Botched petition sure to prolong rail spat

[No Rail or Train]

Wait What wrote:

<quoted text>
There's nothing circular about it. I believe we both agree that paragraph 3 applies ONLY to petitions specifying a special election. That being the case, the language: "provided that if the clerk certifies less than fifteen percent but at least ten percent, the proposed ordinance shall be submitted at the next general election or scheduled special election" also applies only to petitions requesting a special election. Meaning, despite the language of the SRN petition, their issue can (should) end up on the November general election ballot (if they meet the 10%) because that general election is within 180 days (thus prohibiting the special election requested in the petition).
Paragraph 1 or 2 (in this case, P1, because the next election is a general election) MUST then apply; there is nothing in Paragraph 3 to prevent me from filing a "special election" petition (with 10%) the day before a general election or scheduled special election and demanding it be on the ballot the next day. Paragraph 3 calls for the "next" scheduled election, not the next scheduled election "at least 90 days away". Paragraph 3, taken alone, is very abusable. Indeed, arguing in court that Paragraph 3 should not be interpreted in context of Paragraphs 1 & 2 may be the loophole you suggest SRN was hoping to exploit if they failed to gather enough signatures by the 90-day deadline of Paragraph 1 had they specified the general election instead.
I didn't sign the petition and I'll vote against it (hopefully in November and not in '09 at the expense of another $2mil). But I believe in the rule of law. This time, my reading of the law favors SRN getting their issue on the Nov ballot. But, as I feel was the case with the Superferry exemptions and HRS-343, I think we're all victims of laws with poor language that leave them open to various interpretations, each of which is defensible enough that differing sides each think they're clearly the ones who are right.
While we're on rule of law, I disagree with BFR's interpretation of Section 3-406 (Approval of Alteration). It states they can change the language of the proposed ordinance, not of the petition. I.e., the only text they can change is, "Honolulu mass transit shall not include trains or rail transit." They can't strike the "special election" text.

OK all of you legal eagles, stop it.

You don't need the initiative vote at all. NewBallot explained it to you several days ago.

If you like rail vote Mufi
If you like toll roads vote Prevedorious
If you like buses only (no tolls) vote Jim Brewer

This way you vote for what you favor too, not only what you are against.

[djs]

Billions For Rail is a prime example of the anti-rail crowd - a serious windbag with nothing of merit to say

[Tsarbomba]

BillionsForRail wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you and the city clerk not seem to understand this simple charter language?
No special initiative election shall be held when the proposed ordinance SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.

Why do you continue to cut off the remainder of paragraph 3? Seriously, answer that question if you feel your interpretation is so right. Here's the rest of that paragraph.

"No special initiative election shall be held if an election is scheduled within one hundred eighty days of submission of the proposal."

Like I said BFR, it's SSDD with you.

[Tsarbomba]

Wait What wrote:

<quoted text>
There's nothing circular about it.

Our difference lies withing the last sentence of paragraph 3.

[alice]

I do not support rail...we are too small a population to support it.

[TollGuy]

djs wrote:

Billions For Rail is a prime example of the anti-rail crowd - a serious windbag with nothing of merit to say

But a new UH study paid for by the Federal Highway Agency and the State DOT agree with him.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx...

[alice]

yup..all the studies do.

[Wait What]

Tsarbomba wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you continue to cut off the remainder of paragraph 3? Seriously, answer that question if you feel your interpretation is so right. Here's the rest of that paragraph.
"No special initiative election shall be held if an election is scheduled within one hundred eighty days of submission of the proposal."

We've both said this last sentence is what PREVENTS SRN from getting the special election their petition requests. But the rest of Paragraph 3 provides the circumstances under which their petition for a SPECIAL election will be rolled into the scheduled GENERAL election DESPITE that not being what the petition specifies.

NO SPECIAL ELECTION as Paragraph 3 specifies.

ISSUE PLACED ON NOVEMBER BALLOT (if they file on time and get 10%) as Paragraph 3 also specifies.

