Hearing split on island name
By Dionesis Tamondong
Pacific Daily News
March 13, 2010
More than half a dozen people who testified in support of changing Guam's name to Guåhan said it would go far in preserving the island's indigenous culture
Others said Bill 331 was a waste of time, and the changes would unnecessarily cost the government of Guam and local businesses too much effort and money.
Some people suggested nixing the measure and letting voters decide in a referendum, complete with a thorough education campaign.
Educators, business owners, local activists and veterans were among those who spoke during yesterday's public hearing on Gov. Felix Camacho's proposal. The governor last month issued an executive order calling for agencies to refer to the island as Guåhan in order "to reclaim our indigenous name" and "reaffirm our identity as a people."
Camacho also has asked Guam's congressional delegate, Madeleine Bordallo, to initiate the change at the federal level. Until federal law makes the island's name change official, GovGuam will have to stick to Guam when it comes to formal communication.
Those who spoke for Bill 331, most testifying in Chamorro, said the name change would mark an important step in the island's self-determination and highlight the indigenous language and culture.
But some questioned whether Guåhan is truly the island's indigenous name, citing a University of Guam study.
"I would support this bill if, in fact, the name Guåhan is the indigenous name for the island of the Chamorros," Eloy Hara said. "But I also believe that something of this magnitude should be put in a referendum."
Ivan Carbullido said while the intent of the bill is admirable, efforts to change the name -- from government communications to business names -- would be quite expensive.
Sean Larkin said Guam's visitor industry and many companies have spent much time and effort branding the island, and those efforts could be diminished if the change were to take effect.
Larkin said instead of forcing a legal name change, which would be costly and distract from other more important issues, the island can use both Guam and Guåhan references as some local agencies and other countries currently do.
"There's no reason we couldn't use both names together," Larkin said.
For example, while Palau is the official name for the island nation, the traditional name, Belau, is regularly accepted for official and common references, said Hara, citing officials he spoke with during a recent trip to Palau.
Supporters and opponents of the measure received applause from their respective sides, but David Sablan, who called Bill 331 a waste of time, garnered applause from the entire audience after he spoke at the hearing.
The Dededo resident said he felt the bill was just a means for the governor to mark his legacy rather than a sincere step toward self-determination.
"We shouldn't even be discussing this bill right now. We should be discussing our political status," said Sablan, a local artist, Chamorro activist and Vietnam War veteran. "We have the right to change our name, but we don't have the right to govern ourselves."
When significant milestones are made toward the island's political self-determination, Sablan said he would be the first to support changing the island's name to Guåhan.
"Instead of Guam, maybe we should name the island Going ... because our governor, he keeps going and going," Sablan said, prompting applause and laughter from the audience.
Camacho is scheduled to be back on island this weekend.
Showing posts with label Referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Referendum. Show all posts
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Support Bill 66
Support Bill 66
Thursday, 09 July 2009
Letter to the Editor
The Marianas Variety
by Scott "Taisapit" Knudson
DEAR people of Guam, it is your right under the 3rd amendment of the United States Constitution to approve or deny the peacetime transfer of military personnel to our island. Thus, it is your right to approve or deny the possible transfer of 8,000 Marines and other personnel from Okinawa to Guam.
This island is divided as to whether it should be allowed or not. Our leaders appear to generally support it because they are chasing $$, but this transfer will have such a large-scale and long-lasting impact on our island’s economy, population, environment, and quality of life that it demands approval by the people en masse.
Bill 66, submitted by Senator BJ Cruz, is currently under consideration at the legislature. It calls for an island-wide referendum, within 90 days of passage, with two questions being put before the people:
1. Do you approve the transfer of these military personnel?
2.Do you approve the lease of Chamoru Land Trust lands to the U.S. military?
This bill is the only bill currently under consideration that would mandate that the military transfer – and, by extension, its associated construction build-up – be put to vote before the people. For that reason, I am calling upon all the citizens of Guahan to show up at the public hearing at the legislature, which will take place on Thursday, July 16 at 4:00 p.m. There they will be free to express opinions and ask questions.
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the build-up, it is absolutely essential to our dignity that the matter be put to vote before the people. The current intention of the Pentagon is to triple the military presence on island – from around 15,000 to about 40,000 – without even asking us, but merely by tossing money at us and relying on our leaders’ complacency. That’s called colonialism.
If we are ever to escape our subject status and achieve the dignity and equality that we deserve as U.S. citizens and human beings, we must exert our democratic rights under the constitution. That means telling the Pentagon that they have to check with us first before doing what they please.
So please, people of Guam, come to the legislature on July 16 and show support for democracy and human rights. Support the demand for an island-wide referendum.
Fanogue Taotao Guahan!
Thursday, 09 July 2009
Letter to the Editor
The Marianas Variety
by Scott "Taisapit" Knudson
DEAR people of Guam, it is your right under the 3rd amendment of the United States Constitution to approve or deny the peacetime transfer of military personnel to our island. Thus, it is your right to approve or deny the possible transfer of 8,000 Marines and other personnel from Okinawa to Guam.
