With Primary Election day just a week away, there’s lots of info flying back and forth about candidates and their records.
Today’s Star-Advertiser carries a story by Gordon Pang on the 2nd Congressional District race, which is boiling down to a face-off between Mufi Hannemann and Tulsi Gabbard.
The Sierra Club has set up a website, mufisrecord.org, which seeks to discredit his environmental record.
On the issue of curbside recycling, the Sierra Club said Hannemann was opposed to curbside recycling until a City Charter amendment approved by the voters forced him to do it. The Hannemann forces, on a blog on his website titled “Fact vs. Fiction — the Sierra Club edition,” said their candidate should be credited with persuading the United Public Workers union to go along with islandwide curbside recycling.
In 2005, Hannemann did cancel a curbside recycling contract due to delays caused by a protest to the contract, and the pilot program did not begin until September 2007, after voters in November 2006 approved a charter amendment making curbside recycling a mandate for the Department of Environmental Services.
But there is no evidence that Hannemann flatly opposed curbside recycling. And some third-party, longtime city observers noted that not only did he negotiate an agreement with UPW that led to islandwide recycling, the Hannemann administration took other steps toward green- and white-waste recycling at schools and businesses before the pilot project got under way.
That drew a strong reply from attorney David Kimo Frankel, who referred to a Sierra Club website, Mufisrecord.org.
“But there is no evidence that Hannemann flatly opposed curbside recycling.”
There is ample evidence. Here are some articles that are still accessible online:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/02/24/news/story02.html
Council sets timetable for full curbside recycling
“Hannemann’s administration had opposed the bill…”
“The mayor has said previously that expanding curbside recycling to include items other than green waste could end up costing more.”http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2006/CommReports/HB3096_HSCR591-06_.htm
A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO CURBSIDE RECYCLING
“The Department of Health and the City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services opposed the measure.”One year later…
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2007/CommReports/SB1701_SD1_SSCR542_.htm
A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO RECYCLING
“The Department of Environmental Services of the City and County of Honolulu submitted testimony in opposition to this measure.”http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/02/26/news/story05.html
Tateishi said he’d be happy to see city fund curbside service — something that Mayor Mufi Hannemann said he won’t do unless Oahu residents insist on it because of the expense.http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/02/28/editorial/editorial01.html
The administration has ample time to plan such a staggered project under the Council’s schedule. Hannemann opposed the original bill, but Eric Takamura, the city environmental services director, calls the slower timetable “more workable.” More delays would be unreasonable.http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/January-2007/How-is-the-Mayor-Doing/
Although Hannemann didn’t plan to resurrect the city’s curbside recycling program anytime soon, he may have no choice. In the November election, more than two-thirds of voters voted to make curbside recycling a function of the city administration.http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Feb/07/ln/FP602070335.html
Hannemann announced in October that he would abandon a planned household curbside recycling program created by the former mayor but work on other ways to reduce waste going into the island’s only municipal landfill…But Hannemann spokesman Bill Brennan said the city is working to reduce waste to the landfill in various ways that are more efficient and cost-effective than curbside recycling…he said city estimates indicate a curbside recycling program could cost an additional $300 per household per year.[An aside, Hannemann’s past cost estimates of curbside ranged between $8 million and $45 million annually. Today the program generates about $1 million for the City: http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20120711_Residential_recycling_including_white_bins_evolving.html?id=162024865]
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/10/20/editorial/commentary.html
“At this point, I am convinced that working with the state and with schools and other organizations is a better way to achieve our goal of recycling a larger share of Oahu’s trash, rather than continuing to pursue a curbside recycling program with dwindling potential for ever getting started in its present form.”
Pointing to the same list of positions taken by the Hannemann administration, Sierra Club’s Robert Harris added:
I wish Gordon had reached out to someone besides current city employees before making such a statement. For those that rely upon the Star-Advertiser for good journalism, it’s the type of statement that could make or break an election. And it’s flatly wrong.
The articles referenced explicitly state Hannemann’s administration repeatedly opposed every measure to implement curbside recycling (two ordinances, one charter amendment, and a legislative bill). Only when voters overruled him did he act . . . one year later.
Personally, I can remember Mufi Hannemann explicitly encouraging people to vote against the Charter amendment because it would be too expensive and such measures “shouldn’t be in the charter.”
Maybe these news stories aren’t enough to convince staunch Hannemann backers, but they certainly appear to provide reasonable evidence of the former mayor’s opposition over several years.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So I’m looking for the “evidence” that he “flatly opposed” it, and I don’t see any.
After all, he implemented it.
