GaryHooser's Blog

For those of you who still think the answer to “feeding the world” is modern technology provided to us by Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow Chemical, Dupont, BASF, Bayer, Nestles, Pepsico and General Mills – please take just a moment or two to read some of the below articles.  Trust me: They are well written, easy to read and yes…based on real science.  All written/published in 2017.

New York Times: How Big Business Got Brazil Hooked On Junk Food

“scientists say, the growing availability of high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods is generating a new type of malnutrition, one in which a growing number of people are both overweight and undernourished.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/16/health/brazil-obesity-nestle.html?action=click&module=Top+Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Washington Post: This Miracle Weed Killer Was Supposed To Save Farms, Instead It’s Devastating Them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/this-miracle-weed-killer-was-supposed-to-save-farms-instead-its-devastating-them/2017/08/29/33a21a56-88e3-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.1e85f9faecec

Politico: Can American Soil Be Brought Back To Life?

“For generations, soil has been treated almost as a backdrop — not much more than a medium for holding plants while fertilizer and herbicides help them grow.”

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/soil-health-agriculture-trend-usda-000513

UK Independent: Pesticides Linked To Birth Abnormalities In Major New Study

“The sheer size of the study, and the meticulous way it has been carried out, suggest that there is an environmental hazard for mothers resident in an area with large scale pesticide usage”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pesticides-birth-abnormalities-linked-pregnancy-study-san-joaquin-valley-california-farms-a7918636.html

Older articles showing the duplicity and character (or lack thereof) of these corporations:

New York Times: A Pesticide Banned Or Not Underscores Trans-Atlantic Trade Sensitivities

“The weed killer is banned as a pesticide in the European Union as well as in Switzerland (corporate headquarters for Syngenta) over concerns that it is a groundwater contaminant.  Syngenta, however, did not get the memo…the company has long insisted that the pesticide was not banned.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/business/international/a-pesticide-banned-or-not-underscores-trans-atlantic-trade-sensitivities.html

The Nation: Blackwater’s Black Ops

“Internal documents reveal the firm’s clandestine work for multinationals and governments.” Spoiler alert – Monsanto hired them to infiltrate activists groups (which they of course deny)

https://www.thenation.com/article/blackwaters-black-ops/

“If you don’t support my issue, then I will never vote for you,” is about the least effective comment you can make to someone in public office when testifying on an issue.

The first thought that goes through the mind of the politician is something to the effect of, “You probably don’t vote for me anyway — why should I even care?” The second thought that passes through is probably not suitable for a community newspaper.

Threatening not to vote for someone during public testimony is at the top of the “Do not do list” when it comes to public advocacy 101. It is right up there with publicly calling the lawmaker a crook or implying that because someone related to the issue gave them a campaign donation, they are somehow corrupt. While all of this may (or may not) be true, making these statements as part of testimony on any issue will only hurt the cause.

A room full of committed citizens requesting that the legislative body “do the right thing” and backing up that request with solid facts, is intimidating enough on a political level. Harsh and ugly rhetoric is unnecessary and counter-productive.

Conversely, if the policymaker is offered solid facts supported by genuine but reasoned passion and presented by a broad community coalition, they may indeed seek ways to alter their original position.

The best testifier will be someone whom the policy-maker knows and respects, and someone who is active in the community where the policymaker lives, works or recreates.

Think about it for a moment. Who is the person with the absolute most influence on any politician? The answer of course is the husband, wife, children, mother, father, you get it — close friends and family. Next will come the equivalent of neighbors and co-workers, and people who have helped on the campaign or donated money.

If someone who has helped campaign by holding signs or knocking on doors for days on end in the hot blazing sun testifies, you can bet the politician will not only listen politely but will (within their personal integrity parameters) do whatever they can to support that person.

There is a hierarchy of influence with family and close friends at the top. People without any personal relationship at all and bonafide enemies are of course at the bottom. Those that publicly insult the decision maker are normally grouped with the enemies at the bottom.

