Pays?

    Have you ever thought about who, really, pays the cost of something like a Lahaina wildfire or a Hurricane Iniki?

    In the Lahaina wildfire case, victims are getting assistance from our federal and state governments. Some of them are trying to short-circuit the process by suing the government. Then the government is suing a private company, our electric utility. Some claimants are also suing private parties, such as owners of the properties that contained overgrown grass and brush which, according to the lawsuits, fueled the fire and should not have if the properties were maintained properly.

    Who really pays for all of this, and how can the costs be minimized?

    Let’s start with the utility.  Utilities work by providing a needed good or service (electricity has some characteristics of both goods and services, but that doesn’t matter) and spreading the cost for providing it among the people who want it.  And, because it is a private company, it needs to make a profit.  So, the costs that fall on the utility and the profit that it gets are, in theory, paid by its customers.

    The utility, like other businesses and people, might have bought insurance.  If the insurance applies, then the cost that the insurer pays for is spread over a different set of buyers, namely other policy holders of the same insurance company.  And, of course, the insurer is a private company as well, so it also needs to make a profit.

    To the extent that government pays the costs, it also spreads the costs over a set of people, namely taxpayers.  As we often say, “Governments don’t pay taxes.  Taxpayers pay taxes.”  But, at least in theory, there is no profit that is needed to run a government.  There are inefficiencies, however, which is what we write about often.  Inefficiencies include corruption, which some of our state politicians found out about when they received hefty federal sentences; and infighting, which costs a lot but produces little or nothing.  (Just look at what’s happening with the federal budget in Washington, DC, for multiple examples of infighting.)

    The costs of fighting, attorney fees for example, are also a problem for individuals and businesses whether or not they are making a profit.

    How do we lessen the overall cost of this tragedy to the ultimate bearers of these costs, namely us, as taxpayers and ratepayers and business customers?

    First, we need to reduce the number of times that profits are mixed into the costs and expand to the extent possible the number of people who will be paying.

    Second, we need to reduce or eliminate the costs of corruption, fraud, and related bad behavior.

    Third, we need to get rid of the costs of fighting among ourselves relating to who pays the costs.

    How about it, then, if we enact a law next session that says:  There will be a fund of $X.  People who lived in the affected area can take $x from the fund.  Businesses with a physical location in the affected area can take $y from the fund.  Government, the utility, and other people or entities who had responsibility for the tragedy need to pay into the fund.  Lawsuits won’t be allowed by or against contributors or recipients of fund money.  (This is somewhat like our workers’ compensation system.)  Anyone who submits a fraudulent claim or steals fund money gets thrown in the hoosegow without mercy.  In the legislative process, we work out how much is paid by whom.  There may be disagreements, but they should be resolved in one session and not over multiple years with judgments and appeals.

    Maybe that will help all of us, who in one way or another are going to bear the costs of this tragedy.

    Government should take hands-off approach to Maui tourism

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Government should take hands-off approach to Maui tourism

    By Keli‘i Akina

    There has been a lot of passionate debate about when to reopen West Maui to tourism in the wake of the Aug. 8 fires in Lahaina that killed almost a hundred people and destroyed thousands of homes and nearly a thousand businesses.

    Proponents of reopening say Maui desperately needs the revenues to help island residents get back on their feet. Critics of reopening, on the other hand, contend that survivors need more time to grieve, and that it would be insensitive and even offensive to have tourists traipsing through their communities while recovery efforts have barely begun.

    Keli’i Akina

    Lost in the discussion is an important question: Should the government have the last word in creating a tourism timeline?

    My answer is no. Everyone in the area should have their own timelines for when they want to re-engage with the tourism industry — if they want to participate in the tourism industry at all. After all, not everyone wants to work in a hotel, restaurant or retail outlet that caters to tourists. And that should be their right.

    But overall, we need to leave it to Maui residents to decide what is best for them individually — especially to the extent that they are the rightful owners of the properties involved.

    To be clear, our state and counties do have a role to play when it comes to legitimate questions of public health and safety. But just as our and state county governments should not be involved in promoting the tourism, neither should they be trying to block it.