This island is divided as to whether it should be allowed or not. Our leaders appear to generally support it because they are chasing $$, but this transfer will have such a large-scale and long-lasting impact on our island’s economy, population, environment, and quality of life that it demands approval by the people en masse.
Bill 66, submitted by Senator BJ Cruz, is currently under consideration at the legislature. It calls for an island-wide referendum, within 90 days of passage, with two questions being put before the people:
1. Do you approve the transfer of these military personnel?
2.Do you approve the lease of Chamoru Land Trust lands to the U.S. military?
This bill is the only bill currently under consideration that would mandate that the military transfer – and, by extension, its associated construction build-up – be put to vote before the people. For that reason, I am calling upon all the citizens of Guahan to show up at the public hearing at the legislature, which will take place on Thursday, July 16 at 4:00 p.m. There they will be free to express opinions and ask questions.
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the build-up, it is absolutely essential to our dignity that the matter be put to vote before the people. The current intention of the Pentagon is to triple the military presence on island – from around 15,000 to about 40,000 – without even asking us, but merely by tossing money at us and relying on our leaders’ complacency. That’s called colonialism.
If we are ever to escape our subject status and achieve the dignity and equality that we deserve as U.S. citizens and human beings, we must exert our democratic rights under the constitution. That means telling the Pentagon that they have to check with us first before doing what they please.
So please, people of Guam, come to the legislature on July 16 and show support for democracy and human rights. Support the demand for an island-wide referendum.
Fanogue Taotao Guahan!
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Legislators Mull Nonbinding Referendum on Troop Move
Marines’ plans could go before Guam voters
By Teri Weaver, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, March 5, 2009
Legislators mull nonbinding referendum on troop move
TOKYO — Guam voters may get a chance later this year to say whether they want 8,000 U.S. Marines and their families to move onto the island, according to Guam lawmakers.
The proposed referendum would also ask voters whether the military should be allowed to lease Guam-controlled lands currently set aside for residential development and for reparations for some island residents who lost land decades ago to military use.
Lawmakers and leaders from both parties support the idea of the nonbinding vote, though for differing reasons, according to interviews with Guam senators in recent days.
Some say a strong showing could help persuade federal leaders to funnel more money to Guam, a U.S. territory that lacks a full vote in Congress and grapples daily with an inadequate tax base, aging infrastructure, troubled public schools, an overcrowded hospital and an overflowing landfill.
Others say that after three years of ample public discussion but few tangible investments, the public deserves a say about the project, especially now that the military is surveying land outside its fences to find adequate room for firing ranges.
Gauging the support of this last issue — the military’s need for more land — is the most important part of the proposal, according to Sen. Benjamin J.F. Cruz, sponsor of the referendum.
"There was a lot of concern from the community about losing that much property to the military," said Cruz, a Democrat and vice speaker of the legislature. "I thought, well, let’s ask the people."
As currently written, the referendum would take place 90 days after it’s approved by the legislature.
The special election would cost $150,000 to $200,000. Cruz said he hopes for a vote in the legislature in coming days.
More than three years ago, U.S. and Japanese governments announced an agreement to move Marines from III Marine Expeditionary Force on Okinawa to Guam. The buildup plans have grown to include the addition of an Army air defense unit and the ability to host weeks-long aircraft carrier visits.
It amounts to an expansion of the current 14,000 troops and Pentagon workers to an estimated 40,000 by 2014.
Currently, the military controls a little more than a quarter of the island’s 212 square miles, according to Sen. Judith Guthertz, another Democrat who heads the legislature’s Committee on the Guam Military Buildup and Homeland Security.
Earlier this year, military leaders shepherding the project told Guam officials they needed to look beyond the Navy and Air Force’s current land holdings to accommodate the Marines’ need for firing ranges, senators interviewed said. It was a change in tack for the military’s Joint Guam Project Office, whose officials had said for years they hoped not to increase the military’s footprint on the island. As plans developed, that goal became harder, according to Capt. Neil Ruggerio, a spokesman for the project office.
With the buildup, the military needs more area for rifle and machine gun ranges, he said. That means the military also needs to secure a pie-shaped wedge of land behind the targets for safety reasons. On existing bases, that safety area comes too close to popular tourist areas, endangered species’ domains and munitions storage, Ruggerio said.
This week, surveyors from the Navy’s Facilities Engineering Command in Hawaii are on Guam to look for adequate land. No land has been selected, though the military is talking with landowners and local mayors as it surveys, Ruggerio said. Some of the surveyed area includes Guam-controlled land in the Chamurro Land Trust Commission and the Ancestral Lands Trust Commission, according to senators who were interviewed.
The former is undeveloped land set aside for residents who were on the island before 1950. Those who qualify for the land can lease plots; in return, the government uses the lease payments to invest in infrastructure for the lots.
The second category is reserved for families who lost land during World War II but cannot reclaim it because of current use.
"You have to be very sensitive here," said Guthertz, who added she had not made up her mind about the land-use issue.
"People had difficult experiences at the end of World War II. … There has to be an overwhelming reason [to use more land]. That’s going to be a hard nut to crack for our indigenous people."
