A couple of weeks ago, I got an email complaining about an apparent sunshine law violation at the city council. It occurred when an item was added at the very last minute to the agenda of the Honolulu City Council. It seemed at first glance to be a minor item, a gift to put lights on a tree in a Hawaii Kai park. But it turned out there was a lot more going on.
I told the story in a column posted today at Civil Beat (“Ian Lind: Why A Tree In Hawaii Kai Is Raising Questions Of Favoritism“).
While questions about the tree lights started with their unauthorized appearance last year, they have continued to the present, along with a sense among a number of community leaders and organizations that they have been bypassed during the nearly year-long discussions of the lights.
There are additional questions about privatizing parks by turning over their care and control to private parties, no matter how well intentioned.
Critics also cite environmental concerns, noting that the designated tree is located just feet from the high water mark, where electrical power could create unanticipated safety hazards. They also note that installing lights so close to the ocean could run afoul of laws restricting shoreline lighting, and run counter to efforts to protect the dark night sky from further light pollution.
And the Office of Information Practices is reviewing a complaint that lack of public notice of the council’s final vote to accept the gift violated the state’s Sunshine Law.
“It’s a tough issue for something that seems so small, lighting a tree,” commented Kenny Amazaki, senior advisor and chief of staff for council member Ozawa.
A tough issue. Yes it is.
The column is a bit long, but I hope you find it an interesting read.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How ironic to have the illumination of a tree cast necessary light upon unfair practice and a grossly flawed process used to satisfy one person’s request.
Now is the time for our elected officials to recognize their error and unplug the tree. Thank you Ian and Civil Beat for serving as a voice for community and yes, also the tree.
I’m wondering who pays for the electricity to light up the tree.
Reading the article, one thing that was not clear to me is how the $40,000 donation was calculated and how it is treated in terms of taxes. The value seems rather high and arbitrary. Is the donor getting a tax write-off for it?
Thank you for bringing awareness to this issue, Ian. It wasn’t mentioned in the article, but at the same meeting, councilmembers sunshined a resolution regarding zoo sponsorships. That resolution, #17-310, is perhaps more troublesome, because it didn’t even have a committee hearing — it was introduced just the day before the council meeting.
In order to build our own playground in Niu Valley, we had 60+ meetings and conference calls, half a dozen City Council hearings, went through 4 mayors, 4 City councilmen, 7 managing directors, 5 Parks directors, and 10 DDC directors. We held numerous fundraisers and wrote over a dozen grants to buy our own equipment and donated it to the City ($77,359), and had to pay for storage for year before they installed it. The City still didn’t install our fitness equipment in Niu Valley and will be installing it instead at Ala Moana Beach Park. I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to follow the rules like we had to because it was a great deal of work and heartache. But the quick and dirty way in which it was done is a slap in the face to us and all the other people and communities who had to endure the slow, torturous mandated process we were told had to be done by everyone at the City.