It is human nature to want to help your friends and to be influenced by friends, family, co-workers, neighbors and people who have helped you. It is the way the world works.

A mature policymaker with a strong moral compass will balance this basic nature with the needs of the greater good.

Fortunately, we live in a community small enough where the average citizen can have a personal relationship with their local representatives at the state and county level. Hawaii is still small enough where you can meet your local elected government leader in person, face to face, and talk to him or her about issues that are important to you and your community.

Simply by requesting and participating in a meeting with your councilmember, state representative or state senator will automatically vault you into at least the middle category of the influence hierarchy. One meeting is the start of a personal relationship with your government policy maker.

If you and/or a small group of friends or neighbors request a meeting with your local state or county representative, they will accommodate you. Of this I am absolutely sure.

Follow up your first meeting with other occasional requests to meet and discuss pending issues (while respecting the time limitations of all), and add in an occasional thoughtful letter to the editor. Then, when you next submit testimony (either in person or via email), the decision maker will automatically weight your thoughts and opinion higher than those whom he/she has had no contact or familiarity with.

Get to know your elected officials. You may be surprised to find that they are actually just regular people. And remember, they are elected to serve you.

NOTE: First published on September 6, 2017 in The Garden Island newspaper, “Hooser – Policy & Politics”.

Demonizing “big landowners and developers” is an easy and simple track to fall into, and to a large extent in Hawaii, one that is often but not always deserved.

Historically, our “big landowners” are the descendants of missionaries who came to the islands to do good, and as the saying goes, “did very well.”

Many residents, descendants of plantation workers reminisce fondly about those “plantation days” with parades and festivals to commemorate the fond memories of the plantation camps (segregated by race), company stores, medical facilities, churches and schools.

Kauai’s largest hospital and our community college are both a result of the largess of Grove Farm Company. Our island’s first shopping mall and many of our largest hotels, golf courses and residential housing projects are also a result of Grove Farm Company developments. Almost all of the developable land in and around Lihue and much of Koloa/Poipu is owned by Grove Farm Company, which owns over 38,000 acres of Kauai land.

The vast sugar plantations that once dominated every island are now gone, replaced primarily by cattle ranching and, on Kauai, GMO research and seed production. Few, if any, of the major landowners are actual agricultural enterprises, but rather they are simply real estate land-banks, managing land assets until they are ripe for development into hotels, shopping centers and high-end homes (building the requisite minimum number in the affordable category).

In actuality, many of these large plantations, including Grove Farm Company, were originally created as speculative real estate ventures, with the very first owners in 1850 purchasing the land and then “flipping” it and making exorbitant profits.

According to http://www.grovefarm.com/about-us “Following the Great Mahele (the Hawaiian land redistribution act that allowed non-natives to purchase royal lands), Warren Goodale became the first owner in 1850. He immediately sold the land to James Marshall for $3,000, who in turn, sold it to Judge Herman Wireman for $8,000 in 1856.”

In addition to “running the plantation,” it is no secret that the large landowners have historically also “ran the government.”

According to HawaiiHistory.org: Their economic power translated into political power as well, and politics and business in the Islands continue an intricate cross-pollination. Edward P. Dole, Attorney General of Hawai‘i, wrote in 1903: “There is a government in this Territory which is centralized to an extent unknown in the United States…”

On Kauai, Grove Farm’s George Norton Wilcox, who took over Grove Farm operations in 1864, was deemed a “power in Hawaiian politics.”

The trend of a handful of large landowners and businessmen controlling both the economic and political systems throughout Hawaii continued until the 1949 rise of labor unions led to Democrats etching out their first political victories in 1954, then finally gaining majority control in 1962.

While the organizing skills and persistence of labor unions drove many improvements to working conditions and wages, it did not come without a price. In 1924, after decades of harsh treatment and low wages, during the early years of the labor struggle, 20 striking Filipino plantation workers were killed by local armed sheriffs and strike-breakers in what was called the Hanapepe Massacre.

