[I was in a hurry this morning and this post ended up at www.kaaawa.net instead of here. Sorry for the delay and the formatting errors, which have now been corrected.]
I get angry when I see grossly biased and distorted views posing as analysis.
It happened again yesterday when the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii was at the Capitol hyping what its “2009 Hawaii Pork Report“, which they claim to be a “list of government waste and corruption”.
Hey, I’m as interested in ferreting out waste and corruption as the next guy. But the Grassroot Institute’s list is misleading at best. At worst, it’s a combination of a “know nothing” attitude that makes no effort to really understand the projects it has chosen to criticize, and blatant bias in favor of particular special interests.
In my view, the list is almost completely worthless, because so many of the examples are so wrongheaded that none of the rest can be trusted.
Take just one example.
They say: “The Handi-Van isn’t so handy”.
They don’t like the Handi-Van service, which provides island-wide services to those with disabilities, people who rely on wheelchairs, etc.
Why are they down on the service? Because, according to their calculations, the average 5.7 mile trip in a Handi-Van costs $16.47, while going that same distance in a cab costs only $13.68.
Taxpayers are footing the bill for the city’s branded service when private taxi companies could carry passengers less expensively and more efficiently.
This is typical of so many of the report’s conclusions.
First, it’s facts are questionable. Example: The claimed 5.7 mile average trip length appears to be incorrect.
According to the glossery of terms used in the National Transportation Database report cited in their footnotes:
The average distance ridden for an unlinked passenger trip (UPT) by time period (weekday, Saturday, Sunday) computed as passenger miles (PM) divided by unlinked passenger trips (UPT)
The city reports 8,581,894 annual passenger miles and 807,851 annual unlinked trips. This yields an average trip of 10.6 miles, nearly twice that claimed, and a taxi rate well in excess of the Handi-Van cost.
Do taxi drivers expect a tip when they transport a disabled passenger? Is that included in the Grassroot estimate of taxi fares? I would guess that it isn’t.
And that doesn’t even address the issue that few taxi vehicles are prepared to comfortably transport disabled passengers and, in large parts of the island (such as out in Kaaawa where we live) taxi service is unavailable or far too costly due to the distances involved.
I would bet that none of the people who chose the Handi-Van as an example of “waste and corruption” have ever been in a position of needing Handi-Van services, and their decision to include this service within their definition of “pork” reflects the insularity of their limited point of view.
I’m reminded of Rep. Roy Takumi’s comment to a UH Outreach College class in 2004:
“In testimony to my committee, I’ve had people come to present emotional testimony. ‘I hope you have the courage to kill this bill’…and then the next person testifies, ‘I hope you have the courage to pass this bill.'”
“You all know what’s important to you and your family and the values you have.”
“But if you don’t know anyone who has been a victim of domestic violence, then you might wonder why the government should be in the business of building safe shelters. But if you do know a victim, you’re going to be a strong advocate of government action.”
“Same thing with senior centers. If I don’t know anyone who takes advantage of them, then you might oppose spending the money. But if your mom or grandfather or another famiy member goes to a senior center and really enjoys i, you’ll be the last one to say ‘cut that out'”.
“We all want to make decisions on the basis of where we sit.
I have to make decisions on the basis of where everybody else sits.”
I think the pork report tells us a lot about where the Grassroot Institute sits and far less about the realities of government waste or corruption.
Media coverage has been mixed. An AP report by Mark Nesse signals that the report is not necessarily to be taken at face value, using words like “claims” and “so-called” in looking at specific assertions. Other media have not been so careful.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
$4 million plus on Coqui control?
I’d like to see the breakdown of that budget!
Ian,
Your comments about the taxi/Handi-Van comparison are excellent.
According to “The Handi-Van Rider’s Guide”, Handi-Van riders must meet one of the following criteria:
–Able to independently board, ride and
exit an accessible lift-equipped
TheBus, but an accessible lift-equipped
bus has not been assigned
to the route used by the individual
or TheBus lift cannot be deployed at
the person’s stop.
–Unable, because of a disability, to
board, ride and/or get off a lift or ramp
equipped bus by themselves. This
includes persons who are unable to
“navigate” TheBus system without the
assistance of another person.
–Unable to travel to or from a bus stop
because of a disability.
The Handi-Van is there to serve a very specific population of people with significant disabilities and is an essential service for them. I don’t think many taxi drivers would relish having to take the time to help those passengers transfer from wheelchair to taxi and then from taxi back to wheelchair after a short ride (plus having to pack and unpack the wheelchair). Then, too, many wheelchairs don’t fold up at all!
The Handi-Van Rider’s Guide is available at http://www.honolulu.gov/dts/riders.htm
The Gassroot Insantitue couldn’t thrive without many of the “he said she said” opposing-quote-gathering corporate reporters who base their journalism not on the kind of analysis you provided today but on opposing quotes no matter how outlandish or related to reality. The fact that there even were “AP” and “other” reports speaks to the dearth of good journalism than anything else.
Hello Mr. Lind,
Thank you for your mention of the Grassroot Institute’s Hawaii Pork Report on your personal website.
I’m sorry to hear that you feel the information provided by the report is biased or distorted. When I began research to compile information for the publication, I was not directed to target or avoid any specific state agencies or services. The Institute is a nonpartisan think tank, and as a 501(c)(3), is actually barred from engaging in such activity.
I am not sure where your claim of “blatant bias in favor of particular special interests” stems from and which special interests you believe I am favoring, although it would point me in a helpful direction if you could offer some clues.
The financial data and ridership statistics in the Handi-Van entry come from the the City’s own website (http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2007/agency_profiles/9002.pdf). Please see endnote number 27.
In addition, a certificate of disability is not required to ride the Handi-Van, which is what I took issue with, not the fact that the Handi-Van caters to the disabled.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further inquiries.
Best,
Pearl
Pingback: Ian Lind’s Excellent Commentary On Misleading Pork Report Done By GRIH & CAGW,#6 Revision To STIP Released,Legislature Proposes Adding More Bureaucracy To Help Improve Hawaii’s Internet Speeds « The Kona Blog
Pearl (presumably Pearl Hahn, lead writer of the Pork Report, per a note at the end of the report) says “…a certificate of disability is not required to ride the Handi-Van, which is what I took issue with, not the fact that the Handi-Van caters to the disabled.”
The Pork Report itself states, “Handi-Van allows temporary use of its service without certification of a disability. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the city’s branded service when private taxi companies could carry passengers less expensively and more efficiently.”
“The Handi-Van Rider’s Guide”, however, states, “All The Handi-Van cardholders have been certified as being ADA paratransit eligible. In order to be certified as ADA paratransit eligible for TheHandi-Van service, an individual must meet one of the following criteria…” It the lists the three criteria that I already have quoted above in my first comment. It remains unclear why the Grassroots people think taxis could provide ADA paratransit.
More nice work. Mahalo, Ian.
Pingback: Capsun’s Corner » Blog Archive » Props and Slops: January 26 - February 1