A couple of weeks ago, the Hawaii Supreme Court ordered a halt to the construction of the Honolulu HART rail line because of archeological survey issues. The trial court had ruled that the survey could be done separately for each of the four phases or segments of the line in turn, as HART wanted, but the supremes ruled that the survey has to be done for the entire line before construction can begin. Since construction has already begun, the court ordered a halt to further construction. A news account. Another account.
On one hand, this seems to be a legitimate issue. Native Hawaiian burial remains are a serious matter under Hawaii law, and both the non-profit law firm and the named plaintiff in this case have raised similar claims against the construction of a Wal-Mart (cite) so they're evidently not anti-railers seizing on any random issue just to stop HART. The executive director of HART didn't help by making a (IMHO inadvertent but pudding-headed) use of the phrase "no bones about it" in responding to the supreme court decision. Cite. hboy:
On the other hand, callate Cayetano! Honolulu mayoral candidate Ben "Cayetano said it is important to stop both the construction and the design work and not just construction." Cite. Of course you bloody well think so, you're running on a platform of killing HART, and you're plaintiff in a separate federal lawsuit to stop the project. :angry2: Say "hi" to Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Rick Scott the next time you're on the mainland!
Jiminy frick! Can a rail transit or intercity passenger rail project be floated in this country without opposition -- often (though to be fair not in this case) from absolutely nowhere near the city, metropolitan area or region in question -- immediately popping up like a bad version of Whack-a-Mole?! :angry2: Can a rail project, once approved, proceed through construction to opening day without the opponents who "lost" in the planning, design, and funding process taking yet another post hoc swing at killing the project?! :blink:
On one hand, this seems to be a legitimate issue. Native Hawaiian burial remains are a serious matter under Hawaii law, and both the non-profit law firm and the named plaintiff in this case have raised similar claims against the construction of a Wal-Mart (cite) so they're evidently not anti-railers seizing on any random issue just to stop HART. The executive director of HART didn't help by making a (IMHO inadvertent but pudding-headed) use of the phrase "no bones about it" in responding to the supreme court decision. Cite. hboy:
On the other hand, callate Cayetano! Honolulu mayoral candidate Ben "Cayetano said it is important to stop both the construction and the design work and not just construction." Cite. Of course you bloody well think so, you're running on a platform of killing HART, and you're plaintiff in a separate federal lawsuit to stop the project. :angry2: Say "hi" to Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Rick Scott the next time you're on the mainland!
Jiminy frick! Can a rail transit or intercity passenger rail project be floated in this country without opposition -- often (though to be fair not in this case) from absolutely nowhere near the city, metropolitan area or region in question -- immediately popping up like a bad version of Whack-a-Mole?! :angry2: Can a rail project, once approved, proceed through construction to opening day without the opponents who "lost" in the planning, design, and funding process taking yet another post hoc swing at killing the project?! :blink:
Last edited by a moderator: