oh no... is it "bye bye superferry... already?"
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,425
From: Under your bed, in your closet, and in your head
Car Info: Corvette Z51
Registered User
iTrader: (26)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,140
From: buying a house in hawaii is harder then it looks
Car Info: 2001 Impreza 2.5RS-T 2011 Forester Prem. SUBYS FTW
there is no need to get nasty about it.
I agree that there is alot to consider. I feel bad for the 236 people who might/ will loose their jobs. Im not saying it isnt sad and disheartening but you cant go attacking people just becuase they have different beliefs then you and at least someone is standing up for the marine life, they cant stand up for themselves. If the economy was better, you probably wouldnt be so concerned about the people loosing their jobs, there for you wouldnt be quite as outraged. Does that mean there has to be economic prosperity for people to care about wildlife?
I agree that there is alot to consider. I feel bad for the 236 people who might/ will loose their jobs. Im not saying it isnt sad and disheartening but you cant go attacking people just becuase they have different beliefs then you and at least someone is standing up for the marine life, they cant stand up for themselves. If the economy was better, you probably wouldnt be so concerned about the people loosing their jobs, there for you wouldnt be quite as outraged. Does that mean there has to be economic prosperity for people to care about wildlife?
I have to side with Shagg on this one.
The issue here is that the SF was allowed to run with an Environmental Assessment via legislation. That legislation was found to be unconstitutional, so the Environmental Assessment is invalid. If the SF chose to stay here and file an Environmental Impact Statement, the end result would be exactly the same. The SF would have to spend time and money going through the EIS process for the same result. Understandably, the SF is not going to hang around, idle, for several months (or more) to end up right where they were just last week.
The environmental groups know this. So why did they fight to stop the SF? Because, like children, they were mad that the Governor and Legislature shortcut the environmental process to help the people of Hawaii, to give us an alternative means to visit the outer islands, so they decided to be petty and get back at the Governor by forcing the courts to make a decision. Whether or not the courts ruled correctly is moot as that is not the issue here.
In the end, we lost an alternative means of travel (which will likely drive air fares up), many people lost their jobs and once again, Hawaii looks like a backwater where the locals are too dumb for their own good and where businesses will think twice before investing. Exactly what we needed in this economic climate. What did we gain? Zero.
Sorry, Sarah, but the environmental groups were protecting nothing, they just used the laws to get back at the Governor and show us city folk on Oahu that we can't tell them what to do. An Environmental Assessment or even a Categorical Exclusion would have been sufficient to cover the SF operation but that, of course, was not the real issue.
The issue here is that the SF was allowed to run with an Environmental Assessment via legislation. That legislation was found to be unconstitutional, so the Environmental Assessment is invalid. If the SF chose to stay here and file an Environmental Impact Statement, the end result would be exactly the same. The SF would have to spend time and money going through the EIS process for the same result. Understandably, the SF is not going to hang around, idle, for several months (or more) to end up right where they were just last week.
The environmental groups know this. So why did they fight to stop the SF? Because, like children, they were mad that the Governor and Legislature shortcut the environmental process to help the people of Hawaii, to give us an alternative means to visit the outer islands, so they decided to be petty and get back at the Governor by forcing the courts to make a decision. Whether or not the courts ruled correctly is moot as that is not the issue here.
In the end, we lost an alternative means of travel (which will likely drive air fares up), many people lost their jobs and once again, Hawaii looks like a backwater where the locals are too dumb for their own good and where businesses will think twice before investing. Exactly what we needed in this economic climate. What did we gain? Zero.
Sorry, Sarah, but the environmental groups were protecting nothing, they just used the laws to get back at the Governor and show us city folk on Oahu that we can't tell them what to do. An Environmental Assessment or even a Categorical Exclusion would have been sufficient to cover the SF operation but that, of course, was not the real issue.
Registered User
iTrader: (26)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,140
From: buying a house in hawaii is harder then it looks
Car Info: 2001 Impreza 2.5RS-T 2011 Forester Prem. SUBYS FTW
press release from this morning.
Aloha SF http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...ING01/90319020 *sniff sniff*
Aloha SF http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...ING01/90319020 *sniff sniff*
Registered User
iTrader: (29)
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,289
From: Hawaii
Car Info: 02' wrb wrx w/ RGII
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
