During his “State of the City” speech last week, Honolulu Mayor Peter Carlisle defended the planned rail system as a defense against sprawl and urbanization of other parts of the island.
Here’s the key paragraph that caught my attention:
Rail will ‘keep the country, country’. It will ‘keep Kailua, Kailua’. It will ‘keep East Honolulu, East Honolulu’. It will preserve a way of life for smaller communities on the North Shore or the Windward side. These can see less growth in their areas because the rail system is designed to allow the areas from Kapolei to the urban core to accommodate our island’s expected population growth. Unless we want more growth everywhere else on the island, we must provide rail transit for people along the corridor.
Fact check: Mostly false.
It sounds good, and would be true if transit oriented development were coupled with curbs on significant development outside the transit corridor. But in the context of the Carlisle administration’s policy, the claim is largely not true. Carlisle has actually been backing controversial developments in other parts of the island as well as transit oriented development along the rail line.
In practice, the Carlisle administration seems to be bent on delivering both types of development. Build the rail, pave the country.
Carlisle stated his support for development around the island in a speech to a Kaneohe business group last year. Note the reference to “fast tracking” of development plans.
The mayor described major development projects proposed for Oahu’s windward side, and the fast tracking process of the Department of Planning and Permitting. “Community growth is inevitable, population growth is inevitable, and although theses projects are controversial, we have to take steps to accommodate that growth and do it in correct fashion,” he said.
One example has been the Carlisle administration’s support of the Mormon plan, Envision Laie, which would create a major suburban development of up to 1,200 new homes on agricultural land in Malaekahana, with supporting commercial and retail areas, in addition to the new Marriott hotel, and an expanded BYUH campus.
Not much “Keep the country, country” in that plan, or in the expansion of the Turtle Bay Resort.
So while claiming that rail will “keep the country, country,” Carlisle has letting other developments get fast-tracked past public opposition.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, the mayor speaks out of both sides of his mouth
It may also be helpful to appreciate that the mayor is but one head of a many-headed beast. Each head is capable of speaking out of both sides of the mouth, and in so doing, can choose to either roar or whisper. Ian Lind has captured one such whisper, and amplified it to be witnessed by a larger audience than the smaller, more sympathetic audience the mayor head had intended.
In West Oahu, other heads of the same beast also whisper, but they offer a different message that is tailored for different recipients. In West Oahu the heads continue to say, in hushed tones meant to be just loud enough for only the intended to hear, that rail will bring about sorely wanted faster drives to and from work. And in the newspapers, other heads roar disapproval of traffic torments and of the need for rail in a way that seems to confirm the tales whispered in West Oahu. Unfortunately, it’s a lie. All of it. The promised faster drives to work due to rail do not and will not exist. But support for rail in West Oahu as a result of whispered lies, roared lies and the residual of past lies does.
Speaking of how cities are the way of the future, here is an article from today’s Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-anderson/city-2-0-ted-prize_b_1314360.html?ref=technology&ncid=webmail23
What disturbs me most about Abercrombie is that Abercrombie was one of the leaders of the movement a generation ago to prevent high-density urban growth in urban Honolulu. In retrospect, that seems to me to be emotional, uninformed and reactionary.
There is a myth perpetuated by the local building industry that a large fraction of Hawaii’s population are “troglodytes” opposed to any development. On the contrary, I think that most people in Hawaii would agree with former Governor Lingle’s statement (which was her finest hour) that “There is more to development than land development.” Most people in Hawaii want development in the form of diversification, but it just never happened. Hawaii’s economy not only failed to diversify (a matter of national security in most economies), but has actually become less diversified, shifting political power to the few remaining industries in Hawaii (tourism, home builders and trade unions); unfortunately, even these remaining industries seem to have a dark future. Making things worse, even in terms of land development, the focus has been on low-rise suburbs, not high density urban growth. Even with the rail, there are no real plans for TOD (in fact, TOD only really happens just around the central business district, not in suburbs); unfortunately, this also means that no one will use the rail.
However, this myth that Hawaii is opposed to any growth turns out to be true in the figure of Abercrombie. But now Abercrombie wants any kind of land development. He has gone from one foolish extreme to another.
But the thing is, and I think Anderson’s article implies this, cities are where innovation, creativity and economic diversification take place.
If Honolulu had built a high-density urban core between downtown and Waikiki, that kind of “creative class” (as Richard Florida calls it) might be thriving in Hawaii (or at least in Honolulu). So all of the things that Abercrombie campaigned for — protecting ag lands, promoting education and health, creating jobs — were ultimately occluded long ago by the younger Abercrombie and his ilk.
High density urbanization was the long-term key to diversification, but certain people opposed that. So not only will they pave the countryside, but in doing they will ultimately hurt tourism and the home building industry, the last remaining industries. A bad choice was made a long time ago by Abercrombie and the other romantics, and so history went in a different direction. At this point, perhaps there is nothing that can be done, and the rest of us are stuck in this society watching the inevitable play itself out. Ultimately, what might happen is that all these dubious big projects will fail, the suburbs will fail, people will move into the urban core and a creative urban culture will emerge and the economy will diversify. All this was simply delayed for a couple of generations by Abercrombie and friends, and at an enormous human and environmental cost.
And perhaps Abercrombie knows this. He is intelligent and moral.
In contrast, Hannemann as governor would probably be doing the same thing as Abercrombie is. But Hannemann might never figure out that it’s economically dysfuntional and counterproductive, and Hannemann would feel no guilt.
Mayor Carlisle was parroting “Keep the Country Country”.
Mufi Hannemann’s protege Kirk Caldwell is now criticized for plagiarizing the phrase Keep the Country. Forget about these goofball talking heads.
Vote Ben Cayetano.