[Wait What]

No Rail or Train wrote:

<quoted text>
OK all of you legal eagles, stop it.
You don't need the initiative vote at all. NewBallot explained it to you several days ago.
If you like rail vote Mufi
If you like toll roads vote Prevedorious
If you like buses only (no tolls) vote Jim Brewer
This way you vote for what you favor too, not only what you are against.

I think it unlikely that people who've taken the time to read the charter and then debate the legal aspects of SRN are the same people who will pick their mayoral candidate based on a single issue. Expensive as it may be, mass transit is not the only important question facing the island.

[Henry]

FOR ALL OF YOU SELF-PROCLAIMED TRAFFIC EXPERTS... GO SEE IF YOU CAN PASS THE TEST TO GET CERTIFIED AS A PTOE OR PTP

http://www.tpcb.org/ptp/default.asp

No shame... 99% of engineers working at the State DOT and City DTS are not licensed too... that's why we're so screwed up.

[Interesting]

TollGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
But a new UH study paid for by the Federal Highway Agency and the State DOT agree with him.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx...

The fearless professor strikes again.

[Lillian]

Interesting wrote:

<quoted text>
The fearless professor strikes again.

the professor should stay in his ivory tower and leave us alone.

[Interesting]

Lillian wrote:

<quoted text>
the professor should stay in his ivory tower and leave us alone.

At least read his conclusions. You paid for the study through state and federal governments.

Why would the federal highway agency pay for it if they were not interested in Honolulu's transportation? Can someone check this? I do not know who to contact.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx...

[Crazy Horse]

ipj737 wrote:

<quoted text>
Tsarbomba,
Do you think The People should decide on rail... or a handful of special interest politicians?
If you think it's The People that should decide, do you think our voice should be made at the general election?

How many of the anti-rail people intend to live in Honolulu after all this is over?

[Crazy Horse]

Original Wow wrote:

Yea right Mufi! Remember donuts!
<quoted text>

Are you implying you don't even have a real job?

[Get a Grip]

No Rail or Train wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, as NewBallot said:
Mufi for rail
Prevedorious for Toll Roads
Jim Brewer for buses only
Who is preventing you from voting in your favorite system?????

The issue at hand is not about a favorite system, rather what is going to be best for the future generations of Honolulu. That is why rail is so important, it will be the backbone to everything else such as buses and which in the future may also include toll.

[Get a Grip]

Corp Uncounsel wrote:

<quoted text>
The Corporation Counsel, the City's attorney is hired by, guess who? Mufi.
They do what Mufi tells them or they don't stick around.
Guess who the clerk, De Costa, get's her legal advice from? The Corporation Counsel.

Ahh, the City Council side of city government has their own attorneys too you know...

[No Rail or Train]

Get a Grip wrote:

<quoted text>
The issue at hand is not about a favorite system, rather what is going to be best for the future generations of Honolulu. That is why rail is so important, it will be the backbone to everything else such as buses and which in the future may also include toll.

Then vote Mufi to get the rail, since no candidate is for both rail and toll road this time around.

Unless you want to run yourself. You have until Tuesday to file your papers.

(My name says that if you vote yes on the petition as phrased you will be saying "NO" to all systems that use rail including monoRAIL and all systems that use trains including maglev trains - understand?)

[Get a Grip]

Mike Hu wrote:

Panos does seem to be the inevitable win-win solution.

In terms of rail and trying to fix some roads, maybe.

However, there are other issues he isn't qualified or has no experience to handle like elderly affairs, parks and recreation, economic development, culture and arts, tourism, emergency management, managing the neighborhood boards, the Royal Hawaiian Band, Honolulu Zoo, etc.

[check it out]

Get a Grip wrote:

<quoted text>
In terms of rail and trying to fix some roads, maybe.
However, there are other issues he isn't qualified or has no experience to handle like elderly affairs, parks and recreation, economic development, culture and arts, tourism, emergency management, managing the neighborhood boards, the Royal Hawaiian Band, Honolulu Zoo, etc.

Panos has an undergraduate degree in Land Surveying - the basis of good precise management.