Honolulu Weekly

6/27/01 Visions of Kaka’ako

By Sally Apgar

Under the leadership of a hard-working [former Hawai'i Community Development Authority Executive Director Jan] Yakota, some of the community vexation with the HCDA is mellowing. [Bev] Harbin and other business owners say their anger and frustration with the HCDA came to a head in 1998 and 1999 when the agency used a confidential process to solicit proposals from developers to revamp 18 acres of waterfront along Kewalo basin.

‘The community was totally locked out of the proposal process and it was basically a free-for-all for the developers to figure out what they wanted to do and for the HCDA to pick what they liked best,’ says Harbin.

The community never heard a whisper of the plans until a public informational hearing two weeks before the HCDA was set to have a final vote. Out of nine proposals submitted, only two were presented to the public as meeting the agency’s basic criteria. At that hearing D. G. ‘Andy’ Anderson presented a $138 million project featuring a 130-foot high Ferris wheel along with affordable entertainment and restaurants. All this adjacent to John Dominis, the restaurant he owns.

Developer James Wong presented a fishing pier and retail project similar to one in Vancouver. The HCDA staff turned down Wong’s proposal saying that financially it would fail.

‘We listened to the proposals and said, ‘Is this a joke?” Harbin remembers. ‘The community doesn’t want this. We never had any input or knowledge. And, at that point, the developers had already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars planning. The process screwed the developers and it screwed the community.’

Harbin says Yakota listened and the HCDA got the message that the community wanted to be involved.

The city-owned land at Kaka’ako makai was back in the news again this year. And the battle was much again the same. Concerned citizens claimed that the original plan put forth by the HCDA, now under the leadership of Daniel Dinell, and the development firm Alexander and Baldwin had been crafted with little to no public input. The project–which would have included residential high rises, few of which would have been affordable by local standards–ultimately was doomed when Ron Iwami and his fellow activists with Save Our Kaka’ako convinced lawmakers to pass a bill banning all residential housing at the Kaka’ako makai property. A&B announced that the project was dead shortly thereafter.

10/3/01 I am not at war

By Ian Lind

But today, here on the brink of silence, there is a sense of clarity. I am not at war.

If I were, it would be against a different enemy than the elusive one our government is seeking to destroy. In my view, our enemy is violence, and the idea that escalating acts of violence can, in the long run, achieve political objectives or resolve essentially political conflicts.

The enemy is a national policy that treats attacks on civilians as an acceptable military strategy and a legitimate means to pressure and manipulate their leaders.

The enemy is propaganda and jingoism, no matter how popular, that dehumanizes opponents to such a degree that their suffering brings cheers, and their pain a reason to celebrate. The enemy is indifference to injustice when we’re not the immediate victims.

The enemy is a holy righteousness that claims divine sanction for its own acts of destruction and terror, while denouncing those of the infidels on the other side.

The enemy is the inability to see oneself through the eyes of our enemies and admit that there might be a kernel of truth behind their point of view.

And the enemy is the stubborn belief in our own innocence, and the failure to recognize that, if there’s a rogue nation-state in today’s world, many in the world say it’s our own, moving unilaterally to undermine international environmental accords and arms control agreements, blocking long-term efforts to reduce the arms trade, clinging to military solutions even in the face of opposition from friends and allies.

We are so right in our rage and sorrow about what has happened to America that breaking out of the cycle of violence, revenge and more violence will place tremendous demands on our national character. We’re much better at war than at peace, and I fear that we’re all in for a hard ride ahead.

Ian Lind’s thoughtful essay was originally presented side-by-side with an interview with Noam Chomsky shortly after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. His words then were sadly prophetic. The war continues, showing no sign of coming to an end anytime soon, while tensions continue to escalate in the Middle East and with North Korea. The chance to re-evaluate the attitudes of the United States and its place on the world stage were apparently lost.

