I think we have found a happy medium here.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 5:10 pmNo argument with me on your logic about what "should" happen, my sole point is, and has been, that the exception is available to any and all, no special treatment necessary for former POTUS.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:31 pmThe powers that be in Hawaii are the ones that have an issue with the sea wall. Their position is very clear that it contributes to beach erosion. I really don't give a flying fig if BHO's developer keeps the wall, expands it or to be politically correct, tears it down. The special exception I refer to that you gloss over comes from having enough money to pay for a waiver. There should be no waivers for new construction. Here is an analogy for you from my years of installing beverage system in restaurants and bars. If you you gut a bar/restaurant and redo it, guess what?? all those grandfathered fire code exemptions go out the window with your construction permit. The reason for that is obvious but still very expensive if your doing a remodel. This development the Obama developer is building is new construction. They should be starting from square one abiding by what the code says today. It is pretty hinky to me that if you shell out enough money for a multi million dollar house for a waiver then what is the point of having an environmental regulation that a bunch of mega wealthy people can just ignore by putting up big bucks. After all, you of all people have stated unequivocally your support for saving the environment and our planet. You should be the one critical of the Obama developer for not just tearing the wall down to begin with.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:04 pmPlease re-read what I wrote.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:15 pmMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:45 amnope, the provision is available to anyone. Yes, anyone.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:16 amA better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.njbill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:12 pmSo the bottom line is he followed the law, right?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:55 pm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html
Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.![]()
It costs $, but that's it, no "exception" necessary due to celebrity etc.
Read the article, it's clear.
Now if you wish to criticize Obama for opting to keep the wall despite environmental issues, that's a legit argument.
So it has nothing to do with saving the environment? You should take a cue and try and understand what that means. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sure it costs..... duuuuuuuuuh.
I'm saying you could have a legit critique of the decision to retain the existing seawall from an environmental perspective. I don't know enough to say whether it's actually damaging to the environment or not, but apparently that's why new construction doesn't allow seawalls.
But there's a whale of a difference between criticizing someone on that personal decision basis versus claiming they got some special exception because they are a celebrity, or as you said "king" as in former POTUS. The latter critique holds no water. Just factually incorrect.
But go ahead and critique Obama for the environmental decision, someone with far more understanding of that issue than me would have to debate you on that one.
On the actual environmental issue, my hunch would be that it indeed likely ought to be torn down rather than grandfathered, but it's also possible that the $ paid to not have to do so contribute sufficiently to other erosion mitigation efforts to cover what erosion it causes (assuming that's the case), and perhaps much more...but this is far from my field of knowledge, so just spitballing.
But I do know that such logic gets applied on other such environmental issues, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case here.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)