Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1026.016 2004-2006 IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION 432-06 CALLING FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SUPERFERRY Hawai'i County Council, Tuesday, October 31, 2006, 9 AM, Ben Franklin Bldg., Hilo Cory Harden, Box 10265, Hilo 96721 mh(a)interpac.net Mr. Hoffmann, thank you for introducing this resolution. Councilmembers, thanks to those who supported it in the subcommittee. Please continue to support it, and please consider three further actions. 1-Insist that Superferry and State Department of Transportation hold the maximum number of informational meetings required by the State Legislature, not the minimum. I believe 3 meetings on each island are required. But some people say one meeting anywhere on the island counts as one meeting, Others say three meetings--one each in Hilo, Waimea, and Kona--count as one. Please support the maximum number. 2-Support State legislation to require an EIS. State Senator Shan Tsutsui of Wailuku said he plans to introduce such legislation. And it looks like Senate Bill 1785, requiring an EIS, will be carried over from last year. When it came up last year, people who spoke in support included Maui's Mayor, Kauai County Council, Sierra Club, Matson, Horizon Lines, two orchid businesses, and 25 individuals. The only testifier who spoke against it was Superferry. 3-Consider filing a lawsuit. As you know, Maui County recently joined the Kahului Harbor Lawsuit. And as Mr. Ikeda said last time you considered this resolution, it's important to get the state to listen to Hawai'i County. Maui Tomorrow, one of the plaintiffs, said it may be helpful if affected parties from across the state join the suit. I believe it was relatively easy for Maui County because the lawyer for the original plaintiffs is doing most of the work, and they have an Environmental Assessment and Kahului Harbor Master Plan to work with. I don't know if Hawai'i County could join that lawsuit or if we would have to file a new one. A couple more comments: According to Wikipedia, when the Spirit of Ontario, one of the "success stories" Superferry used to cite, went bankrupt, it was arrested by the United States Marshals Service for resale to pay creditors. The vessel remained tied up at the Rochester ferry terminal throughout the fall and winter of 2004-2005. 1 don't know how that affected other harbor users. It finally sold in May 2006 at a $3 million loss. And as you know, Harbor Lynx, the other "success story," also went bankrupt. A news report says there was an arrest proceeding, and the ferry could not be moved until the claims against it were secured. This was in Canada. I don't know what the U.S. laws are. But after hearing these two stories, picture a bankrupt Superferry, plus the landing barge--550 feet, or one-tenth of a mile--tied up at a harbor while lawyers and government officials wrangle over legal issues. Where does all the freight and other harbor traffic go? Comm. No I0,L-6•' Ref. 7o Pteseet Ref. Date nCT^ 3_ 1