{"id":585,"date":"2018-05-23T20:31:28","date_gmt":"2018-05-23T20:31:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/?p=585"},"modified":"2018-06-29T19:50:14","modified_gmt":"2018-06-29T19:50:14","slug":"kirk-cauldwells-diamond-head-debacle-2-2-2-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/2018\/05\/23\/kirk-cauldwells-diamond-head-debacle-2-2-2-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Ten Reasons Why Hawaii’s Plan to Hijack Boaters for More Money Might Be Nothing More Than Quiet Extortion"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTop Ten Reasons Why Hawaii's Plan to Hijack Boaters for More Money\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMight Be Nothing More Than Quiet Extortion\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

While the information in this article is based on original statute documentation, and comments appearing from boaters were gained through boater interviews,\u00a0 any opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff at Hawaii Ocean News<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

DLNR's Suzanne Case and Ed Underwood are working on a plan to stick Hawaii's boaters with substantial across-the-board fee increases, again -- some as much as 1000% this time around. No boater is immune.\u00a0 Everything from harbor electrical rates to mandatory launch ramp fees, to storage fees and everything in between; if you're a boater in Hawaii, brace yourself.<\/span><\/p>\n

Over the past seven months, Hawaii Ocean News has conducted an informal survey among boaters to discover how they felt about the increases.\u00a0 It was not pretty.\u00a0 Here are the top ten reasons why boaters feel that these increases might be nothing more than quiet extortion:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> 1000% increase in electrical fees<\/strong>:<\/span> If your boat is in a public harbor and is not metered for electrical usage<\/strong>, you can expect a 1000% increase in electrical fees -- WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY USE SHORE POWER OR NOT<\/strong>. Immediate reaction from some boaters: \"Is the state trying to repackage HECO electricity and sell it at a profit?\" The new flat rates for non-metered slips will be $50 bucks\/month for non-liveaboards, and $125 bucks\/month for liveaboards.\u00a0 How did Uncle Ed and Auntie Suzanne come up with these numbers?\u00a0 Short answer: they're not sure.\u00a0 Uncle Ed said that he'd seen a few electrical bills from a few boats representing an unknown period of time, and based his numbers on these.\u00a0 When asked to see the information (minus any personal data on the bills) we were quickly told that the bills had been \"shredded in order to protect privacy . . . \".\u00a0\u00a0 Hum.\u00a0 When asked \"so, then, how did you derive your figures?\"\u00a0 there was a very loud silence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Suggested solutions:<\/strong> Boaters suggested that those actually using large amounts of electricity, like, for example, those using air conditioners, should pay their fair share.\u00a0 Needless to say, the very idea that the majority should subsidize the minority of large appliance users didn't go over well.\u00a0 Boaters pointed out tons of problems with Uncle Ed's and Auntie Suzanne's electrical usage increase idea -- all having to do with \"usage.\"\u00a0 For example, should the single live aboard on a 25' sailboat pay the exact same fee as the family of four living on a 50' power boat? \"Ridiculous\", some said.\u00a0 What about those boats who are off the grid in compliance with Hawaii's \"Green Energy Initiative\" and use zero electricity from the dock? \"Hawaii might be selectively rewarding 'green' these days . . . . \" commented one boater.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Another thought: How about reinvesting 100% of existing harbor and boater fee revenues back into the harbor system and boating infrastructure.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0 Proposed shower usage fee<\/strong>:<\/span> if you've got one of those card keys that can access the card-key bathrooms, then brace yourself.\u00a0 Uncle Ed and Auntie Suzanne want to rake you over the coals for $15 bucks a month IN ADDITION TO\u00a0 the hefty deposit you paid just to have the card.\u00a0 So, all of you who keep a card for occasional use of the bathroom facilities will now pay WHETHER YOU USE THE BATHROOMS OR NOT.<\/span><\/p>\n

Suggested solutions:<\/strong> Boaters suggested that the DLNR step up to the plate and use the expensive, already-in-place card-key digital monitoring systems that show exactly who is using the bathrooms, when, and how much. This would be a much fairer way to assess for use.\u00a0 Blanket fees are nothing more than welfare schemes where many are subsidizing a few.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3.<\/span><\/strong> The Payment and delinquency clause<\/span><\/strong> (\u00a713-234-2 ):\u00a0 This is a beaut': under this clause you had better pay up by the fourth (rather than by month's end, now the rule) or there will be penalty fees (and negative brownie points)!\u00a0 In our survey, some boaters responded that they thought this change in deadline wasn't a big deal.\u00a0 However, some of our uncles and aunties boaters felt it was a really big deal, especially for those on fixed pensions and who get their fixed income checks after the fourth. These latter will now have to start making some tough decisions: give up their life-time dream of being able to go fishing or boating during their retirement years, or maybe borrow some money from the ohana until payday every single month to make up the difference (that will work for about four months if you have grouchy ohana!) .\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

