It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
Empowering the counties
It occurs to me that the state now controls decision-making on some matters which affect only the people living on each particular island. Perhaps the three most obvious topics for devolution of authority are: roads, water, and certificate of need for hospital.
ROADS: There are no roads crossing from one county to another. Therefore, shouldn't all roads be under the authority of the county they serve? On Oahu we are always wondering whose responsibility it is to fix the potholes -- it it a state or county road? Maybe all roads should be turned over to the counties, with a corresponding decrease in state taxation to reflect the reduced responsibility of the state government. If there is specialized machinery too expensive or too seldom used for some counties to afford, then the state could coordinate the borrowing of equipment and the payments between counties for the borrowing.
WATER: There are no streams, lakes, dams, reservoirs, or aquifers whose water flows from one county to another. Therefore, perhaps each county should decide its own laws for quality control and allocation of water among competing users.
CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR HOSPITALS: We recently saw that public opinion on Maui favored a new hospital, but the decision not to allow it was made by politicians in Honolulu who might have a vested interest in forcing neighbor island patients to come to Honolulu hospitals for diagnosis and treatment.
OTHER TOPICS FOR DEVOLUTION OF POWER TO THE COUNTIES?
ROADS: There are no roads crossing from one county to another. Therefore, shouldn't all roads be under the authority of the county they serve? On Oahu we are always wondering whose responsibility it is to fix the potholes -- it it a state or county road? Maybe all roads should be turned over to the counties, with a corresponding decrease in state taxation to reflect the reduced responsibility of the state government. If there is specialized machinery too expensive or too seldom used for some counties to afford, then the state could coordinate the borrowing of equipment and the payments between counties for the borrowing.
WATER: There are no streams, lakes, dams, reservoirs, or aquifers whose water flows from one county to another. Therefore, perhaps each county should decide its own laws for quality control and allocation of water among competing users.
CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR HOSPITALS: We recently saw that public opinion on Maui favored a new hospital, but the decision not to allow it was made by politicians in Honolulu who might have a vested interest in forcing neighbor island patients to come to Honolulu hospitals for diagnosis and treatment.
OTHER TOPICS FOR DEVOLUTION OF POWER TO THE COUNTIES?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dan L. on -
Schools! We on the Neighbor Islands are ill-served by a bureaucracy which is Honolulu-centric. It is also a very expensive proposition for one of us to go to a school board meeting! Schools are best when they are governed close to home.
Many will object to this plan on financial grounds, that the varying financial pictures on the various islands will deny equal education to students on the less affluent islands. This can easily be handled by letting funding be determined on a state-wide basis, while decisions as to how to spend that money are made locally.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on -
I'm personally a huge fan of decentralization of systems, be they business, computer networks, or governments.
Allow me for a moment to put forth something perhaps even a little more radical: on Oahu we have neighborhood boards (and I'm a member of board #2) and I'd like to see some authority+budget pushed to those boards. For instance, a local neighborhood board can make best decisions about repairs to parks, roads, lights, trash etc, not to mention schools.
And we even have a Hawaiian cultural tradition in this regard via the ahupua'a concept. Each ahupua'a essentially should have the ability to make those micro-local decisions if they so choose (or qualify).
-
Permalink Reply by jk on -
I'm in favor of transferring more functions from the State to the counties. The original reason for not giving the counties much responsibility was that they weren't sophisticated enough to do much more than the basics. With the passage of time, however, they have grown to be more sophisticated. However, new functions would incur new costs, so it would be necessary to figure out additional sources of revenue for the counties. The counties should be given additional taxing authority, such as an addition to the State general excise tax that the City & County of Honolulu is now receiving, although on a temporary basis. Alternately, the State could simply transfer to the counties whatever money it is now spending on the transferred functions. However, I would expect the counties to complain about not getting enough money and some of them to complain about not getting their fair share.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on
-
This is another reason to support a formal ConCon with research resources. In this case, I'd love to know how a budget might be transferred to the counties according to exactly how it's spent today.
