Is the governor trying to help or hurt rail?

Governor Lingle, whose signature is required before the environmental impact statement on Honolulu rail, says her review of the matter will be "thorough." I do not automatically assume this means she's decided to throw a monkey wrench into the matter. Given her experience with Hawaii Superferry, in which opponents successfully persuaded a judge that corners were cut in the environmental review process, the governor could actually be moving to protect the city from making the same mistake. City officials are worried that this is not the case for two reasons. First, Lingle is raising issues that state agencies could have raised when they offered comments during the EIS process but didn't. Second, Lingle is raising financial issues not related to the EIS. Financial issues would, of course, be very much on the governor's mind. She's got a devil of a financial crisis, not of her making or the legislature's, and she's been having trouble getting some people to realize the money simply isn't there for valued state services. Rail is different, though, a long-term project whose financial requirements will mostly come outside this economic slump, even if the recovery is as slow as predicted. It also will create local jobs and local spending that could hasten recovery. Writing in the Honolulu Advertiser over the weekend, Sean Hao reported that "more than half a dozen state agencies submitted comments and concerns" during last spring's environmental study without raising the concerns the governor mentions now. But the most interesting part of the article was, for me, the very last sentence, a quote from state transportation director Brennon Morioka, who said, "the more credibility the document has, the better chance it has in standing up in a court of law." It's a good point. A careful reading of it by the governor, especially if it doesn't take too long, could be a good thing. But by this point I think we all realize that nothing, including a careful gubernatorial review, will prevent further court challenges. The people who oppose rail have made it manifest through their actions and words that this battle will never be over. If something has not been reviewed, they will complain that it has not been reviewed. But if it has been reviewed, they will complain that it has not been adequately reviewed. The most frequently heard complaint of late, that the city did not adequately consider other ways to build rail, is baseless. The city plainly did. The complainers just don't agree with the results.

Comments

[Tim Dick]

Hear hear.