5/22/02 Weinberg’s Legacy

By Ian Lind

Before he died, [Harry] Weinberg restricted the foundation’s scope of giving. A portion of its funds goes to support Jewish charities, and the rest go to organizations benefiting the poor and underserved. Weinberg directed that no money be given to causes favored by the upper class, such as the symphony, art galleries, museums or colleges and universities.

Unlike most foundations, Weinberg gives large grants for construction, some of them valued at upwards of $1 million, according to Kelvin Taketa, executive director of the Hawai’i Community Foundation.

‘A lot of health and human service organizations can get contracts from the government to provide services, but government isn’t going to pay them to build the building they operate in,’ Taketa said. ‘It’s a terrific marriage.’

Honolulu is peppered with buildings bearing the ‘Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation’ name. This ubiquity is driven by a foundation policy that requires any organization receiving more than $250,000 for a building fund to agree to name the building after the foundation.

A visitor driving around the island might pass a Weinberg YMCA building, a Weinberg Boys & Girls Clubs service center, a Weinberg cancer center, several Weinberg elderly housing projects–more than 80 buildings reportedly carry the name.

This has meant a virtual rewriting of history, one nonprofit administrator said. Like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and the other robber barons of the 19th century, Weinberg was considered a ruthless businessman in life, but he then created a halo for himself that transformed his legacy.

‘Local businessmen hated Harry Weinberg,’ [Rev. Frank] Chong [of the Waikiki Health Center] said. ‘But after he died, and it was clear where his money was going, that seems to have changed, at least for most people. The name Weinberg is now associated with health and human services, children and the elderly. He’s seen in a way that could never have been when he was alive.’

As discussed in detail in Ian Lind’s article, the Weinberg Foundation’s curious habit of allowing properties to fall into disrepair despite public protests continues. On the Big Island, the Weinberg Foundation has in effect blocked two grants that would have funded repairs to the Na’alehu Theatre and opposed the theater’s attempt to be listed as a state and federal historic building. On O’ahu, the Weinberg Foundation has allowed the Boyd Estate, the site where Queen Lili’uokalani composed ‘Aloha ‘Oe,’ to become prey to the elements despite efforts made by the Kailua Historical Society to preserve the area.

1/27/99 The Gospel According to Gabbard

By Chad Blair

On TV, where most people see him, Gabbard always appears confident and pleasant. Yet while he professes much ‘compassion’ for homosexuals, this compassion is based on the belief that lesbians and gays have chosen a lifestyle that is perverse and decadent–one that could lead to the dispersion of perverse and decadent ideals throughout society.

During the election season, television commercials, many paid for by Save Traditional Marriage ‘98, aired suggesting that gay marriage could lead to other ‘unnatural’ alliances–between people and animals, for example. Gabbard served on STM’s steering committee.

Other spots warned that legalization of gay marriage would lead school curricula to reflect pro-gay sensibilities.

Now that a ban on gay marriage has been approved, Gabbard has turned his attention to Gov. Ben Cayetano’s endorsement of domestic partnership benefits for Hawai’i’s same-sex couples, calling this a ‘betrayal’ of voters’ wishes.

In an extensive conversation with Mike Gabbard, we asked him why he has made a life’s work out of this crusade to convince Hawai’i’s people that homosexuality is wrong.

‘One morning I woke up to a world in which an unnatural, unhealthy, immoral activity, which was taking thousands of lives, was being portrayed in the media as moral, natural, healthy and normal,’ he replied. ‘I believe that all of our problems–be they environmental, crime, health, economic, wars, etc.–can be traced to people holding on to and living by [a] hedonistic and therefore selfish world view…This is why [homosexuality] is such an important issue to me.’

Gabbard is a man of contrasts and contradictions. He openly discusses sexual practices that rarely see the light of day, yet he is secretive about his own livelihood. His views about gay lifestyles are heavily formed by mainstream Judeo-Christian teachings, yet Gabbard himself is a follower of a fringe group of a minority religion in America. He believes in democratic processes, yet he also thinks government should acknowledge majority views that suppress the freedoms of a minority. Gabbard cites extensive research supporting his views on gays, yet he ignores a growing body of scientific research–biological, psychological and social–showing human sexual orientation to be innate, or, perhaps, irrelevant.