    Aside from the principle of the matter, there also is the practical reality that tourism is important in helping Lahaina and all of Maui recover economically.

    Just yesterday, Honolulu Civil Beat published an article saying that Maui County is facing a $31.2 million budget shortfall due to the wildfires in Lahaina, Kula and Olinda. And back in late August, the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawai‘i estimated that Maui’s economy was losing $13 million a day because of the fires.

    Unemployment on the island is now rampant, and many residents are likely to leave for other islands or the mainland to find ways to support themselves and their families.

    In short, there are good reasons why many people on Maui are desperate to see tourism return to the island.

    Maui Mayor Richard Bissen recently announced he will initiate a phased-in reopening of West Maui, starting tomorrow. But that might not wind up being as troublesome to local residents as reopening opponents expect.

    Initial reports indicate that there won’t be a flood of tourists heading to Maui in the coming weeks; it’s likely to be more of a trickle. The state’s chief economist, Eugene Tian, said this week that it took more than two years for Maui visitor arrivals to reach 95% of their 2019 pre-COVID-19 level, and it probably will take more than two years for them to rebound to where they were before the fires.

    Ultimately, I recognize wholeheartedly that this is a difficult topic. Each side of the debate should have understanding and sympathy for the other. It is best to approach these differences in a spirit of compassion and goodwill. People naturally have different needs and concerns, and we are all trying our best to address them.
    __________

    Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    Vomit Warning: How Throwing Up Can Cause a Stroke

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    Vomit Warning: How Throwing Up Can Cause a Stroke

    Vomiting is a distasteful subject most people don’t touch, which is why we never learn the correct way to vomit. As a result, people risk potentially fatal health problems when they throw up, some of which will blow their minds, literally.

    Scientists have studied the physiology of vomiting, but to remind anyone who doesn’t remember what vomiting feels like, there is a tremendous pressure that arises within the abdomen that propels partially digested food from the stomach and intestines out of the mouth. This pressure you also feel in your head, as your face turns red, your eyes bug out, and your sinuses fill with mucus. Essentially, pressure in the head and all its organs increase when you throw up, including in the brain, eyes, ears, and sinuses.

    Sometimes, the pressure created in your head due to the vomiting can be large enough to burst a blood vessel in your eye, called a subconjunctival hemorrhage. According to the American Optometric Association, these broken blood vessels in the eye, “May be from increasing pressure in the head from straining, lifting heavy objects or vomiting.”

    Of course, if vomiting can break eye blood vessels, then it can do the same to your brain. When that happens, it’s called a hemorrhagic stroke. If it happens in the space between the brain and the skull, it’s called a subarachnoid hemorrhage. In both cases, the pressure inside the blood vessels in the brain is too great, and the wall of a vessel can burst, causing the brain to bleed. This can result in all sorts of brain problems, including death. 

    Interestingly, vomiting is a symptom of strokes once they occur. Many people are brought into the hospital after a stroke with signs of having vomited. However, the current medical approach is to consider vomiting a symptom of having had a stroke, and not the cause of the stroke. Of course, it can be both the symptom and the cause, but the causal aspect has been overlooked and ignored.

    Realize that there are also ischemic strokes, where the blood vessels in the brain get blocked by a clot or plaque and this leads to reduced blood supply to parts of the brain. Most strokes, about 70%, are of this ischemic type. Interestingly, vomiting is more associated with hemorrhagic strokes than ischemic strokes, which is what you would expect if the cause of the hemorrhage is pressure from vomiting. 

    A 2016 study published in the British Medical Journal, entitled, Vomiting Should be a Prompt Predictor of Stroke Outcome, discovered that vomiting was seen in 14.5% of all stroke patients. When subdivided according to stroke type, vomiting was observed in 8.7% of ischemic strokes, 23.7% of bleeding strokes, and 36.8% of subarachnoid hemorrhage cases. 

    The medical research into strokes and vomiting always assume that the vomiting is a result of the stroke, without asking whether the vomiting precipitated the stroke. 

