Two recent cases are the first to be filed relating to Honolulu’s rail project.
The first, filed by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, is relatively straightforward. It argues that state law regarding burials and historic resources requires an inventory to be done where burials can be expected to be found. And the law also requires that this be done before decisions are made so that the information can be taken into account in a timely fashion.
Here’s a link to the full complaint.
The legal argument appears to hinge on one point. The lawsuit argues that the rail project can’t be arbitrarily divided into segments or construction phases in order to delay or defer the required archaeological survey until well after construction is started on the project.
The complaint argues that all four phases “are connected and part of a single project,” and none of the individual phases “has independent utility.”
The failure to complete a survey of burials along the route is a clear violation of law, according to the complaint.
The second lawsuit challenges city contracting policies for the rail project. Here’s the link to the full 51-page complaint, some of which is taken up with listings of rail contracts.
It’s a bit technical, but also straightforward. State procurement law originally allowed contracts to be awarded even if fewer that three bids were received. The law was later amended to delete this provision, making it clear that a minimum of three bids are required. However, city rules were never updated to reflect the amendments to the law, and some city contracts, including lucrative rail contracts, have been awarded without the legally required competition.
The lawsuit argues that the city does not have the authority to issue rules that are contrary to state law.
It cites a 2005 city audit.
“…our audit reveals that certain sole source, emergency, and professional services purchases approved by the city have either violated the state procurement code or city policies. THere are indications of a pervasive level of procurement code violations. ANti-competitive practices are contrary to law and costly to taxpayers.”
I have a feeling Mayor Carlisle’s bravado (“We’re confident we can successfully address these arguments in court”) is going to be seriously challenged in these two cases.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I honestly did not expect Carlisle to make a 360 degrees turn and turn into a mad cheerleader. I thought he would be circumspect and examine the facts and implement fiscal disc1pline. Carlisle has turned out to be a more hyper version of Mufi Hannemann.
Remedial math lesson: a “360-degree turn” leaves you facing the same direction.
Ha! Ha! You know exactly what I mean.
If only people like you focus on minute details on the rail. Pertinent facts, fiscal figures and laws appear to be too easily swept aside. It’s unfortunate that lawsuits are eeded to force the city and state to examine a little more.
Don’t assume that I oppose (or support) the lawsuit simply because I am pedantic about math literacy.
Carlisle was a rail supporter before he was elected.
He’s still a supporter, but the spin may have affected his equilibrium.
and don’t forget the Federal building issue. The Federal judges have said the train runs too close to the building for safety against an
attack. And they can certainly stop the train
TFN.
Really? How can the federal judges stop it?
Is there a lawsuit in federal court, too?
Thanks for the good idea, Doug. I hope these lawsuits do not mess up an sugar daddy contracts for anybody :=)
You’re welcome, I guess.
So, what are (or would be) the strongest arguments for a federal lawsuit?
One Federal judge raised an objection in her comment on the EIS, claiming that the rail line running past the Federal building would be an avenue for a bombing of the building. Apparently, the Federal reviewers and the Governor felt that this comment was dealt with in the EIS. Anybody looked to see what the response to the comment was.
Difficult to see how the elevated rail line is a threat when all sorts of trucks and vans pass along the same route every day, and can stop on Halekauwila or turn to attack the Federal Building.
And the argument that a survey of where every post is going to be put along the entire route from Kapolei to Ala Moana Center must be made before the first post can go into former sugar cane land in Ewa seems pretty silly.
For the most part, the posts are going to be going down in the existing roadbeds of highways, areas which have already been subject to some excavation.
There seems to be at least a couple of years to survey ahead of the construction to identify problem areas and to tweak the design to change pole location if needed.
And, finally, you better be careful relying on the City Auditor’s work.
In my own experience, that shop’s work was incredibly sloppy and exaggerated. Clear errors of fact and analysis remained in their final reports even when documentation of the errors had been presented to them.
They are lucky that nobody ever audits them.
Why is the burial complaint be based on Chapter 6E-42, which covers private sector actions requiring a county or state permit?
Last time I checked, the rail project was a public sector project (replete with private contractors, to be sure) subject to Chapter 6E-8 & its implementing regs at HAR 13-275.