Mike Gabbard lost to Ed Case in the 2004 race for Hawai’i’s 2nd Congressional District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, but that defeat didn’t stop him from seeking elected office. This year he is setting his sights a bit lower– State Senate District 19–and has apparently backed off the anti-gay bandwagon and has become a crusader for protecting the environ< \h>ment and a promoter of good health.

5/12/93 Homosexuality in Old Hawai’i

By Curt Sanburn

Hawaiian scholar and activist Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, assistant professor of Hawaiian studies at the University of Hawai’i-Manoa, is more matter-of-fact in her approach to homosexual traditions in Hawaiian culture.

‘Yes,’ she says,’ there is ample evidence that aikane was practiced by most chiefs, usually bisexual chiefs. Most of them had wives as well. And I suspect the Hawaiian women were probably bisexual as well, but I don’t have as much evidence of that. And I don’t think it was restricted to chiefs, but that’s all we know about, really.’

‘You know, Liholiko [Kamehameha II] had a whole gang, called the hulumanu, a coterie of his favorites. Kamehamehas III, IV and V all had aikane, though it gets harder to prove. It wasn’t that they didn’t like women, they just liked men too. It’s the Hawaiian way of thinking. It wasn’t a bad thing. The problem is, we’re stuck now in a Christian moral universe where so much remains hidden.’

Kame’eleihiwa’s recently published landmark study of land tenure in Hawai’i, Native Lands and Foreign Desires, makes 18 references to aikane whose intimate relations with Hawai’i’s ali’i made them noteworthy historical figures. What’s more, according to her study, the aikane role provided a rare opportunity for upward social mobility. Contrary to the widely accepted view that social status in old Hawai’i was rigidly ruled by bloodlines, Kame’eleihiwa charts another path to mana (power), pono (moral uprightness) and property: ‘Öif a man were handsome and somewhat talented in dance and poetry, he could be kept as an aikane, or male lover, of an Ali’i Nui [high chief], as they were often bisexual. After living a court for a time, he might get lucky and be taken as a lover by an Ali’i wahine [chieftess].

Although gay marriage was banned in Hawai’i, the issue remains, to say the least, a highly contested issue across the U.S. However, ban or no ban, Hawai’i remains one of the more tolerant states in the Union. Gay marriage activist Bill Woods, who is openly gay, is running for state office as the representative of District 30.

This is the very first ‘Pritchett’ drawing ever published in Honolulu Weekly (9/25/91). The cover illustration supported a story by then editor Julia Steele about the city’s proposed rail transit project. At the time, Frank Fasi was mayor and Jeremy Harris was managing director. When Steele first spoke with me about the story, she said she thought rail transit was a ‘done deal.’ In a subsequent letter to me, she wrote, ‘the more info I get, the worse mass transit looks.’ The story was headlined ‘Mass Confusion’ with the following subhead: ‘On the eve of committing to rail transit, the city still leaves crucial questions unanswered.’ One year later on Sept. 23, 1992, City Councilwoman Rene Mansho delivered the deciding ‘no’ vote that killed the rail project.–John S. Pritchett

This is the second ‘Pritchett’ illustration ever published in Honolulu Weekly(10/9/91). The image of people swimming in a toilet accompanied the cover story by Pat Tummons, ‘Bad Effluence: The city’s Sand Island sewage problems.’ Frequent Honolulu Weekly contributor and publisher of Environment Hawai’i newsletter, Tummons writes about a lawsuit brought against the city and county of Honolulu by the Sierra Club and Hawai’i’s Thousand Friends, citing the city for sewage spills resulting in thousands of violations of the federal Clean Water Act.–John Pritchett

Over the 15 years I have contributed editorial cartoons and illustrations to Honolulu Weekly some things have changed, and some things have remained the same. One thing that hasn’t changed is that I have always had editorial freedom. I am proud to have been there from the beginning. Happy Birthday Honolulu Weekly!