Suggested solutions:<\/strong> Some boaters say: \"If they need to shorten the deadline,why not shorten it back to around the 20th of the month so there is no overlap with payments due for the following month . . . ?\"<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong><\/span> Public Harbor Mooring Fee Increases<\/strong>:\u00a0<\/span> The whole notion of increasing fees again is riddled with serious issues:<\/span><\/p>\n

One issue is this: only three of Hawaii's fourteen public harbors operate in the black; the rest lose money.\u00a0 The Ala Wai Small Boat Harbor made a profit of $2,578,010.45 last year; Maalaea public harbor made $258,377.17 in profits; Lahaina made $512,444.95 in profits.\u00a0 DOBOR Revenue profits from yacht club rental properties amounted to $692,197.90.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

There is huge demand for slips at all of Hawaii's public harbors.\u00a0 For example, we were told by a harbor agent at the Haleiwa public harbor not to bother putting our names on the wait-list (for slips) because one would probably not become available \"in your lifetimes . . . \". (Yes, that was a quote) Why not increase slip rates at failing public harbors where there are obvious big demands for their slips so that they operate at least at break-even?\u00a0 Why make harbor tenants from the Ala Wai, Maalaea and Lahaina, subsidize the poor fiscal management of all of Hawaii's other public marinas?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Boater's first reaction to the increase proposal: \"WHAT . . . we just had a fee increase a couple of years ago!\"\u00a0 Yep, and here comes a whopper; for some, a nearly 100% increase. And if you're at one of the harbors that is operating well in the black, you fee increase will be used to subsidized poorly managed harbors elsewhere in Hawaii.\u00a0 If you were in the harbor system before 2010 you will be assessed the latter 100% increase. If you were in the harbor system from 2010 onward, you will be assessed a 30% increase.\u00a0 Auntie Suzanne and Uncle Ed rationalize that we need to bring all boaters up a new higher rate. Why, exactly, is not quite clear. If they are trying to match mainland marina rates, then they should consider matching mainland marina standards--currently not available in Hawaii.\u00a0 Hawaii's public harbors have often been referred to as \"third world\" elsewhere on the planet. How so, you might ask?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Vessels in some of Hawaii's public harbors are literally floating in human sewerage<\/a> (as a result of thousands of gallons of raw sewerage flowing into them from leaks elsewhere and also as a result of no holding tank pump-out stations quite possibly in violation of Federal EPA standards); harbors are rife with drug activity and related crime, there is zero security in any State of Hawaii public harbor; and there is a fatal system-level procedural dysfunction that conspires to keep legitimate boaters out of our public harbor system while blessing a few anointed, with possible insider connections, with all the slip space they need, among other privileges. <\/span><\/p>\n

Many boaters have asked, \"why weren't the pre-2010ers brought up to par during the last fee increase?\"\u00a0\u00a0 This is not entirely clear but, small fee increase or large, one thing for sure is that there is no indication that our public harbors will get much needed upgrades as a result of any fee increases. Our public harbor system will continue to suffer from zero security presence (aside from the eyes and ears of our legal liveaboards<\/strong><\/em>), crime and rampant drug activity on the docks, raw sewerage in some of our harbors,\u00a0 and a whole host of other issues that seem to be worsening with time.\u00a0 At the end of the day it will be HIGHER FEES and BUSINESS AS USUAL.<\/span><\/p>\n

As if another round of fee increases wasn't enough, Uncle Ed and Auntie Suzanne have decided that those with small boats should now pay for their entire slip length<\/strong><\/span> rather than for the size of their boat!\u00a0 So if you've got a Cal 20, or a 22' fishing boat, you will now be paying the same fee as a 28' boat.\u00a0 And if that doesn't frost your butt, you'd better get that fee in by the new truncated deadline date or you're toast.\u00a0 Boaters response to this:\u00a0 \". . . that discriminates against small boat owners, plain and simple . . . !\"<\/span><\/p>\n

