Just a couple of things that struck me watching last night’s mayoral debate on KHON. First, it doesn’t appear to be available for online viewing this morning, a measure of the station’s lack of progress on the digital conversion scale. If it is being streamed somewhere by KHON, it’s not apparent.
First, poor Kirk Caldwell. He looked somewhat uncomfortable and pained, tried valiantly to squeeze a smile out at the end of each answer, and just didn’t project well on television, despite the substantive content of his answers. Caldwell comes across much better in person. Peter Carlisle was much more at ease on camera, which gave him more of an air of authority. And Panos Prevedouros, whose campaign signs for the nonpartisan race are prominently displayed at Republican Party headquarters, tried to limit himself to carefully crafted sound bites.
Two points raised by Panos.
In response to a question on taxes, he said Honolulu’s property taxes are very high. It’s a familiar refrain.
But according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Honolulu’s effective real property tax rate is the lowest in the country when compared to rates in the largest city of each state. Our tax rate is not only low, it’s way below other states.
Here are the numbers for 2007 as reported by the Census:
You can view the full table online, or download it in excel format.
This is consistent with our recent experience. On a recent trip to Portland, Oregon, we visited an open house or two. Portland properties selling for about half the value of our house in Kaaawa had actual tax bills about twice what we pay here.
Calling Honolulu’s property taxes high just isn’t correct.
Then there’s the nuclear power issue.
Panos got a lot of attention this week by stepping up and suggesting that nuclear power may be the way to go for Hawaii.
Neither Panos, other candidates, nor the news media have pointed out that Hawaii already has a constitutional restriction on nuclear power plants.
No fission nuclear power plant can be built without approval of a 2/3 majority in both House and Senate, according to an amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution adopted by the voters in 1978. It appears in Article 11, Section 8 of the constitution.
A candidate like Panos may indeed want to reopen this contentious public debate, but the public should be aware of and informed by the existing constitutional provision.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It amazes me that the news media continue to treat Panos as a legitimate if quirky candidate on the one hand — despite years of obvious fabrications about rail, taxes etc. and now loopy nonsense like floating nuclear power plants — yet are unwilling to apply even cursory scrutiny to his background.
He’s not just a university professor, kiddies.
Let’s start with the Hawaii Highway Users Alliance, which lists Panos as president, and includes a laundry list of special interests that make their money off Oahu’s freeways and just happen to be among the most vociferous opponents of public transportation.
http://www.hhua.org/hhua-board.html
Now move on to the Grassroot Institute, which lists Panos on its “board of scholars.”
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/old/board_staff2.shtml
He has a long and close involvement with this nest of right-wing ideologues who are funded by mainland fellow travelers.
It was interesting that Panos inexplicably brought up the Akaka Bill last night in questioning Carlisle. The subject is obviously near and dear to the “Grassroot” crowd.
Yet for the remainder of this race he will inevitably be characterized as an engineer and mind-mannered university professor, period.
What a joke.
I have read that one of the reasons our property taxes are low is we have a statewide school system as well as a statewide GET. Usually schools are county based and funded by property taxes. The theory is that because we have a system that is funded by GET across the board, rural areas don’t have to raise property taxes to pay for schools.
Also factor in Hawaii’s plantation history, which left large and politically influential landowners who did not, and still do not, want to see their properties taxed at higher rates.
RLB is correct, most other municipalities use the real property tax to fund public education. Our property taxes fund only local government services. State income and general excise taxes, through public appropriations, fund our school system.
The State Constitution only applies out to the 3 mile limit. Beyond that, nukes clould be built without requiring any political bravery on the part of the Legislature.
So, uh, how would Panos and the anti-tax brigade pay for this wonder of technology if they can’t bring themselves to support spending on basic infrastructure unless it benefits the Freeway Mob, Kahala or Hawaii Kai?
It’s almost impossible to build a nuclear plant in this country even on dry land due to the expense, etc. Even federal incentives and loan guarantees may not be enough.
Then imagine the risk when a hurricane one day comes along. Would you want that thing towed into harbor and possibly upset in a storm?
Ain’t going to happen, I’m pretty sure.
Reminder: there are frequently several nuclear reactors floating in Pearl Harbor, during times of both fair and foul weather. Those reactors are more commonly known as submarines.
given that power can be sourced from one island to another with current technology and cables
could a post-akaka Hawaiian sovereign government could create large scale nuclear power generation on kaho’olawe to feed various grids?
I submit this not as a suggestion — but rather as a hypothetical for discussion
I recall saying that Hawaii has among the top three taxes (not property taxes) in the nation. My answer is correct. Piece-mealing the taxes is too convenient for some.
As for my true stance on nuclear power, did you not receive my press release? Allow me to copy it below. Mahalo!
“I’ve received some feedback recently in regards to my reference to nuclear power for Hawaii and would like to to clarify my position.”