Today, despite the “revolution of 1954” and the many tangible gains that resulted from the leadership of that era, the land and money power structure in Hawaii remains largely unchanged. The labels and the political parties have “flipped” from Republican to Democrat, but the underlying power structure remains controlled by large landowners and development interests. On Kauai and throughout the state, the large landowners benefit from having “their people” elected and appointed to key positions of power and influence, effectively still running the show in Hawaii, both politically and economically.

It doesn’t have to be this way. If the broader community organizes, engages the system, and takes ownership of their government, we could have a political and economic system that is driven by and for the people, and not simply for the profits of a few.

Note: First published in The Garden Island Newspaper 8/30/17 “Hooser-Policy & Politics”

“Imagine an island where basic needs like housing and access to a diversity of income generation opportunities are available for all. Imagine a self-sufficient island with a farm-to-table food economy. Imagine an island that represents a living model of our rich Hawaiian cultural heritage that honors both keiki and kupuna. Imagine living within and experiencing the rewards of a sustainable island community, serving as a model for other island communities facing the same challenges as Kauai.” From the Community Coalition – Kauai: https://www.communitycoalitionkauai.org.

We can do this, Kauai. If enough of us engage the process and take personal responsibility for the outcome, we can actually make this happen. This is not pie in the sky. It is totally doable.

The Kauai General Plan update will be coming before the Kauai County Council possibly as soon as Sept. 6. This document is intended to guide the future growth of our island, but according to many whose opinion I respect greatly, it is deeply flawed.

While the rank and file professional planning department staff have produced an impressive document, the ultimate plan approved by the Planning Commission is significantly biased toward the needs of large landowners and developers.

In other words, it is business as usual.

Our affordable housing needs are at crisis levels,and traffic in Kapaa (and increasingly so heading south and west) is at a standstill. Tourism continues to grow unabated, and our beaches, streams and mountain trails are no longer our own. We import 90 percent of our food while 90 percent of our agricultural land is used for non-food producing purposes. Employment opportunities for our young people are centered on working in tourism, for the government, or for the military.

Yet, our General Plan simply doles out more of the same stuff that has gotten us to where we are today. Yes, it is dressed in the fine clothes of vision and hope, but at the end of the day it continues to place the future of our island in the hands of large landowners and developers.

As further evidence that the plan is not ready for prime time, Planning Commissioners Kanoe Ahuna and Donna Apisa recently cast their votes in opposition to the final draft, against the positions held by a majority of their colleagues on the commission. Mahalo to them both for having the courage to stick to their convictions instead of yielding to the ever-present pressure to conform.

The ultimate approval of the Kauai General Plan represents a critical point in time, and an opportunity to “reset our compass” putting the quality of life for local residents above the profits of large landowners and developers.

We can do so much better.

We don’t need more upscale housing, more hotels or more shopping centers. We do need more genuinely affordable housing built in existing urban areas. We also need opportunities for small farmers who want to grow real food. And we need diversified solutions to our traffic woes. While our main traffic arteries must be expanded, the ultimate answer is not to always just “add another lane” but requires a comprehensive multimodal approach.

Until we resolve some of the pressing needs that our community now faces, we need to draw a line in the sand on new development. Until we can provide truly affordable housing for local residents, get a handle on traffic and start protecting those special places we all hold dear, we need to hit the “pause button” and the Kauai General Plan is the tool which can do that.

On Thursday Aug. 31 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lihue Neighborhood Center there will be a meeting of concerned and informed citizens from across the island to discuss how best to reverse the direction of our island by reversing the direction of the General Plan. I encourage all who care to show up.

Note: First published in The Garden Island newspaper, “Hooser – Policy and Politics”

•••

From a local political perspective, all hell will break loose in the 2018 elections.  Either that or the heavens will open up, depending on the lens in which you view the universe.