    It seems obvious that vomiting increases head/brain pressure, although it is hard to find a study where they measured brain pressure during vomiting. But we all feel it when we throw up.  

    This is especially a problem for people with weakened blood vessels in their brains due to genetics, or to years of extra brain pressure. These weakened blood vessel areas are called aneurysms, which balloon out under pressure to the point of breaking, at which point there is a hemorrhagic stroke. Lifting heavy objects, holding in a sneeze, and vomiting are some ways we suddenly increase blood pressure in the brain enough to possibly break an aneurysm and have a stroke. 

    In summary, research shows that vomiting is associated with bleeding strokes, and that vomiting can cause blood vessels to burst in the brain, eye, and subarachnoid space. It seems logical and obvious that vomiting can cause a stroke, although the medical literature only mentions vomiting as a symptom of a stroke and not the cause. 

    Now that we know vomiting can cause a stroke, is there a way to more safely vomit? Put differently, is there something about the way our culture trains us to vomit that we can change to reduce the risk of stroke?

    Actually, there is a way to improve the way you vomit. And it all has to do with where you vomit.

    When people in modern societies vomit, they usually rush to the toilet bowl. In a modern house with indoor toilets, where else would you go to vomit? While it hasn’t been researched, it is probable that most modern people vomit in the toilet bowl. But while this seems sensible from a clean-up perspective, it does harm to your brain.

    Brain circulation is affected by gravity. When you stand up, your brain is above your heart, and gravity pulls the blood from your head back to your heart. Gravity also resists the pumping of blood to the brain from your heart. However, when you bend over or lie down, your brain is lowered relative to your heart, and the gravity relationship between the two changes. With the head and heart on the same level, as when sleeping in bed or bending over the toilet to throw up, the blood pressure to the brain is not resisted by gravity as the heart pumps blood to your head. Likewise, there is no gravity pulling the blood from the head down to the heart when the head and heart are on the same level. This results in a red face, pressurized eyes, pressurized sinuses, and a pressurized brain. 

    I have written about the effect of gravity and sleep position, and how head of bed elevation when sleeping can prevent, and cure, a host of problems associated with excessive brain pressure, including migraines, sleep apnea, stroke, glaucoma, and Alzheimer’s. See my article Heads Up: The Way You Are Sleeping May Be killing You. In the case of vomiting, there is increased brain pressure already being created by leaning over the toilet bowl. As you vomit, your body convulses, and your brain pressurizes, adding to the pressure of bending over the toilet bowl. 

    People with weakened brain blood vessels, or cerebral aneurysms, do not always have symptoms. According to the American Stroke Association, “We usually don’t know why an aneurysm bleeds or exactly when it will bleed. We do know what increases the chance for bleeding: High blood pressure is the leading cause of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Heavy lifting or straining can cause pressure to rise in the brain and may lead to an aneurysm rupture. Strong emotions, such as being upset or angry, can raise blood pressure and can subsequently cause aneurysms to rupture.”

    The first sign of an aneurysm may be when it breaks after you vomit into the toilet. And remember that eye bleeding happens with vomiting, so you don’t necessarily need an aneurysm to break a blood vessel in the head and brain when vomiting.

    This begs the question, is there a better place to vomit so your head is not extra pressurized by leaning down and over a toilet bowl? 

    Clearly, the less you lower your head to vomit, the less you will pressurize your head. So here are some suggestions to make vomiting less harmful to your head, and possibly help you avoid a stroke.

    1. If you can, throw up in as standing a position as possible. You will instinctively want to bend over a bit, but a toilet bowl is much lower than you need to effectively vomit. 

    2. Try using the sink to vomit. This adds the ability to check out what you are throwing up, in case that is important, or interesting. Or try using a “barf” bag, or other container you can hold.

    3. Practice other ways of reducing brain pressure to prevent aneurysms, including sleeping with the head of the bed elevated slightly. 

    4. If you experience a severe headache or other brain/nervous system problems after vomiting, consider the possibility of a stroke, and tell you healthcare provider about the vomiting. 

