Berg Holds Rail Meeting Tonight, but Proponents of the $5 Billion Project Refuse to Participate
Honolulu Council Member Tom Berg will hold a meeting Tuesday night to update the public on the Honolulu rail project.
He believes like many others on Oahu that the $5.3 billion elevated steel-on-steel rail system is too expensive and noisy and there are alternatives that should be considered.
Panelists include University of Hawaii Engineering Professor Panos Prevedouros, Sen. Sam Slom who is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the city over the rail project, Scott Foster on behalf of the architects who favor light rail, and Dennis Callan with Hawaii Geographic Society.
Rail advocates, including Mayor Peter Carlisle, HART interim director Toru Hamayasu, Go Rail Go, Rep. Kym Pine, Rep. Sharon Har, Rep. Rida Cabanilla, Sen. Mike Gabbard and Sen. Will Espero have declined.
Berg said he’s holding the meeting because almost half of Oahu’s voting public has major concerns about rail and wants another opportunity to be heard.
He said this meeting, which will be held from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Mission Auditorium next to City Hall Tuesday night, will get to the “truth” about this project and alternatives.
Council Addresses Homeless Camps on City Sidewalks at Hearing Wednesday
Been to Moiliili or Kakaako lately? If so, you can understand why many people are outraged over homeless campers who have taken over Honolulu sidewalks.
Honolulu City Council Members will address the issue on Wednesday at 10 am when they vote on Bill 54, which would allow the removal of personal items stored on sidewalks.
There already is a law to remove large furniture and other bulky items from public areas, but critics say so far it is not being enforced.
Residents complain that the homeless campers seen throughout the island are deficating on sidewalks and leaving trash and personal items in public areas.
McMackin Sent Packing, but Why Was There No Out for Taxpayers in the 5-Year Contract?
University of Hawaii head football coach Greg McMackin stepped down yesterday and agreed to waive $500,000, or nearly half of his $1.1 million remaining on his employment contract.
His departure was expected after the Warriors football team this season posted a losing record, failed to qualify for a bowl game, and lost revenues because of falling attendance.
Not even free tickets and transportation could boost student attendance, which dropped to just 200.
But yesterday’s announcement did not address what many university officials have so far refused to answer.
Who negotiated McMackin’s 5-year contract in 2008 and why there was no cancellation clause included in the more than $5 million deal?
The one-sided contract potentially left taxpayers on the hook for the full $1.1 million contract this year even if McMackin did not coach.
Will university officials add a clause in the next contract so this doesn’t happen again? So far they won’t say.
…. but Why Was There No Out for Taxpayers in the 5-Year Contract?
that was probably dictated by other Division I collegiate head football coaches’ contracts. Btw, McMackin showed a lot of class last night.
Comments are closed.