Trust me, 2018 will be an election year unlike any other. If you are a potential candidate and not already in motion and running, you will soon be left in the dust.

2018 will be a year for political opportunity, as an inordinate number of seats will be “open” with no incumbent occupying the space.  Open seats are rare and will attract attention from newcomers and existing office holders seeking to “move up”.  Former legislators seeking to reenter the political world will also be eying these seats wondering if their time has passed, or whether they still have it.

At the top of the ticket is the governor’s race, and the rumor mill seems to have narrowed it down to either Mayor Bernard Carvalho or Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa as the most likely candidates to oppose Governor Ige.

Mayor Carvalho is “termed out” (cannot run for re-election) and the local speculation is that former Representative and now Councilmember Derek Kawakami, Parks Director Lenny Rapozo, and the present Council Chair Mel Rapozo are all eying a run for that seat.

Because Council seats on Kauai are limited to 4 two-year terms, both Councilmember Rapozo and Yukimura are also “termed out” and thus with Kawakami running for Mayor, there will likely be 3 open seats on the Kauai County Council in 2018.

Should Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa decide to challenge Governor Ige, her seat in the First Congressional District would become “open” as well.  Existing Oahu-based Representatives, Senators and Councilmembers running for this highly coveted position will create still more “open seats” and the cycle will continue, creating additional opportunities for newcomers.

State Senators are especially inclined to jump for an open congressional seat when the opportunity occurs in the middle of their own 4-year term as are not required to resign to run for a federal office.

The resignation of Lieutenant Governor (LG) Shan Tsutsui to seek election to the office of Maui Mayor, even further accelerates the creation of more open seats and thus a catalyst for change in 2018.

Oahu Senator Jill Tokuda and Big Island Senator Josh Green have already announced their intent to run for the open LG seat.  Senator Espero has also expressed an interest in running for LG. This will create opportunities for House members to “move up” and new candidates to then seek election to the newly opened House seats.   First time candidates might seek election to the Senate seats or LG position as well.

At least two Council seats will be opening up on Maui as Councilmember Elle Cochran and Don Guzman have both announced their desire to seek election to the office of Mayor, making that race a hotly contested 3-way contest. Termed out and vacating the Maui Mayors’ seat is Alan Arakawa who has announced his candidacy too for what will be a crowded LG race.

The early resignation of the LG even further increases the potential for change as the State Constitution calls for the position to be awarded to the Senate President, Kauai Senator Ron Kouchi or to the Speaker of the House Representative Scott Saiki, if declined by Senator Kouchi.  If Rep Saiki declines, then Attorney General Doug Chin will become the new LG. If the Attorney General declines, then it falls to another Director…etc.

If either Senator Kouchi or Representative Saiki accepted the position, then that would set off a process whereby the Governor would appoint their replacement.  That process could possibly create even more open seats and/or additional appointments.

The Primary election is August 11, 2018, just one year away.

In Hawaii, a state where Democratic Party affiliation dominates elections, the Primary is everything.  With the exception of nonpartisan county races, the General election is considered by many to be almost an afterthought.

New candidates must hit the ground soon if they intend to run a winning campaign in 2018.  Incumbents and those with existing name recognition may be able to delay for a few more months, but serous candidates have already started serious campaigns.

Note: First published on August 9th in The Garden Island Newspaper “Policy and Politics” regular weekly column.

Question: What’s the most important number in the Hawaii State Senate?

Answer: 13

There are 25 Senators, 13 is a majority and majority rules.  There are 51 members in the House, thus 26 is the magic number there.

Any Senator who has 12 solid friends can basically run the show.  13 votes decide who will be Senate President, the Chair of Ways and Means and the rules of the Senate.

A core majority of 13 Senators determine the composition of, and consequently “control” a majority of the seats/votes on every committee,and thus control which Bills pass and which do not.