And he did so after straightening out the budget issues and fight with UPW that the “environmentalists” refused to see and had no responsibility for dealing with.
I have completely lost respect for the Sierra Club. It’s just another mud-slinging special interest group.
Those who are criticizing the Sierra Club may be unaware of the process that the Sierra Club goes through in endorsing a candidate:
1. The local Groups (like Maui, Kaua’i, Oahu, Big Island) decide on endorsements by
A) Extensive Written Questions to determine the candidates understanding of environmental topics (law, reasoning, etc)
B) Face to face interviews to most
2. Then the Hawai’i State Chapter reviews everything.
3. Then our legislative person gives feedback.
4. Then the National Sierra Club approves.
So each of the hundreds of thousands of Sierra Club members is represented in these decisions.
To characterize Robert Harris, the way the posters above did shows both a huge ignorance of how the Sierra Club works and also of the fact that when Robert Harris speaks, he’s speaking on behalf of all Hawai’i Sierra Club members.
Robert Harris does not “run” the Sierra Club – the members run the Sierra Club and Robert works for them. (And does a darn good job, too)
As far as the carefully worded Mufi supporter denials, they smack of the deceptiveness that has characterized Mufi’s campaign.
Like in the debate when he said he was “open to listening on the subject of repealing DOMA” and when Keoki Kerr asked him again and again and forced Mufi to give a straight answer, Mufi says he’ll vote to UPHOLD DOMA.
So before you just hurl baseless insults at Robert Harris and the Sierra Club, take the time to at least understand what you’re talking about.
P.S. I guess all the newspaper articles which back up each and every statement made on MufisRecord.com are all lies and crazy talk…right? At some point you folks have to quit denying reality and admit that Mufi couldn’t care less about future-oriented land use planning or preserving our ag land. Sooner you admit reality the less likely you’ll be to have a stroke over this stuff that’s got you so mad.
What’s a candidate’s position on DOMA have to do with the environment?
Remembers when Mufi and crony Todd Apo tried to dismantle the Clean Water and Natural Lands Comission so that they could hijack the $3 million in clean water funds. Mufi’s new claims of being for the environment are so laughable.
http://ilind.net/2010/06/28/move-to-dismantle-the-clean-water-and-natural-lands-commission-on-city-council-committee-agenda
The Sierra Club has assumed the role of Tulsi’s attack dog. They are touting Gabbard’s very thin record of accomplishment as being a “champion for the environment,” while doing their best to misrepresent Hannemann’s record.
The truth about curbside recycling is clear. Before Hannemann there wasn’t any. After Hannemann we have successful island-wide curbside recycling for mixed recyclables and green waste.
That is a fact.
That is just absurd for Mufi to try to take credit for something he opposed and then voters FORCED him to do. Absurd isn’t even the word for it – duplistic, dishonest and arrogant would better describe Mufi’s actions here.
Keith Rollman from Mufi’s campaign says, “The Sierra Club has assumed the role of Tulsi’s attack dog.”
Nice try, Keith. But you’ve got the tail wagging the dog.
Sierra Club was exposing Mufi’s anti-environmental positions long before the Sierra Club endorsed Tulsi Gabbard. MufisMess.com was created in 2010.
After candidates filed for CD2, the Sierra Club carefully considered all candidates with good environmental records, deciding that Tulsi Gabbard was the strongest candidate to support.
Mufi brought the Sierra Club’s ire down on him all by himself.
In fact, Tulsi has been running one of the most positive campaigns ever.
I’m not from Hannemann’s campaign. I haven’t worked for him since he was Mayor of Honolulu in 2009. This is typical of the disinformation that I’m talking about.
Its pretty funny watching Hawaii Progressives ignoring 20 years of their own rhetoric re: Chris Butler Cult and the Gabbards.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7381/To-Stop-Mufi-Mrs-Abercrombie-Joins-the-Chris-Butler-Cult.aspx
People in Hawaii aren’t interested in this kind of bigotry. It’s interesting to note though that Mufi’s right wing Republican friends like Andrew Walden are engaging in this last minute smear job on Tulsi. Andrew also tried to dub Ron Paul’s supporters as “Neo-Nazis.” Last minute personal attacks against Mufi’s opponent…hmmm…sounds familiar.
“Mufi’s friends like Andrew Walden!” That’s a good one, you made coffee come out of my nose!
Henry Jolicoer (Auto de fe) is the French-Canadian who spend every day posting about the religious war he’s conducting against the Gabbards. (As far as I can tell he’s conducting it all by himself because the Gabbards appear to ignore his rants) If you read his stuff or watch his videos, they consist of unintelligible religious rantings that no one but he cares about.
