Do the Mauna Kea observatories pay enough rent?
Do the Mauna Kea observatories pay enough rent?
In Gov. David Ige’s plan, presented on May 26 for improving Mauna Kea management, he requested that the University of Hawaii, “revisit the issue of payments by the existing telescope now as well as requiring it in the new lease.” It seems obvious that the intent was to increase the observatory contributions to the state.
The Thirty Meter Telescope protesters have been claiming the telescopes were getting a free ride because the subleases only require paying a dollar a year. It is true, the subleases only specify $1 per year but the value of observing time specified in the rest of the agreements can’t be ignored.
My understanding of these agreements is that the objective was to balance the value of the site provided to the telescope with the value of observing time provided to UH.
In order to quantify that information for myself, the interested public, protesters and the governor, who may not be fully aware, I have estimated the value of the observing time for each telescope. My estimates are based on public information and my experience in managing many scientific projects including large telescopes.
Ten of the 13 current telescopes are included in my estimate. Of the remaining three telescopes, two are owned and operated by UH (2.2 meters and 30 inches). The third is the VLBA antenna, which is not used by UH.
The total cost of time allocated to UH by these 10 institutions is approximately $13 million per year.
TMT will allocate observing time valued at $4.35 million per year (when completed).
TMT will also pay an additional $2 million per year for educational and management support.
These estimates confirm that the observatories on Mauna Kea are making very substantial contributions to the state and UH in return for the use of their telescopes sites.
Jerry Smith
North Kohala
Visit to doggy park unpleasant
I just brought my dog back from the Humane Society’s “doggy park.” It was no fun experience for me or my dog, by any means, and I will never go back. I am telling the public not to take your dogs there. They have no means of characterizing the temperament of any dog that is allowed in there. My dog was bullied, attacked and not welcome by select few.
One dog in particular was on a mission for a fight, the other dogs sensed this, thus ganging up on my dog. I am a Pitty advocate. Had my dog been aggressive toward their dogs, it would have been a huge issue, right? She does not know aggressive behavior, we have not encouraged that in her. She just wants to play with other dogs, and she did get to play with some when the aggressive one was finally detained.
But I am asking the Humane Society to make the doggy park friendly for all. The people who were there, have “their group” so it’s like they and their dogs run the park. “Oh she looks like she will fit in with the group.” It was very unwelcoming and sad, that not everyone can take their dogs there. Had my dog fought back for her place in “their pack,” I would have been sued or accused of aggressive behavior.
Things need to change there, and I just want the public aware that it is not a safe place to take your dog, since there is no way of knowing any dog’s temperament before entering.
Kristine Wendling
Kona