The process is not pretty, and if we replace the word “control” by the word “manage” it is somewhat more palatable.  To be clear, each Senator is technically independent, but within the core majority bonds are tight and loyalty to “leadership” is the norm.

“Organization” can happen at any time but typically occurs to some degree at the end of every two year election cycle.

When the Hawaii Senate “organizes” it means 13 or more Senators agree as to “who gets what” in terms of committee assignments, leadership positions and other benefits and trappings of power and position (office size/location, staffing budgets, parking spots etc).

Negotiations (i.e. horse trading for positions and power) will occur between individuals and between “factions” or small groups of Senators who have banded together out of friendship, ideology or pragmatism (survival).

Behind the scenes, labor unions, business organizations and a host of professional lobbyists, insiders and political operatives will be leaning hard on the Senate organizers, attempting to influence the outcome and protect their own particular special interests.

The two most powerful positions in any legislative body would be its administrative head (Senate President and House speaker) and its “money chairs” (Senate Ways and Means and House Finance committees).

Historically these two positions would be divided between two different factions, thus “balancing the power,” rather than allowing it to be concentrated in two individuals from the same faction.

The recent “re-organization” of these positions in both the House and Senate does not appear to reflect this important power-balancing dynamic.

Following election cycles or other events (deaths, scandal etc.) that disrupt the vital 13-member core, there will often be an entirely new “leadership” structure established and all/most positions impacted.

During such a full “re-org,” Senators who are part of an initial 13-member “core majority” will be rewarded by a leadership position and/or a committee chairmanship. The Senator who occupies that vital #13 swing vote position often achieves inordinate benefits due to his/her “leverage” (more about “leverage” in a future column).

Note: While 13 is the magic number, most “re-orgs” seek the insurance and stability that a 14 or 15 member “core majority” will offer.

Those Senators not part of the “core majority” MAY get a vice-chair position, but otherwise will get assigned to various committees albeit in minority roles.  They will not have positions in “leadership,” they will not Chair a committee of any consequence and they will often have the smallest offices in the less desirable locations. These Senators, of course,retain the important power and responsibility of being a “watch dog” that comes with any minority position.  And they, of course, will continuously be seeking to form their own 13-member core majority, and if/when they are able to do so, there will be another “re-org.”

Consequently, each member of the core majority of 13 presently in power owes their personal position of power and status to the other 12.  If any of the 13 loses an election or otherwise leaves the leadership faction, the entire leadership structure collapses and a new “re-org” will occur.

Thus arises the sometimes corrupting desire to “protect and reward your members” in order to preserve the entire leadership structure.

“Protecting your members” most often comes in the form of shielding them from having to vote on controversial issues.

“Rewards” may come in the form of favorable treatment for legislation the members are championing, media attention, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and/or Grant-In-Aid (GIA) allocations.

Re-organizations are a reality of any legislative body.  They can be executed in ways that benefit the public interest, or in ways that are detrimental to that same interest.

A thoughtful, integrity-based reorganization process takes into consideration the needs of ALL members finding positions of value for each, thus minimizing dissension and maximizing talents – to the benefit of the public and our democratic system.

NOTE: A slightly edited version of the above was first printed on August 2, 2017 in The Garden Island Newspaper

Almost daily someone I run into on the street, at the airport or perhaps at the dog park will lament the demise of civility in public discourse. They often are filled with a deep angst over the tension and sometimes anger tinged conversations they view on social media, television and often even on the bumper sticker of the car preceding them in traffic.

I agree, each of us should take a deep breathe and think about what we say, or do, or type onto a key board as we act on or react to the issues and circumstances we confront each day.

Before we “put someone on blast,” whether on social media, at a public hearing, or perhaps in a letter-to the-editor, we need to first hit the pause button and reflect.

Tip: Resist and avoid at all costs snarkiness, sarcasm, name calling, personal denigration, questioning of integrity, personal intentions or references to physical appearance.