Mr. Jolicoer, it is not considered polite to be a bigot about religion here in the U.S.
Sounds reasonable to me. In that case every thinking person should spend a little time on the Internet and look up Chris Butler and the Gabbards and come to their own conclusions, right?
For those wanting to follow Keith’s advice and do your own “research” on the internet about the Gabbards and Chris Butler, here is a direct link, using “Gabbard” “Chris Butler” and “Krishna.”
Read and enjoy.
Not sure how the national media are going to treat this story if Tulsi gets the nomination. For an incoming US Representative to have been raised in a Hare Krishna group from childhood, and remain a Krishna devotee, is newsworthy by any definition. Though, somehow, our local media have shied away from the story.
Ooops! Here’s the link:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Gabbard+%22Chris+Butler%22+Krishna&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
All of you confuse thebhell out of me. Mufi wants to to represent second district ( principally N Islands). Big Island has its biggest voter base and no municipal waste pickup anywhere.
Keep in mind, this is NOT a Honolulu race. So where is relevancy of all this discourse? .
The relevancy is that the Sierra Club and a few other political operatives are attempting to use “environmentalism” in general as a wedge issue to attack Mufi for Tulsi’s benefit, and they don’t seem to care much about deliberately misinforming voters and disgracing themselves in the process. Just like the sleazy op-ed piece full of distortions that ran in the newspaper several days before the vote for governor.
I agree with many of the Sierra Club’s goals, but I’m disgusted by its tactics.
The problem with your position on this is that Hannemann’s environmental record is clearly fair game in this campaign. Nothing sleazy about examining that record closely and critically. Nothing disgraceful about that.
On the substantive point, I’m confused. Are you saying that the articles cited, and the administration’s repeated testimony against curbside recycling, did not really reflect Mayor Hannemann’s position?
By the way Ian this is an extremely informative blog post – nice to have some real reporting on this issue. How could Star Advertiser completely ignore their own previous articles in the Gordon Pang piece?
Ian, there is no question that the Sierra Club website and direct mail, which covers a lot more disinformation about Hannemann than just curbside recycling, is the lowest form of smear campaign.
For example blaming the Waikiki sewer spill on Hannemann is outrageous. The condition of the sewer collection system took decades to degrade to the point of failure. The Waikiki incident took place 18 months into Hannemann’s first administration, to say it was caused because “He ignored repeated warnings” is ridiculous.
Anyone who knows the city procurement and budgeting process knows that in order to launch a major project you have pass a budget, bid and contract the design work; and then repeat the process for a construction contractor. It can take years, and more years to build. It was physically impossible to do all that in a matter of months.
Another interesting omission from the Sierra Club in this series of attacks….not a peep about rail. Although our Hawaii variant seems to have been brought to heel by the national organization, they still claim Hannemann is pro suburban sprawl over our ag land. The fact that rail is most successful strategy for defeating sprawl on ag land and re-focusing back to urban high density development is the very reason the S.C. supports it. So, if Hannemann is the champion of the rail project, it is totally illogical that he doesn’t support the (national) Sierra Club land management philosophy.
This is clearly, a politically motivated disinformation campaign, that has little to do with the truth, logic or the environment.
So why did Mufi SPEND NEARLY $10 million (on mainland lawyers) in his attempt to NOT upgrade the sewage system – putting swimmers at risk of swimming in raw sewage! Of course he lost because this is America not a third world country, and we do have SOME STANDARDS on how you can treat the environment.
You’ve merged the two components of the sewer system to make a false generalization.
The collection system (the one that broke in Waikiki) is the waste water infrastructure that need drastic re-investment. Hannemann, from his first budget on, poured money into long-term replacement of failing sewer lines (collection system). He spent more in his first four years than the previous mayor spent in ten.
The wastewater treatment facilities in Honolulu had been under a federal waiver for specific types of secondary treatment. Hannemann fought for retaining the waiver because of our unique situation not requiring this expensive upgrade to our system ($billions). The EPA insisted that all major metropolitan areas comply with one standard regardless of whether it was needed. The Hannemann Administration fought the EPA (and the Sierra Club lawyers) on the basis that their scientists and engineers said this was a waste of tax dollars and there was no need for it. There is a big difference between the water quality needed from an outfall from a mainland city that is ten miles up river from another major city and Honolulu in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
As far as “putting swimmers at risk,” the danger of offshore pollution is from the old leaking collection system that Hannemann was trying to replace, not the existing treatment facilities that currently pose no threat at all. (The water quality test sited by the EPA as the rationale for the $billioin dollar upgrades didn’t involve humans. It was based on the sperm count of a sea urchin that doesn’t live near the facility.)