    5. Keep in mind that COVID and other diseases which increase vomiting can also increase stroke risk. Tell you doctor about this, since they will not think of this themselves. 

    In conclusion, vomiting is bad enough without it also causing a stroke, which can kill or disable you. The cultural practice of using a toilet bowl for vomiting exposes people to episodes of very high brain pressure, which can be fatal for some if it leads to a stroke. By vomiting in a more erect posture, and practicing head of bed elevation to reduce brain pressure when sleeping, you can protect your brain from the hazards of vomiting. You should be able to throw up without blowing up.

    Say “Yes in God’s backyard” to more housing

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Say “Yes in God’s backyard” to more housing

    By Keli‘i Akina

    I don’t usually endorse following California’s lead on policy issues, but there might be something Hawaii can learn from our close mainland neighbor when it comes to housing reform.

    Specifically, California legislators recently passed what became known as the “Yes in God’s backyard” bill, which streamlined the state’s permitting and zoning laws to make it easier for religious and higher educational institutes to build homes on lands that they own.

    Keli’i Akina

    Christopher Calton, a research fellow at California’s Independent Institute and my guest this week on ThinkTech Hawaii’s “Hawaii Together” program, said the measure will free up about 170,000 acres of land that could be used for lower-cost housing.

    A similar measure was considered earlier this year by the Hawaii Legislature, but it failed to make it to the governor’s desk.

    Other recent California housing reforms cited by Calton allow up to four homes on a single-family-zoned lot, and authorize the construction of accessory dwelling units that could be used as rentals.

    These reflect a growing acceptance of the YIMBY or “Yes in my backyard” philosophy of housing policy — as opposed to “Not in my backyard” advocates who see new housing as a threat to their property values or aesthetic sensibilities.

    Calton said passing the “Yes in God’s backyard” law shows that California legislators have recognized that permitting barriers and zoning regulations are two chief contributors to the state’s housing crisis.

    But, he continued, “if we’re recognizing this, why are we limiting this … when we can open it up to all property owners and have an even greater effect?”

    Ultimately, Calton said, the best way to prompt more housing construction would be to eliminate zoning completely, as in Houston where the median cost of a home is $300,000 and the median monthly rent is $1,800 for a three-bedroom unit.

    But shy of going that far, Calton recommended at least liberalizing zoning and adopting “by right” permitting.

    Liberalized zoning, he said, would include abolishing single-family zoning, parking requirements and minimum lot size and floor-area requirements, as well as allowing a wider variety of “housing typologies,” such as apartments, duplexes, condos and mobile homes.

    By-right permitting simply says planning officials must issue building permits to applicants who can show that their proposed projects conform to all existing zoning and building codes, thus qualifying for construction without discretionary approval.

    Calton said he was happy to see that support is growing for housing policies that the Independent and Grassroot institutes have been recommending for decades.

    In fact, he said, liberalized zoning reform today is “largely being driven by progressives, who usually, typically, are going to be characterized by looking to the state to do more, not less. So that’s quite remarkable, and speaks to the fact that when people are facing a severe crisis, they’re going to look for innovative solutions.”

    Now, if we in Hawaii can just speed up enacting those innovative solutions into law.
    __________

    Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    Disaster Preparedness and Food System Resilience in Hawaii

    Albie Miles
    -
    0
    Disaster Preparedness and Food System Resilience in Hawaii

    Thursday, October 19, 2023 5pm – 8pm

    Hawaii’s greater food system resilience and disaster preparedness in the context of accelerating climate change-induced extreme weather.

    By Civil Beat, UHWO, Better Tomorrow Series, Waiwai

    Click here for tickets!

    Location

    Ka Waiwai1110 University Avenue Honolulu, HI 96826

    Show map

    The Maui fires exposed Hawaii’s vulnerability to extreme climate change-induced weather events, once again raising questions over how disaster-ready the state is. This panel discussion will highlight the needs and strategies for building greater food system resilience and disaster preparedness for Hawaii.