For example, $X of State dollars are spent on Maui. So next time instead of spending that money, it's given to Maui county to spend as it wishes. Overhead/administrative services/cost could be (A) still provided by DAGS as it is today, but the counties would also have the option of getting another source for the same services if it could be done for less. They would essentially send it out for bid with DAGS as a potential bidder.
This way we get no increase of cost and hopefully better use of funds.
I would also like to know more about how the tax base might be structured so that the X% of Maui's tax revene gets structured as a local county tax so that if they want to raise (or, God forbid, lower!) their taxes, it's their option.
So, for example today's GET of 4.167 (for Maui) now becomes a GET of, say 2% + a Maui County GET of 2.167%, or something like that.
These are just round figures or concepts but it definitely illustrates a cold hard need for the research-type resources a ConCon could supply.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on
-
This makes so much sense I'm scratching my head as to why it wasn't always this way. You can't transport water across counties in Hawaii anyway...
-
Permalink Reply by Puna guy on -
Seems to me one way to break the O`ahu centric nature is to change the representation of the Senate along the lines of the Federal Constitution, i.e. along equal County, or Island, representation. Only then would Kaua`i, Mau`i and the Big Island have an equal veto voice.
My concern is how to do this in a con con so that O`ahu does not run rough shod and we get an ineffective 'new/old' constitution.
-
Permalink Reply by Keanu on -
Aloha Puna guy,
Senate representation cannot be equal because the population of the Islands is not equal.
If we were to use the U.S. Constitution as a guideline and and replaced states with counties, the state senate would consist of only 8 members (10 with Kalawao County included). If the composition of the senate was determined by Islands, there would be just 6 senators (Ni'ihau and Kaho'olawe would not be represented). The senate would not be able to function as a legislative body with such small numbers. I understand your point of wanting to give the other counties an equal voice but that cannot be done without stripping the Oahu electorate of equal representation.
-
Permalink Reply by Kaunaloa on -
I would be open to a more geographically based model for the senate -- say, if we wish to keep it at 25 seats -- 6 from the Big Island [3 from each "side"], 6 from Kaua'i [spilt roughly into N-E-S-W "quadrants" {with one to include Ni'ihau} plus perhaps a "Lihue" seat and a "Kapa'a" seat], 1 from Lana'i, 1 from Molokai'i, 5 from Maui [not sure of Maui population demographics but perhaps 4 N-E-S-W seats plus a "Kahului" seat], and 6 from O'ahu [east Hon., central Hon., west Hon., Leeward Coast, North Shore, & Windward]. I don't see population dymanics changing so dramatically that this would not be sufficient for at least a few decades.
-
Permalink Reply by Puna guy on
-
Aloha Keanu,
I know your concerns, and have thought about O`ahu a lot. About equal representation in the Legislature. As background on 'why break up the O`ahu monopoly'. The Federal Founding Fathers decided there needed to be a way for both the States votes being based upon percentages AND geography. Only in that manner could there be a system of checks and balances in the Legislative Branch, where the Big States i.e. New York could not run over the smaller States, i.e. Delaware. That is precisely what happens today with O`ahu having control of both branches. Look at the result, bureaucratic paralysis, inefficiency, abound much more than in any other State. No one is served well - and taxpayers (business not individuals) hate it.
That is one place where the "O`ahu Centric" nature of State government originates and must be broken if we are to advance as a society.
If we were to divvy up the legislature, O`ahu would still control the House of Representatives but would lose control of the Senate to equal Island representation. It is a bold step, but one that has proven successful in a divergent Federal society based upon vastly different State priorities (see where I going with this?) Our neighbor islands infrastructure are a mess, and O`ahu seems to have a water main break, sewage spill, or residential flood every week.
I would break each island up into districts (more than 2) - say 5 in the Senate. That gives the BI, Mau`i and Kaua`i veto power over each other - and O`ahu. 20 Senators serving 4 year terms should be enough, the LT Governor could be the tie breaker vote if needed.
© 2008 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create your own social network
