"Governor says city needs to revise its financial plan for rail project"
...GOVERNOR LINDA LINGLE OPENING REMARKS
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS – HONOLULU CHAPTER
PRESENTATION ON HONOLULU RAIL TRANSIT
Monday, January 18, 2010...
Re: "The Superferry did not use one dollar of public funding. We had reimbursable general obligation bonds that were paid for, and will be paid for, by the people who use the harbors. There's not one dollar of direct tax funding that ever went to Superferry or was pledged to Superferry or will be used for Superferry in the future."
WRONG! The Superferry DID use public funding beyond the general obligation bonds. Beyond the bonded money there was all of the money spent to fix the barge at Kahului harbor. There was all of the money spent on the tug boat service daily to hold the barge to the Kahului pier when the ferry came in. There was all of the money spent for extra DLNR security when the ferry first started operating and then continuing for inspections. There was all of the money spent to pay for the Act 2 Special Session. There was all of the legal fees of the Attorney General in this case. There are all of the legal fees of the continuing bankruptcy proceedings.
Re: "In addition, there was never a requirement for an EIS for the Superferry until it was challenged and went to the State Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court made the ruling. The Superferry was treated the way every other ocean-related project was treated whether it was Matson, NCL, Young Brothers or anyone else using our oceans. It was treated the same way, our Administration made the same decision, it's just that the Supreme Court changed the law with their decision."
WRONG AGAIN! You are one hard-headed, obstinate politician! The EIS requirement existed all along, before the Supreme Court even made their first ruling on this. The Superferry was not treated the same as the other harbor users. Those harbor users have had to do EIS's for similar projects. The Supreme Court never changed the law. In fact, it was your Attorney General who wrote the flawed new law Act 2 and your Administration who lobbied the new law through the Legislature. The underlying HEPA law never changed. The Supreme Court never changed the law.