“I agree with President Barrack Obama and Bill Gates that nuclear power will be a vital component of our energy future. I also agree with the Hawaii State Legislature, specifically House Bill 1, that we need a framework to study nuclear energy for possible application in Hawaii.”
“I am not advocating that we start building reactors offshore or onshore in the near future.”
“I believe we should engage our community in a thoughtful discussion about the cost benefit of various types of energy including nuclear, solar, wind and renewable. If, after a thoughtful analysis and public discussion of our options, the people make their voice clear that they do not want nuclear power regardless of its benefits, as mayor I will not insist on forcing my personal will upon the people.”
“We have enough projects in progress that the people do not want and I will not add to that list.”
I did hear Panos specifically refer to Honolulu’s property taxes as “high”, and made a note of it at the time. But I certainly appreciate his clarification.
I was surprised by the lack of intelectual verbage expressed by our “Bully Pulpit” Prosecutor trying to redifine the oldest adage in politics the “Definition of Insanity” simply changed to “intertia”??? Ameature hour from what I thought was a seasoned challenger….well Ian I see that you are favoring Peter C……WHY NOT ENDORSE HIM AND NEIL!
And Panos said “flush it down the toilet” a dozen times, and basicly said “go ride a bike” to solve our problems and then said “we must get rid of these homeless” The only problem the acting mayor has is a real need for a better plastic surgeon and makeup artist. Otherwise Kirk wins! Forget the CHinatown odds after Iwase!
Actually, you are again incorrect. I don’t favor Peter C at this point, but those were nonetheless my observations seeing them on the air last night.
I noticed Panos couldn’t resist tossing out that time-worn rail-hater canard he’s babbled about countless times on the Rick Hamada show and other dubious free soapboxes for misinformation: “Traffic will get even worse with rail.”
The truth is that traffic will get worse despite rail (and not because of it) because of continuing development on the West side, but traffic will get much, much worse without rail. Not to mention the lack of parking.
In other words, rail will alleviate traffic congestion. Rail won’t make congestion lighter than it is today, but it will make it lighter than it would otherwise be tomorrow.
I don’t know if Panos is correct or not — but a diatribe against Panos isn’t helping my understanding of the situation.
There is logic to what Panos says. If rail results in substantially more development on the Ewa plain, then there could be substantially more cars on the H-1 freeway. And it is possible that the development could exceed the traffic off-set that rail provides.
Now this may or may not be the end result — but an analysis of this issue has absolutely nothing to do with canards, conservatives, soapboxes, or Rick Hamada. Unless, of course you live in a world where your beliefs are formed out of personal attack rather than civil discussion.
Oliver, that too is a tired argument. The EIS says rail will increase transit use form 6% to 7%. Is that reducing congestion? Yes. Is it the most cost effective way to do so? Heck no.
You might diss Panos on many things, but he is above reproach on traffic congestion issues.
Panos is far below reproach on traffic congestion and most everything else. He understands traffic only as a highway builder and highway lobbyist does. More freeways are not Hawaii’s future.
I am a supporter of common sense. No one in Hawaii knows the transportation issue better than Panos. Not Kirk, Peter and obviously those who try to put their 2 cents in as if it was worth even that. Panos has studied this train and other solutions to our City’s infrastructure problems. They/you haven’t. The only joke here is the rail and those who refuse to be open to listen to the facts. How about the very comparable rail in Puerto Rico? How’s that working for you?
Rail is just one thing. Job creation. Its the next H3. Its not about easing traffic congestion, so I wish everyone would just not say it is.
You know how we know this? If Rail really was about easing congestion, the C&C traffic advisors would have first exhausted all the traffic controlling mechanisms readily at their fingertips first and then said, ok, thats it, we’ve tried it all.
But they havent.
For instance, The Bus. Here we have a wonderful, underutilized, overpriced, public transportation system. Hows we just try to increase ridership there and see what traffic is like then? At $60 a month for a bus pass, no wonder those buses drive around empty. Hows about, say as a pilot project, we tell the citizens of the C&C of Honolulu that riding the bus will now be FREE for the next 2 months. Want to see people get out of their cars then? I would love to see what human behavior would be and then analyze the real need for rail.
Or
Just for one semester, require UH to stagger its hours. Lets just see the impact of it. They always just said “NO” – but that is without even trying. Make them do it – pay them for them for their time and effort – just so we can see if it would be plausible to implement longer-term, the impact to UH, and the impact to traffic.
In the end, we know the GET will never go back down pre-rail and we also know every other possible tax they can squeeze out of us will go up. We can stop rail and better use the resources we have before committing to Rail. I, for one, would rather see the money collected going to subsidize The Bus or UH than burdening all of us with the bill to build and maintain Rail.
UH stagger its hours? Students come and go to the campus at staggered hours already. Also students make only one trip to campus per day, while private school parents make two per day to drop off and pick up kids, as do many parents at public schools.
UH always gets blamed for traffic but as you yourself say, have we exhausted the other possibilities? Like collecting some actual data? In any event, if UH were so bad, why doesn’t the rail go to Manoa?