Suggested solutions:<\/span> We've just had an increase. What improvements have been made as a result? Answer: none. \u00a0 How about not discriminating against small boat owners. This is dishonest. Do the right thing:\u00a0 Upgrade Hawaii's public harbor environments for safety, cleanliness, and accessibility (as in, restore crumbled infrastructure, clean up the water pollution and raw human sewerage, make an effort to provide our public harbors with some level of security, and revamp the dysfunctional procedural logjam so boaters that actually have boats can get into the harbor); only AFTER having done this, revisit the mooring fee increase proposal.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

And . . . How about reinvesting 100% of existing harbor and boater fee revenues back into the harbor system and boating infrastructure.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

5.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span> Principal Habitation fees (PHF)<\/strong>:<\/span> This has always been nothing more than a protection racket. A person who legally acquires a liveaboard permit and then pays the additional $5 per foot fee every single month, gets absolutely nothing value added.\u00a0 Nothing.\u00a0 What Suzanne Case's DLNR is saying, in effect, is that \"we won't harass you if you pay us money every month.\" \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

The problem with any<\/strong><\/span> amount of PHF is that those who have complied with the letter of the law and live aboard their boats legally, have to sit back and watch as hoards of boat squatters and illegal liveaboards stay sometimes for years on boats in our public harbors without fear of redress or fee.\u00a0 The serious problem with any PHF is that there is nothing value added for the extra $5 bucks per foot per month. Zero. Nothing. Zilch.\u00a0 Yet, it is these same legal liveaboards who are the eyes and ears of security in our harbor system -- the sole source of vigilance against crime in the public harbor system.\u00a0 Boaters remind us that Auntie Suzanne's DLNR police force is a mere figment of someone's imagination.\u00a0 Call them for help and you can expect to get white noise, or lots of worn out excuses.\u00a0 And when they do finally show up, once a year, in the middle of the night to do a so-called sweep for illegal liveaboards, they are so poorly organized that they bang and pound on the boats of LEGAL liveaboards and wake them up (IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT), rather than carry with them a list of suspected boats with illegals on board, and focus on those boats.\u00a0 What a mess. <\/span><\/p>\n

Boaters say: it is usual and customary for renters to be compensated for work done to or for the renter's property.\u00a0 Front-line security vigilance certainly qualifies, and there, by rights, should be no (as in ZERO) live aboard fee in compensation for this service. <\/span><\/p>\n

Suggested solution:<\/strong><\/span> Be honest: give credit where credit is due, these folks provide the State of Hawaii with a valuable service; rescind the PHF. It provides boaters with no value added services or infrastructure access. \u00a0 The loss of this revenue could be made up by reinvesting 100% of existing harbor and boater fee revenues back into the harbor system where they came from.<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

6.<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0 Offshore\u00a0Mooring rates:<\/span> mooring and anchoring away from harbor environments:\u00a0 <\/strong>For those of you who actually use your boats and anchor offshore on your own tackle, you'll love this one. Auntie Suzanne and Uncle Ed have decided to increase fees for anchoring\/mooring in off-shore locations by as much as 33% to somewhere near 500% (see details of section \u00a713-234-4 CLICK HERE<\/a>).\u00a0 They rationalize that this fee is for use of certain, mostly non-existent, public facilities while anchoring on your own tackle.\u00a0 I don't remember seeing any public facilities on the west side of Lanai, Molokai and many other locations where one might anchor in the Hawaiian Islands.\u00a0 (One boater asked, quite seriously, if Auntie and Uncle actually had any real offshore anchoring experiences in Hawaii)\u00a0 If you anchor in Kaneohe bay, you can use the public facilities there . . . but you do so at your own risk: make sure you bring kryptonite locks and chains for your dinghy and motor because theft is rampant there and the DLNR police presence in that location is a figment of Auntie Suzanne's and Uncle Ed's collective imaginations.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

Oh, but it doesn't end here.\u00a0 Chapter 13-234 also points out that there will be another fee that is heaped on top of the above: the Stay-aboard or principal habitation fee for offshore mooring or anchoring fee.<\/span>\u00a0 <\/strong>Boiling down the cumulative costs of anchoring offshore with your own anchor, or mooring offshore, you're now expected to pay an amortized $8.25 per foot per month for living on the boat that is anchored off of remote locations like Five Fingers on the west side of Lanai (check or money order is just fine). <\/span><\/p>\n

