Regarding the article today:
Hawaii Superferry's interisland service depends on court ruling
Service may be halted if high court rules against law that let ship operate
By Derrick DePledge Advertiser Government Writer Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Derrick continues to miss a few key points:
1) By the requirements throughout Act 2 rather than just the semantics of a "large capacity ferry vessel," there is only one company, HSF, that would have been able to meet all of the requirements and qualify for the benefits of Act 2, so Act 2 is defacto special law and not general law. Somebody should go through Act 2 and list all of the explicit and implied requirements and constraints and you will see only one company met those, mostly based on timing.
2) Also, Act 2, by it's wording, does not have an effective "No Action" alternative on the total project. It is clear from the scoping testimony handouts that Belt Collins is trying to incorporate "No Action" alternatives for dealing with individual mitigations such as harbor improvements, but there is No "No Action" alternative on the whole project by the very wording of Act 2. That is a substantive change from Chapter 343 to Act 2. That alone arbitrarily takes rights away from the public that existed under Chapter 343 and which the State Supreme Court previously affirmed.
If justice is to be done, Bennett's Act 2 will be thrown out for the shoddily written piece of junk that it is.