Disappeared News

by Larry Geller

I suppose Richard Borreca is entitled to his opinion that

The Superferry's run proved that it was a vital and safe link between the islands.

But thanks to the need for an EIS, the Superferry debate was transformed into a raging, foaming-at-the-mouth storm that even had bloggers like Kauai's Joan Conrow call Lingle "the devil, the personification of evil."

Lingle tried to talk to Kauai residents and was booed and cursed, while Kauai farmers, contractors and residents who wanted to travel among the islands were silenced.

I don’t believe he was present at the meeting at which Lingle was reported to have distributed a list of actions she and her “unified command” threatened to take if there should be more protests against the Superferry. Nor was I present in his office when he typed the column that appeared in today’s paper. Could I have titled this article, “Columnist raging, foaming-at-the-mouth?” It wouldn’t be fair or respectful. Or accurate, probably.

I did Google the phrase to see if Joan Conrow really called Lingle "the devil, the personification of evil," and found that she did not. He could have done the same. I also noticed that by the time I got around to reading Borreca’s column, Conrow had already responded to him as part of her blog post today.

I’m surprised to see this column so narrowly contrived, amounting to a series of attacks on points of view that the writer, himself, may not hold but are perfectly valid.  He was quick to place blame for the business failure of the ferry company on the need for the EIS, though he mentioned the ramp issue without crediting that choice (that is, not to install a ramp on the Alakai) as contributing to the failure.

Bottom line is always the bottom line. The ferry offered discounts and ate the fuel surcharge it could have added to the fare, with the result that it likely made no sense to continue running up losses. The Supreme Court decision could be viewed as a gift to the ferry company. It gave them a way out, if they wanted it.

Richard Borreca owes Joan Conrow at least an apology for misquoting her. I’ll be looking for it, but not holding my breath. I’d say he also owes apologies to the people on Kauai who are taking care of their environment and preserving the place they live against the forces of development and exploitation.

Who says that every square inch of land has to be sacrificed to the gods of big business? Who says, after the current economic collapse, that they are really gods at all? Monsanto deserves no respect for its business practices, and has no divine right to a chunk of Kauai’s or anyone else’s real estate.

As to whether power will ever be delivered by Lanai and Molokai wind farms, another issue he threw into today’s rant, he might check with HECO, which seems to have veto power over whether that power is purchased. He might have seen a March 8, 2009 article in the Advertiser about the Penguin Bank wave/wind project off of Molokai:

Besides the environmental obstacles, one of the biggest hurdles could be whether the company can reach agreement to sell the Penguin Bank power to Hawaiian Electric Co. [Grays Harbor president] Hamner said he has been told by a state renewable energy expert that HECO might not need all that electricity.

If the same applies to alternative energy sourced from Lanai or Molokai wind farms, then any anti-business pressure comes from the established business power structure, not from Kauai protesters. Borreca was based in an office in the basement of the Capitol as HECO (and other) executives worked upstairs as “interns” in legislator’s offices. For years and years these businesses had access to the lawmaking process that determined what other businesses could succeed in Hawaii. One day the gods were evicted from Mt. Olympus, and the playing field was leveled, at least just a little. I submit that the greatest enemy of business in Hawaii is the established business power structure itself.

There’s that great book, Land and Power in Hawaii. I don’t think much has changed since it first appeared. Lingle, Bennett and the Superferry company were engaged in a power play that swayed the Legislature into passing Act 2.

Unfortunately for the columnist’s arguments, what they did was not legal. Protests and lawsuits simply established that, but in the meantime, the Superferry operated for a time before right caught up with might. Justice often takes time.

Our government could have held fast with the existing law, and the ferry could have stuck on a ramp. Or not. There simply were consequences to the choices they made. The press, where the ferry company might have had considerable clout as an advertiser, was reluctant to criticize, and so might have helped create a certain version of reality (for example, we’re still waiting to see the weld issue in print, or discussions of profitability, appropriateness of the size of the vessel to the low ridership, evaluation of the validity of running a business with constant losses, etc.).

Far from hurting Hawaii’s business chances, in the long run I believe keeping to the law will differentiate Hawaii from places like, say, Illinois. We should do it more. What signals do we give by allowing illegal short-term vacations rentals to proliferate around the state? That’s an example of the uncertainty that business has to contend with. Business leaders will not be put off by the end of the apparently unprofitable Superferry.

Besides, Hawaii isn’t such a business-unfriendly place. Quite the opposite case can be made.

For example Act 221, the so-called high-technology tax credit law, was more than generous to business. It offered corporate welfare, handed out much like the current federal bailout of banks, with few if any strings attached and almost no accountability. The many businesses that benefited are no doubt in love with Hawaii.

We also have a successful Small Business Innovation Research grant program and other incentives. And of course we know how lax regulation can be when small business is concerned, taking again as an example those short-term vacation rentals.

I have the advantage of lots of space to take shots at the article, but Borreca’s writing has magnitudes more impact since it appears in an actual newspaper. Because of that, I hope he really will consider correcting his misquote of Joan Conrow, at least.

One day he, too, may find himself writing a blog, and would not want someone peeved enough to drop a printing press on him.

Update: I liked line of flight’s comment to this post, and since many people don’t look at comments, let me repeat the last paragraph here. I agree completely.

In the short, erratic regulation like that demonstrated by the entire Superferry debacle only increases transaction costs making it hard to enter markets and harder to remain profitable. If we truly want to be business friendly, we need to weed out this kind of erratic, ad hoc regulation and utilize systematic policy making and planning to inform regulation. Otherwise, businesses will spend more money lobbying when they see one business getting a pass. Yet, in order to spend money you've got to have it and so this system of back scratching only helps incumbents and tends towards oligopoly and monopoly.

Permalink posted by Larry @ 3/22/2009 04:33:00 PM