Boater say: \"Why exactly are we being charged to anchor off on our own tackle?\"\u00a0 The DLNR insists that the state is replete with public facilities that accommodate remote anchorages around the Hawaiian Islands. There have been no reports confirming this to date.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Suggested solution:<\/strong>\u00a0 Base fees on realistic access to tangible state-provided facilities.\u00a0 Otherwise, drop any notion of fees for anchoring in Hawaiian waters. Please don't use vaporous rational to charge boaters for 'something else' . . . if you don't provide anything of value, don't charge.\u00a0 That's the honest thing to do.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

7.<\/strong><\/span> Transient vessel stayaboard fee<\/span> - i.e., temporary permits<\/strong>: Anyone needing a temporary mooring permit in one of our state harbors, listen up.\u00a0 There will be a 500% increase in the stayaboard fee IN ADDITION TO the temporary permit fee.\u00a0 Boaters say: \"If the transient boater was getting some value added for this increase, then I don't see the problem with this . . . the only problem I see is that there will be nothing value added for these folks. There's no security, so they won't be safe, and the non-card-key bathrooms that they will be using are better suited for livestock.\"<\/span><\/p>\n

Comments: \"What does this say to our visitors from overseas?\"\u00a0 Yikes!<\/span><\/p>\n

Suggested solution:<\/strong>\u00a0 Upgrade facilities first for safety, cleanliness, and user-friendliness (both, physical facilities and paperwork hassle), and then revisit fee increases in this area. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

8.<\/span><\/strong> Gear locker fee<\/strong> increases:\u00a0<\/span> So you've got one of those nifty triangular plastic gear boxes in front of your boat.\u00a0 Well, get ready for a 300% monthly fee increase for these.\u00a0 Despite the fact that they are so poorly designed that they are regularly broken into (back hinges are flawed and everyone knows it), an out-of-touch Auntie Suzanne and Uncle Ed have decided to generate loads of additional income from these despite the fact that you may lose $hundreds of dollars in equipment due to quick-n-easy heists.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

Suggested solution:<\/strong>\u00a0Boaters say, \"Secure these boxes first, then tell us about increases after.\"<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

9.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0 So, you thought all of these fee increases had to do with public harbors?\u00a0 Surprise! Fee increases for [recreational] use of state boat launching ramps. <\/strong><\/span>Yep, Uncle and Auntie are planning a nearly 100% increase for you folks who thought you were getting away with murder by not mooring in public harbors.\u00a0 Forget-about-it!\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

Boaters: \"Okay, we can see them doing this, but what kind of improvements can we expect in conjunction with this fee increase -- the ramps in Hawaii are mostly pretty bad, and in some cases down right dangerous.\"\u00a0 The quick answer to your question: NONE.<\/span><\/p>\n

Suggested solution:<\/strong>\u00a0 Upgrade launch ramps, repair and upgrade especially dangerous launch ramps and then revisit fee increases. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

10.<\/span><\/strong> Dry storage on harbor property fee increases:<\/span>\u00a0 <\/strong>This has to do with every type of storage (except dock boxes) on properties surrounding public harbors.\u00a0 So if you're keeping a trailer or a boat on dry land in a harbor area, you pay big.\u00a0 There are so many examples of who may be affected by this that I won't go into it here (see \u00a713-234-12 Dry storage, in this article: CLICK HERE<\/a>)\u00a0 The fee increases that they are planning here range from 150% to 500% depending on type of storage.\u00a0\u00a0 We are given to understand that nothing will change as a result of the increased revenue from this fee increase. <\/span><\/p>\n

Boaters: \"Gotta see if someone in the ohana will let me keep my trailer in their back yard . . .\" .
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Frequently heard during our interviews: \"Instead of raising boater fees, how about reinvesting 100% of existing harbor and boater fee revenues back into the harbors where they came from.\"\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Generally, during the survey, our sense of it was that the boater community had had enough. They expressed frustration with the many failures in Hawaii's harbor system management and sounded as though they'd had enough of the results of poor management. Some expressed embarrassment over impressions by visiting boaters from overseas.\u00a0 Surrounded by human waste in the water, drug crime on the docks, a complete lack of security in the harbors, crumbling infrastructure, DLNR paperwork nightmares, and now a request for still more fees, elections should be interesting to watch this year. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

While the information in this article is based on original statute documentation, and comments appearing from boaters were gained through boater interviews,\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":401,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-chapter-13-234-proposed-fee-hike"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hawaiioceannews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/P1060019-e1576104255562.jpg?fit=1000%2C563&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/401"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiioceannews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}