Letter

Deputy Rises To Spaceport Defense

I am writing about your recent editorial (July 1993) in which you take issue with my rhetorical question, “What’s the conflict?” in referring to Admiral Hayward’s relationship with both the state and Lockheed. Your response that the “states interests are not synonymous with those of the developers” is both glib and simplistic. The “state” has many objectives, one of which is to increase and diversify employment opportunities. Protecting the “interests of and advancing the welfare” of our citizens does not necessarily, and in all cases as you infer, put the state at odds with developers.

Admiral Hayward is not “entrusted” to “negotiate agreements” as you stated. He does not have discretionary authority to bind the state. Admiral Hayward was hired to promote the state as the site for a spaceport. As a result of his efforts, several companies have expressed interest in such a project for Hawai’i. Lockheed is the most recent and perhaps the most serious. Lockheed’s interest, which is manifested in the non-binding letter agreement with the state, is precisely what Admiral Hayward was hired to obtain if he could. It is puzzling that, despite the fact your opposition to a spaceport is so clear, you nevertheless ridicule the Lockheed-state agreement because it does not commit Lockheed to build a spaceport. These positions are inconsistent. What you ignore is that the state has no authority to enter into a binding agreement with Lockheed, and can only agree to assist Lockheed’s efforts within the state’s authority and capabilities. In pursuing any new industry, the state must be prepared to provide assistance, with the expectation that long-term benefits to the state will exceed the immediate costs. However, whether the industry, or a specific project, is allowed to proceed will depend on an evaluation of many state concerns. That evaluation will seriously consider the welfare of all citizens of the state, both those living near and far from the proposed site. I might take your newsletter more seriously if it objectively discussed the issues, rather than merely fueled prejudices. But, I suppose a tract purporting to expose a “hidden agenda” sells better than one accurately reporting facts.

Rick J. Eichor
Deputy Attorney General, Honolulu

Editor’s note: At no time, in the July editorial or elsewhere, has Environment Hawai`i expressed the view that there was a “hidden agenda” to the state’s spaceport development program.

Volume 4, Number 3 September 1993