    Presented by The Hawaiʻi Institute for Sustainable Community Food Systems at University of Hawaiʻi – West Oʻahu, Honolulu Civil Beat, UH Better Tomorrow Speaker Series, and Waiwai Collective, this series is meant to generate key opportunities for community dialogue among a diverse audience, aiming to achieve a healthy, equitable, resilient and sustainable food system for Hawaiʻi.

    Featured Panelists:

    This panel discussion will be moderated by Civil Beat reporter Thomas Heaton.

    Agenda:

    Doors open at 5 p.m. for booths, music and a complimentary pupus. Speakers will start at 6 p.m, followed by an optional post-discussion community forum from 7 – 8 p.m.

    Let the Donor Beware

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0

    You may have heard the phrase “caveat emptor,” meaning “Let the buyer beware.”  It’s an old proverb, from the Latin phrase meaning that a buyer of something should make sure that the product is good, and that the seller has the right to sell it, before buying a product.  In modern contract law in this country, we legally obligate sellers to certain minimum standards like not telling demonstrable lies about the stuff they are selling, but a seller can be very misleading without actually telling lies.

    Of these, one of my favorites is “A portion of every purchase will go to benefit XYZ Charity.”  This statement can be 100% true, but it does not tell you how much actually goes to charity.  A few years ago, for example, Amazon operated a program called “Amazon Smile.”  They signed up charities like the Tax Foundation and truthfully advertised that a portion of each purchase made under the Amazon Smile Program would go to the charity.  The actual amount that went to the Tax Foundation was 0.5%.  Better than nothing, perhaps.

    The same principle applies to solicitations for donations.  The Lahaina Fire just happened.  People are sympathetic and want to give money toward fire victim relief.  Civil Beat recently ran a story about the Maui Community Power Recovery Fund.  It’s a great-sounding name, but what does the fund actually do?  A search for the fund directs the user to a page on ActBlue, a fund-raising platform used by Democrats here and nationally.  The page says, in bold type, “The Maui Community Power Recovery Fund exists to support leaders and organizations who have been leading to address the root causes of the Maui Fires devastation for years, and will continue to be there when the cameras fade away.”  It supports leaders and organizations.  It doesn’t say anything about supporting victims or rebuilding devastated areas.  It doesn’t say anything about providing food or housing for the displaced or funeral expenses for the bereaved.

    The website goes on: “The magnitude of this undertaking will demand investments in the billions.  As we grapple with these enormous costs, it’s imperative that we actively participate in legislative, regulatory, and political arenas.”  That doesn’t sound like disaster relief.  It sounds like political action.  And, lo and behold, the site explicitly says, “Your contribution will benefit Our Hawaii Action.”  Our Hawaii Action is a Hawaii-organized nonprofit corporation the purpose of which, according to its DCCA filing, is to “educate, organize, advocate, and engage in elections to expose the corruption and complacency holding our islands back and advance an agenda to make Hawai‘i work for all of us, not just the wealthy few.”  It so happens that there is a Super PAC called Our Hawaii PAC, registered with the FEC and the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, that seems to be organized and run by the same fellow.   In other words, the Maui Community Power Recovery Fund is probably part of a Super PAC and will likely spend donations on political activities.

    If you were expecting the Maui Community Power Recovery Fund to be a charity offering relief to Maui wildfire victims and you were surprised to see that it was a political action committee, you needed to look harder.  An entity describing its purpose might be misleading even where it is 100% telling the truth. Not all of them tell the truth.

    Let the donor beware.

    How to teach Hawaii’s youth the principles of freedom

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    How to teach Hawaii’s youth the principles of freedom

    If you want to create a generation of leaders and engaged voters for the future, you need to understand what is going on with our education system today.

    And according to Connor Boyack, the featured speaker at the latest Grassroot Institute of Hawaii luncheon, our education system isn’t doing so well.

    Keli’i Akina

    Boyack is founder and president of the Libertas Institute in Utah and creator of the “Tuttle Twins” book series aimed at children and young adults.

    In 2019, he was named one of the “25 most politically influential Utahns” in The Salt Lake Tribune, and his books have sold more than 5 million copies. The adventures of the Tuttle Twins — Ethan and Emily — also have become the basis for a popular cartoon series on YouTube, now in its second season.