Too often, too many of us personalize the issue and attack the messenger rather than the message. Just because a person supports a real estate development for example, does not mean they are “in bed with the developers.” They might be. But they might also simply see the world through a different lens. They may actually believe that the development would yield community benefits exceeding the negatives the opponents present.

They may be wrong in their position, but they are not necessarily bad or corrupt.

I believe that different people, smart people with good hearts and noble intentions, can look at the same facts and circumstances and come to different conclusions.

We can disagree vehemently and we should, but our target should be the facts, the circumstances and the expected outcomes, and not the person. If the person takes actions that we believe are inept, unprofessional or harmful to the public good, then we can and should call them out publicly on their actions but not question what is in their heart.

In the context of government and public policy, my experience leads me to believe that most in leadership positions (elected or appointed) are trying to “do the right thing” as determined via the lens of their own individual life experience.

Yes, there is outright corruption and there are people in positions of power, who in my opinion, have a flawed moral compass. But the majority of individuals who hold public office I believe are in fact good people who perhaps just look at the world differently.

The refrain that “all politicians are corrupt” runs deep through the trenches of both the left and the right. I suspect many will disagree, and perhaps loudly so, with my belief that most in public office are trying to do the right thing.

Yes, corruption in the literal sense exists but I believe it is the exception not the rule. Mostly I would consider the problem one of institutional corruption and having a political system built upon the inherently corrupting and increasing demand of campaign donations.

The answer to our quest for a better government is not the personal and public denigration of those who hold public office or who might disagree with us, but rather in confronting the issue at hand with facts, persistence and professionalism. Sometimes being loud and having great numbers in attendance is important, but always the message should be presented to address the issue and not tear down the person.

If the elected official still does not respond to reason, facts, and community sentiment, then find a candidate to run against him or her. Or better yet, run yourself.

NOTE: The above column was first published in The Garden Island Newspaper, July 2017

Gov. David Ige is a standup-guy. He is as honest as the day is long and a genuinely thoughtful, caring, hardworking governor who puts policy ahead of politics.

Am I pleased with his lack of leadership on matters pertaining to industrial agriculture? Absolutely not. But do I think he is in the pocket of Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical? Again, absolutely not.

Gov. Ige is a good and honest man who, like most of us, relies on others for advice. In this case and on this issue, that would be his Director of Agriculture Scott Enright.

Mr. Enright and his agency, I believe, suffer from “regulatory capture.” This happens when an agency stops serving the broader interests of the general public, becoming instead a protector of the industry it is responsible to regulate.

Similar situations occur at other agencies and departments at all levels of government. Regulatory capture is a real phenomenon and a strategy pursued by all industry sectors. Google it.

The governor is obviously a busy man and cannot possibly become an expert or even adequately informed on every issue. He must rely on the input of others but at the end of the day, he is responsible for the decision.

I served side by side in the state Senate with then-Sen. Ige for eight years. We were part of the same Senate faction that ultimately came to be known as “the chess club.” I know him as a likable and honest man with an engineering background, an affinity for technology and as a strong advocate for public education.

While we did not always agree, I believed then as I do now that his decisions were always integrity-based and never politically motivated.

I am hopeful that as his experience in the incredibly demanding job continues to grow, Gov. Ige will broaden and diversify his team of advisers, lean more toward the side of protecting health and the environment, and rely less on the advice of industry advocates acting in the role of government regulators.

There are many in elected office whose intentions might be righteous but their reasoning faulty, resulting in decisions that cause tangible harm to people and the environment.

The failure by the governor to take action and push forth a ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, a known neurotoxin, is one clear example. Another is the Legislature’s continued reluctance to cap interest rates on pay day lending. Both are examples of leadership decisions being made without ill intentions perhaps, but resulting in people being egregiously and physically harmed nonetheless.

At the end of the day, and more importantly at the end of an election cycle, what matters are the impacts of the actions and decisions that are made, not the motivation or intent behind them.

NOTE: The above column was first published in The Garden Island newspaper, July 2017