Sen. Edward Calvo, the legislature’s minority leader, said he too supported the referendum and he thought a public vote would overwhelmingly favor the buildup.
"The biggest question is paying for the election," he said Tuesday.
"And, if we find out that it’s not supported any more, we have to find out why."
Military officials, in a written statement, said they would welcome the public’s opinion.
The office of Republican Gov. Felix Camacho also had indicated support. Any passage would send a vote of confidence for the project, Lt. Gov. Michael Cruz wrote last week in response to written questions.
A public rejection, however, could slow down the process, Lt. Gov. Cruz wrote.
"Whether or not it will stop the process is tough to determine," he added.
Even Sen. Benjamin Cruz, who does not support the buildup, acknowledged that the referendum effort may be moot. "We may not have a choice in the matter," he said.
By Teri Weaver, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, March 5, 2009
Legislators mull nonbinding referendum on troop move
TOKYO — Guam voters may get a chance later this year to say whether they want 8,000 U.S. Marines and their families to move onto the island, according to Guam lawmakers.
The proposed referendum would also ask voters whether the military should be allowed to lease Guam-controlled lands currently set aside for residential development and for reparations for some island residents who lost land decades ago to military use.
Lawmakers and leaders from both parties support the idea of the nonbinding vote, though for differing reasons, according to interviews with Guam senators in recent days.
Some say a strong showing could help persuade federal leaders to funnel more money to Guam, a U.S. territory that lacks a full vote in Congress and grapples daily with an inadequate tax base, aging infrastructure, troubled public schools, an overcrowded hospital and an overflowing landfill.
Others say that after three years of ample public discussion but few tangible investments, the public deserves a say about the project, especially now that the military is surveying land outside its fences to find adequate room for firing ranges.
Gauging the support of this last issue — the military’s need for more land — is the most important part of the proposal, according to Sen. Benjamin J.F. Cruz, sponsor of the referendum.
"There was a lot of concern from the community about losing that much property to the military," said Cruz, a Democrat and vice speaker of the legislature. "I thought, well, let’s ask the people."
As currently written, the referendum would take place 90 days after it’s approved by the legislature.
The special election would cost $150,000 to $200,000. Cruz said he hopes for a vote in the legislature in coming days.
More than three years ago, U.S. and Japanese governments announced an agreement to move Marines from III Marine Expeditionary Force on Okinawa to Guam. The buildup plans have grown to include the addition of an Army air defense unit and the ability to host weeks-long aircraft carrier visits.
It amounts to an expansion of the current 14,000 troops and Pentagon workers to an estimated 40,000 by 2014.
Currently, the military controls a little more than a quarter of the island’s 212 square miles, according to Sen. Judith Guthertz, another Democrat who heads the legislature’s Committee on the Guam Military Buildup and Homeland Security.
Earlier this year, military leaders shepherding the project told Guam officials they needed to look beyond the Navy and Air Force’s current land holdings to accommodate the Marines’ need for firing ranges, senators interviewed said. It was a change in tack for the military’s Joint Guam Project Office, whose officials had said for years they hoped not to increase the military’s footprint on the island. As plans developed, that goal became harder, according to Capt. Neil Ruggerio, a spokesman for the project office.
With the buildup, the military needs more area for rifle and machine gun ranges, he said. That means the military also needs to secure a pie-shaped wedge of land behind the targets for safety reasons. On existing bases, that safety area comes too close to popular tourist areas, endangered species’ domains and munitions storage, Ruggerio said.
This week, surveyors from the Navy’s Facilities Engineering Command in Hawaii are on Guam to look for adequate land. No land has been selected, though the military is talking with landowners and local mayors as it surveys, Ruggerio said. Some of the surveyed area includes Guam-controlled land in the Chamurro Land Trust Commission and the Ancestral Lands Trust Commission, according to senators who were interviewed.
The former is undeveloped land set aside for residents who were on the island before 1950. Those who qualify for the land can lease plots; in return, the government uses the lease payments to invest in infrastructure for the lots.
The second category is reserved for families who lost land during World War II but cannot reclaim it because of current use.
"You have to be very sensitive here," said Guthertz, who added she had not made up her mind about the land-use issue.
"People had difficult experiences at the end of World War II. … There has to be an overwhelming reason [to use more land]. That’s going to be a hard nut to crack for our indigenous people."
Sen. Edward Calvo, the legislature’s minority leader, said he too supported the referendum and he thought a public vote would overwhelmingly favor the buildup.
"The biggest question is paying for the election," he said Tuesday.
"And, if we find out that it’s not supported any more, we have to find out why."
Military officials, in a written statement, said they would welcome the public’s opinion.
The office of Republican Gov. Felix Camacho also had indicated support. Any passage would send a vote of confidence for the project, Lt. Gov. Michael Cruz wrote last week in response to written questions.
A public rejection, however, could slow down the process, Lt. Gov. Cruz wrote.
"Whether or not it will stop the process is tough to determine," he added.
Even Sen. Benjamin Cruz, who does not support the buildup, acknowledged that the referendum effort may be moot. "We may not have a choice in the matter," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)