Readers Weigh in on Last Week's Editorial on the Hawaii Superferry
Last week’s editorial, entitled “Profiles in Stupidity -- Hawaii Superferry Idled by Courts” (click here to read article) evoked a fair bit of reader response. That’s not surprising since the piece garnered nearly 40% of all traffic on the e-newsletter that week. Some of these submissions centered on the inequity of the situation in Hawaii, while others brought up some fair points -- including some not touched upon in the editorial itself. Read on to see what MarEx readers think:
Dear Sir;
A very similar series of events took place a few years ago when the provincial government of British Columbia, via tax payers dollars fronted $400 million dollars for piecemeal/modularized construction of two high speed large Ro Ro catamarans. Despite wind and weather creating larger waves, the ferries did not pass the scrutiny of a few 'shore watchers' and ultimately the high speed service was put out of action after approximately only one year of operation. The ferries were put on the auction block a year later and at one point the ferry corporation would have been happy to receive $7 million apeice. I think they were sold for a little bit more each. Bottom Line: I hear you! The judicial system, 'cow-towing' to the 'CHIC' extreme environmentalists, not the moderates who make us aware of issues, in North America (Canada & U.S.), is usurping everyone's democratic rights not to mention screwing up the economies!!! Therefore 75% of a vote on one side of an issue should be the 'preponderance' of information, compellable enough to sway a 12 person court decision; in most cases, ...not a single judge;... in the direction of the majority, in conjunction with civil liberties.
Regards,
Capt. Gary Kassbaum / Richmond Hill, Ontario / Canada
Editor’s Note: From a reader in Canada. Could he be forecasting the future for the current Hawaii Superferry and its sister ship?
You are my hero! Great editorial…I particularly liked the references to the opposition to the Cape Cod wind farm and the pathetic attitude towards responsible development of ANWR while we watch young men and women being blown apart in Iraq for “democracy” -- give me a break!
Name withheld
Editor’s note: Okay, I don’t often (ever?) get to be a hero. This was one of several with a similar slant. From a West Coast reader who’d like to keep his job, hence the “Name withheld.”
Mr. Keefe,
I am usually not the type to respond to articles I read, but I can not help myself in this case and wanted to send you a note of congratulations on an article well written. I've been following this story and it is maddening to see what has transpired. It makes you want to pull your hair out. To see this happen in conjunction with a wind farm project struggling to get off the ground here in Texas, because a small group of dogmatic environmentalists fear the wind turbines will harm migratory birds, has really brought to light what we face now in today's world. It's pure insanity.
Best Regards,
John Williams / Corpus Christi, TX
Editor’s Note: I wasn’t aware that the Kennedy family owned oceanfront realty in Texas, but I suppose that it is possible.
Dear Sir:
If MARAD were following NEPA, it should have done an EA and reached a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI in the enviro world) before agreeing to the loan guarantee. If they had done this, would a federal EA and FONSI obviated the need for a state EA? From having seen (Navy work), I know they would do a EA and get a FONSI if it wanted to put a ferry (high speed or otherwise) into operation between Pearl Harbor and Barking Sands on Kauai where it has a missile tracking station. Even if for some reason MARAD is exempt from NEPA, it would still make good business sense in running its program.
That said, what is MARAD doing guaranteeing ferries for intra-state commerce? It’s bad enough they changed from the old days of just supporting US liners in international competition to guaranteeing tugs, barges and dinghies used in interstate, coast-wide trade. But where is the federal interest in intra-state commerce? I hadn't thought about the MARAD angle.
At the next level, what kind of businessmen are the Lehman group? I assume they still had to put up 15 percent or so of the ship acquisition cost plus business start-up costs which still is enough $ to look hard at risk mitigation actions such as a state EA. The first I heard of these ferries was last year in HI as a tourist -- a year before the ferry arrived. In the same mention of the ferries, the local person who told me also said there were environmental issues that had people upset. Regardless of the motivation of the enviro protesters, it was clear they were going to act. An EA with a FONSI last year would have protected the ferries. The issue now would be did the state authorities do a reasonable job considering the issues before issuing a FONSI? Courts generally give great discretion to government authorities in these matters of judgement. That is a very different matter than the black and white issues of deciding that the law requires an EA and that the state didn't do one. I guess that, in the end, taking risk mitigation actions when it ain’t your money at risk just isn’t necessary.
It appears there are a number of layers to the onion here and that while stupidity may be shared among the parties, their individual shares are not diminished.
Name witheld by request
Editor’s Note: Suffice it to say that this individual knows a bit more about environmental affairs than do I and his resume is considerably longer. The letter brings up the issues of MARAD involvement, risk mitigation beforehand and the usual environmental procedures. Fair enough.
Dear Mr. Keefe:
Your exasperation is understandable, but your readers should understand that those Government agencies involved in the financing, permitting, and infrastructure improvements for the Superferry project should have known to undertake environmental review under Federal and state laws AHEAD OF TIME. I am familiar with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which governs "Federal actions" by comparing the "preferred" and alternative approaches and allows people (and resource protection agencies) a voice in their government's actions (I understand that Hawaii, like many states, has similar legislation and regulations).
Public officials ignore these laws at their peril. As a colleague of mine - an environmental scientist and NEPA specialist - says: "you can do it the easy way, or the hard way". The easy way - doing the environmental review up front - looks harder at first, but makes project implementation later on much easier. The Superferry and State of Hawaii people are now finding this out, painfully. If the review process had been followed in the first place, project proponents could have shown the value of their protective engineering and operational measures and proven the efficacy of the ferry as the "preferred alternative" to more air traffic, barge traffic, etc. They may still have the opportunity to do so; I only hope that they have time to succeed at it before the banks call in their chits.
Mike Dyer
Essex, Massachusetts
Editor’s note: Another letter along the same lines as the previous one. Looks like I’m going to have to shed the “hero” label. Flawed or not, the deal was a good one for Hawaii, in my opinion. You have to give the opposition credit: whatever their motivation, they waited until the eleventh hour, pounced and have probably put the entire operation out of business. The real losers are the people of Hawaii, who endure some of the highest costs for most things of any state in the Union. From the other side, they are breathing a sigh of relief: the “little” people won’t be able to travel freely after all.
Editor’s Note: And last, but not least, the sad announcement from Hawaii Superferry last week advising of the layoff of scores of employees in the wake of the court’s decision. This came out just as we were pressing the button for last week’s MarEx e-newsletter. No need to embellish the obvious in this case:
Hawaii Superferry CEO Announces Furlough (Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:00 p.m.)
“It is with a heavy heart that I must share the news that we will be furloughing 249 members of our Hawaii Superferry family at the end of today. This includes 36 residents of Maui, 35 residents of Kauai, and 178 residents of Oahu.
Hawaii Superferry is retaining 59 employees to handle administrative and operational needs during this period of uncertainty.
Over the past seven weeks, we have been very optimistic, but candid, with our employees regarding the various judicial proceedings on Maui. An unavoidable consequence of the recent ruling is that we have reached the point where Hawaii Superferry can no longer bear the financial cost of fully retaining its workforce.
We remain committed to providing Hawaii’s residents and businesses with a safe and reliable interisland ferry system. It is our hope that we will have the opportunity to bring our furloughed employees back to work in the near future.”