Hannemann struck a long range, comprehensive deal with the EPA that included frontloading the upgrades to the collection system (that was being done anyway) and pushing the renovation of treatment facilities way into the future. (and hopefully under an administration that will restore the original waiver.)
Keith, I have to agree that the allegations about sewer policies is misleading. It conflates the sad state of our aged sewer lines with the dispute over an EPA requirement to upgrade the level of treatment for sewage discharged into the ocean. The aging infrastructure is, as you say, a longstanding problem that Mayor Hannemann inherited. And there was room for reasonable disagreement over the treatment upgrades–a friend who is both environmentally active and a environmental engineer with lots of water experience said he reviewed the scientific studies, and concluded there was little, if any, real chance of public danger due to the placement of the outfall, dispersal patterns, etc. So I’m not sure I would fault the city’s legal maneuvering with the EPA, despite the eventual outcome. So at least on those matters, your point is well taken.
I am still convinced that the Superferry was far more green than the existing barges, containers, tugs, and off and on loading to multiple diesel trucks. Did the Sierra Club get pulled in because of longshoremen union politics? I don’t know. But certainly don’t think much of the local group.
WHO is this guy running Sierra Club nowadays? The way hes running it – and the crap he’s pulling in some of these races? Hes completely off his friggin rocker.
Ah! Classic Mufi – personal attacks but, gee, not one iota of factual rebuttal.
Karen, Mufi is the one GETTING attacked. What are you talking about?
No Mufi is not getting attacked – the Sierra Club is simply enlightening the public on his record so they can make an informed decision.
“enlightening,” huh?
Mufi will just say anything regardless of the facts…obviously for years he was testifying against recycling, artificially pumping up the supposed costs, etc. Now he’s like, “Hey, I’m the recylcling guy!” He just has no scruples. I’m glad the Sierra Club is taking action and letting people know the real truth of the situation.
Robert Harris is an environmental attorney who was hired after Jeff Mikulina left the Sierra Club to head the Blue Planet Foundation in 2009.
The Sierra Club is NOT a 501c3 non-profit because it is actively involved in partisan political advocacy. However, it does have a foundation which provides educational and enviornmental programs such as service projects and hikes.
Here is the Sierra Club’s Mission Statement: To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosysystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; to use all lawful means to carry out these ovjectives.
The Sierra Club both locally and nationally has become very actively involved in political actions because that’s what works in meeting their goals.
With respect to Mufi – I have been actively involved at all three levels of government in solid & sewage waste management issues for well over a decade now. The Sierra Club is absolutely correct with respect to his actions and positions on the issues.
However, the two organizations have split on other issues which are equally important; nevertheless, I still believe in the Sierra Club’s goals and missions.
I don’t trust David Frankel as far as I could throw him based on past experiences where he distorted the record and rushed in at the last moment, claiming he had not had opportunities to provide comment.
I trust Gordon Pang’s reporting. He does his homework and tries to evaluate the reliability of sources. My recollection of what was happening in those years squares with his description.
My recollection was that Mufi inherited a typical Harris program that had been thrown together for political symbolic value without proper due diligence and very loose following of procedures. It was mired in controversy and problems, and Mufi killed it because it was felt to be an unnecessary waste of time and money.
That needs to be put in context. Mufi, in sharp contrast to his predecessor, in his first State of the City address, told the community that the City had not been keeping up with the maintenance on the sewer system, and major expenditures were needed to retrofit the aging sewer lines. There was a need to find money to fix real problems with failing sewer lines in Waikiki and elsewhere.
Mufi listened to his professionals, and what I recall they were telling him was that impact of the the curbside recycling program was small potatoes compared to what business was adding to the solid waste stream, and that the City could get more bang for the buck by trying to reduce that portion of the stream.
After the legislation was passed requiring the curbside program, Mufi put the pieces together and successfully rolled out the program, something that didn’t happen with the Harris project.
And I agree with Keith Rollman about the irrelevancy of the huge bill the Sierra Club got the EPA to impose on us with the requirement for the upgraded treatment of waste disposal at Sand Island and Honouliuli for which there is no scientific basis.
Very respected marine scientists from the UH testified that there was no evidence of adverse environmental impact from the ocean outfalls.
We have many more pressing problems with our sewer system which we will be less able to deal with because of the funds that will have to be spent on these needless upgrades.