    Sharing the stage with me at the Grassroot Institute’s sold-out event on Oahu, Boyack said major studies of student proficiency in America have shown pathetic results, putting our nation’s future as a free nation seriously at stake.

    He said his own review of modern social studies books found them teaching “superficial factoids of history” but failing miserably at teaching “the substantive ideas that motivated these historical actors.”

    Boyack said he started looking into the world of education about 10 years ago so he could talk to his own children about what he did every day at his job at the Libertas Institute.

    “How do I teach them that I was fighting eminent domain at City Hall, battling with these lawmakers or talking with reporters? How do I express to my kids the ideas that I believe in, that I’m fighting for?”

    He said he was surprised by the lack of any materials for children that explained the principles of freedom and the free market. After all, he said, there are plenty of materials that parents can use to pass on their religious beliefs. Why not the same thing for those who want to pass on other values?

    Thus, the Tuttle Twins were born.

    Over the years, the Tuttle Twins have done more than just help children understand freedom and America’s founding principles. They also have become a clever way to get parents talking and thinking about these principles too.

    Boyack cited the story of a 12-year-old Colorado boy named Jaiden who made nationwide news a few weeks ago after he was banished from a class for refusing to remove a Gadsden flag patch from his backpack. The historic flag features the well-known coiled snake and the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me.”

    During a conversation with Jaiden and his mother that his mother videotaped, the school’s vice principal cited the flag’s alleged “origins with slavery” and said the patch was disruptive to the class environment.

    Jaiden’s mother pointed out that the flag originated during America’s Revolutionary War and had nothing to do with slavery. But the vice principal said she was only enforcing policy and Jaiden’s mother would have to speak to more senior school officials if she wanted to keep pursuing the issue.

    Jaiden, however, was a “Tuttle Twins” reader, and he recalled for his mother how in “The Food Truck Fiasco” episode, the media was able to help the twins resolve an injustice. He asked his mother if she would help him reach out to the media.

    So his mother drove Jaiden down to the local TV station, where he went up to the front door and asked if someone there could come out so he could share his story with them. No one would.

    Next, Boyack said, Jaiden went home with his mom “and they were talking about what to do, and he was very adamant that he wanted to stand up for his rights. He knew that the vice principal was wrong. They were trying to figure out what to do. So the mom messaged me on Twitter, said her son’s my biggest fan, he wants to stand up for himself. Can you help?”

    Boyack said he posted the mom’s video on Twitter the next morning, then went into a 45-minute meeting. By the time he came out of the meeting, the Tweet had already amassed 5 million views.

    Since then, more than 50 million people have seen or heard the story about Jaiden being kicked out of school for wearing a Revolutionary War symbol. Even Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis came to Jaiden’s defense, describing the flag’s message as “iconic” and a “great teaching moment for a history lesson.”

    Jaiden, of course, was allowed back into the class — Gadsden flag patch and all — and Boyack couldn’t be more pleased.

    “Let’s create a million more Jaidens,” he said to the applause of our Hawaii audience. “Let’s educate kids that understand their rights, that understand what freedom is.”

    He added: “What I’ve been blown away with is that kids not only can understand these ideas — if you present them in a simple and story-based way — but they want to.”

    Boyack said organizations like the Grassroot Institute and Libertas work hard to uphold freedom, but they can’t do it alone. To ensure that the next generation is prepared to uphold these values, we need the help of every parent and family.

    Said Boyack: “I don’t believe that we’re going to save our country at the Capitol. … I don’t think we’re going to save our country in the courtroom. … I think if our country is to be saved, it’s at the dinner table. … It’s engaging families. … It’s rebuilding social fabric. And it’s fostering critical thinking — demonstrating to our children what civic engagement looks like. That’s … where the magic can happen, and where so many of us are trying to apply our efforts.”

    ___________

    Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

    1...161718...2,035Page 17 of 2,035

    Recent

    Most Commented

    Popular

    Contact us