My post here on Saturday regarding the controversial proposal for a children’s playground in a section of Ala Moana Park drew a number of comments.
One comment yesterday by someone using the name “Foggy Bottom” was critical of my focus on legal campaign contributions associated with the officers of the nonprofit group that has pushed the playground proposal.
Here’s an excerpt which gives the flavor of the comment.
Yeah….good job Ian. Just maybe the SA didn’t dive into the “follow the money” trail because the newspaper doesn’t report on perfectly legal political donations made by people who can?
The commenter is absolutely right that these contributions were “perfectly legal.”
It does not, however, follow that they are not a legitimate matter of concern and public scrutiny. This is, after all, a small local example of why the role that money has assumed in our system of elections and governing is of such widespread public concern.
Other commenters point out the playground proposal was developed behind the scenes in direct discussions between the nonprofit group, Paani Kakou, and the city, without the benefit of normal public review and feedback, and “wasn’t a part of the EIS that got studied and evaluated.”
And they have raised additional questions about the appropriateness of the location and design, the cost of ongoing operation and maintenance, as well as thorny issues stemming from the potentially conflicting interests of the public and the city’s private nonprofit partner.
One other key issue, it seems to me, is whether such a planning process was possible only because elected or appointed public officials gave special deference to the views or proposals of this tight group, all connected to the Park Lane development, who had all made substantial but “perfectly legal” campaign contributions to the mayor and members of the city council.
At least one applicable law is the “fair treatment” provision of the city’s ethics code, part of the Honolulu City Charter.
Section 11-104. Fair and Equal Treatment —
Elected or appointed officers or employees shall not use their official positions to secure or grant special consideration, treatment, advantage, privilege or exemption to themselves or any person beyond that which is available to every other person. (Reso. 83?357)
The same provision is part of the state ethics code as well. It would be informative to take a look at how this has been applied and construed in the past, but that’s something for another day.
For now, it just stands as a reminder that bending normal procedures to provide “special consideration, treatment, advantage, privilege or exemption” to campaign supporters or any other person is legitimately a matter for public scrutiny.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This, and a comment from “Dr. Stephanie Han” in the StarAdv, are reminders to reason by measures and reconsiderations. Teaching is a very good tool.
Regular kinda’ citizens, such as I, have had very real concerns about where island development has been going, yet our voices are extremely limited or get undervalued. Retaliation then overpowers measure and reason, so sides end up openly combative or internally seething. Not healthy.
Thank you again Ian for your teaching.
This whole “overly generous” proposal stinks of self serving convenience underscored by the group in question’s very cozy proximity to the current shameless HNL mayor/banker and his slavish desire to race after wherever a bit of money is tossed in his general direction.
Now if a large group of of concerned “keep the park as it is” folks managed to scrape up, say, an equal or slightly greater amount of $ towards Caldwell’s coffers (and this is just an example, heaven forbid) to encourage him to be against it, would he suddenly disavow his past enthusiasm for the “world class inclusive playground”??
Yeah…I think it fair to call any career politician in this town a “whore”, regardless of gender.
It’s quite clear that Caldwell shamelessly panders to developers of overpriced luxury condos that Honolulu does not need, and to the banks that finance construction and purchases of same.
It’s also quite clear that the people pushing this “playground” for a totally inappropriate location are doing so primarily to increase the value and marketability of their investment across the street.
And it’s clear that perfectly legal campaign contributions to an integrity-challenged politician on the make certainly did not hurt their cause.
Remember Ala Moana Park come election time.
This debacle should be the last big nail in Caldwell’s political coffin.
Anyone concerned about Ala Moana might want to take a look at Bill 2 (2019) which is the TOD plan for the area. It includes height limits of 400 -450 feet. The bill is up for 2nd reading at tomorrow’s full council meeting.
No offense but I hope they let the buildings go up to 5-600 ft!
Views blocked, more “TOD” railfail justification excuses, more “affordable” 300sq ft “studios”, wind tunnel effect corridors and the ire of a population at moneybags Caldwell and his council cronies.
If developers subvert the process every time with height variances, why even have a process?