Community Issues

127 petitions

Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Roxcie L. Waltjen- County of Hawaii Parks & Rec, Representative Dru Kanuha, Representative Karen Oeff, Senator Josh Green, Representative Nicole Lowen

Urge HI County to CANCEL Kahalu'u Beach Park Surf Concession Stands by The Kohala Center

⚠️* UPDATE: New revised proposal is active and bid deadline is set to close on March 27th 2018. The permits have been shortened from a 12 month to 6 month lease term per vendor.  The Kohala Center, a Hawaii non-profit, has been "awarded" a RFP (request for proposal) by the County of Hawaii. This RFP gives the Kohala Center [aka: Reef Teach/Kahalu'u Bay Education Center] the power to create a proposal for Blind Cash Bidding to lease land space at Kahalu'u Beach Park in Kailua,Kona to 4 (four) Surf Instruction Concession Stands. This will permit the erecting of four (4) pop-up tent stands to conduct business on the north end of the beach park with surfboards, business equipment, students, and signage for a minimum bid set at $3,000.00 monthly due in one annual lump sum cash payment to the Kohala Center in the amount of $36,000.00 plus $6,000.00 bond to the 4 (four) highest qualified bidders- bidding is open to statewide entities. Currently the bidding process is open and scheduled to close on February 20th, 2018 at 2:00pm. There have been no public meetings prior to January 23rd, 2018 to alert the general public of such proposal being generated or initiated.  Two (2) meetings have been held by the Kohala Center on the following dates: January 23rd, 2018 and February 1st, 2018. Both have been met with a strong request for professional revision of the current proposal due to poorly written guidelines/regulations. A request of an independently conducted Environmental Impact Statement for Kahalu'u Beach Park was made by several people stating the presence of a very fragile north beach coral reef and well known sea turtle resting area- which is where the Kohala Center proposes the Surf Lessons to enter and exit the water with their students and equipment.  Another important concern is the impact of added overload the new concessions will have on both parking and foot traffic to an already highly congested beach park with neglected infrastructure and lack of funding from the county. Kahalu'u is the most utilized beach park in Kailua-Kona, hosting an annual estimated 400,000 people in 2017 but is underfunded and in need of critical restoration.  Clarification on the legitimacy and legality of the Kohala Center and the County to conduct such blind cash bidding of park property was also brought into question with no response back from either the Kohala Center or the County representatives present at the meeting. The concern of Due Process of the initiation of Kohala Center's proposal process was also questioned with no answer.  We are urging the public to voice their concern in opposition of this proposal and demand the County of Hawaii to halt the process of Kohala Center's proposal to lease park property to Surf Concession Stands and instead allocate funding for the restoration of Kahalu'u Beach Park to preserve and restore the land.    *Footage of both public meetings are available: Click here to View For detailed view of Kohala Center's Original Bid Proposal: Click here

Tifani Stegehuis
1,648 supporters
Update posted 1 month ago

Petition to Warren Kampf, Sarah Hermans, Jake Corman

Close the PA Dangerous Dog Loophole and Protect Children.

In the summer of 2016, our eight-year-old son was viciously attacked and bitten multiple times in the face by a neighbor’s dog without provocation. This picture was taken a week before the attack that left a portion of his upper lip hanging, split open and torn from his face. His lower lip was split straight through and shredded by the dog’s teeth. His nose and cheek were punctured. The dog’s teeth just missed the labial artery and left it exposed. Had it been severed, this attack could have been far more serious. General anesthesia and hours of cosmetic surgery were required. He was left with facial scars and deformed lips. The dog was not determined to be a dangerous dog under PA law because of a loophole. As a result, the neighborhood is left unprotected and our son is forced to see his attacker unmuzzled on a regular basis. The Pennsylvania Dog Law is defective. The judge hearing the case found beyond a reasonable doubt that this dog attack was unprovoked and caused severe injury. However, the case resulted in a not guilty verdict. In PA, getting a dog declared as dangerous requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the dog has a ‘vicious propensity’ in addition to proving the attack was unprovoked and caused severe injury. While the law states that the incident itself “may” prove vicious propensity (to attack), the lack of clarity in the law leaves a loophole. The dog owners can exploit it because a single attack causing severe injury without provocation does not legally guarantee such vicious propensity.Some people have commented that it's just a bad ruling by the judge. If one judge can get it so wrong, this can and will happen again. Imagine if a rape verdict required proving not only the actual rape, but also a propensity to rape. After hearing witnesses on behalf of the rapist testify that they were not raped and that the rapist was always nice to them and their family, the judge finds the rapist not guilty. It is absurd. One rape is enough. Just like one unprovoked attack causing severe injury should be enough too. The law needs the "may" removed from it so that a fair verdict is certain. To be clear, this is not about punishing or putting the dog down. A guilty verdict is required to make the owners, whose dogs commit these acts, take reasonable precautions. By supporting this cause, you agree that a single unprovoked attack causing severe injury is enough. The courts shouldn’t wonder about how to interpret ‘vicious propensity’. A dog that does this once has already proven that it has the vicious propensity to do it again. Protections are required by the Dangerous Dog Law when there is a guilt verdict. Owners of a dangerous dog are required to post a warning sign, muzzle the dog when out in public, maintain bonding for the medical expenses should there be a next victim, construct a proper enclosure to protect people from the dog, and register the dog with the state so that no unsuspecting family adopts the dog in the future without being warned about its history. Please let your state representatives and state senators know you care about the safety of children and neighborhoods. No one should have to feel unsafe in their own neighborhood!

Sarah Hermans
1,187 supporters