HCDA ignoring its own rules

As a condominium resident of Kakaako, I oppose the proposal to locate a 46-story tower (Building B) and a 10-story parking garage on the site of the historic Hono-lulu Advertiser Building.

I support affordable/workforce housing. However, tailoring projects to fit sites must take into account the effect on residents of neighboring condominiums.

The Hawaii Community Development Authority’s Mauka Area Rules state: "The rules are adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community and to protect and preserve places and areas of historical, cultural, architectural, or environmental importance and significance."

I strongly feel that the HCDA is not complying with these rules.

HCDA should deny all developments until all support services and businesses are integrated into this area to sustain the future population that these new condominiums will bring.

Grace Ishihara
Kakaako

Capitalism seems to be out of hand

I have always been what I considered to be a staunch capitalist.However, I am beginning to think things have gotten out of hand.

There are more billionaires in the world than ever before, and virtually all of them made their money in what may be defined as a capitalistic way.

Statistically, these wealthy people are moving farther away from those who have nothing.I am beginning to feel that, if this is capitalism, then it may be even worse than dictatorship for those who are poor.

I don’t know if there is a way to provide all those in need with food, housing and an education that would allow them to compete in today’s world.

What I do think is that the disparity between the very rich and the very poor is too great. I also don’t think that those with the money will fix this problem.

Fritz Amtsberg
Round Top

Gay marriage law a lure to lawsuits

The proposed marriage-equality law is discriminatory because it forces religious institutions to celebrate gay marriages or be prosecuted if they fail to exclusively restrict "use of the religious facility to its members."

All it takes is one non-member crossing the church’s threshold seeking to worship or even participate in nonprofit activities such as substance-abuse rehab, youth activities, emergency preparedness fairs, devotionals, community celebrations, blood drives, welfare assistance, etc.

The law would ignore these protected freedoms of speech, assembly and religion.

Is the state ready to defend this ill-advised clause from inevitable lawsuits?

The arguments for the protection of gay rights are valid and should be recognized — but not to the point of crossing the line of discrimination against religion. Everyone’s freedom to swing their arm stops where another party’s nose begins. This proposed clause bloodies the nose and blackens the eye of our churches.

Kerry Petersen
Keaau, Hawaii island

Marriage about love, not gender

I found Frederick W. Bledsoe’s letter very offensive ("Purpose of marriage is for rearing children," Star-Advertiser, Sept. 15).

If the "natural purpose of marriage is for the rearing of children," then it should have been illegal for me to marry seven years ago at age 66 (well past child-bearing age).

Indeed, if this were a serious concept for any government, fertility tests would be required of both men and women before a marriage license is issued.

As a legal and societal institution, the purpose of marriage is to promote an environment for stable, loving, long-term relationships.

Extensive evidence was presented in court regarding California’s Proposition 8 to the effect that children reared in gay households fared as well as those reared by male/female couples, and better than those reared by single parents of either sex (which is all too common nowadays).

The important element in any family turns out to be not gender, but love.

Elizabeth R. Conklin
Diamond Head