Blog

If Kitty Simonds (WESPAC Exec.) really believes what she wrote in this Sunday-Editorial, then this woman needs to take a good look in the mirror.  She calls out the U.S. military for the harm its presence causes the people of the Pacific, when WESPAC’s own mismanagement over the last 25 years has decimated multiple fisheries here.

Yes, the U.S. military should not be stationing troops and conducting exercises in the fragile and important waters surrounding these island-nations.  At the same time, WESPAC should not be tyring to exploit their resources for U.S. commercial extraction either.

WESPAC and the U.S. military: they are the left and right boots of the U.S. empiral march over the people of the Pacific.

That said, I had to laugh reading this.  It is just so ironic to hear Kitty of all people advocating for more transparency and public participation in the decision-making process.  (Someone please launch the pigs.)

WESPAC has been one of the worst offenders when it comes to open government.  Not only is WESPAC under investigation by two federal agencies for misuse of federal funds, but we and few other groups just filed suit against them for failing to release government records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Adding to the irony of Kitty’s argument here: there were public hearings held on the designation of additional marine monuments throughout the Pacific.  I attended the one in Honolulu myself.   It was conveniently located just down the block from WESPAC’s annual 3-day meeting.  Unfortunately, I didn’t see any of the WESPAC representatives at that public hearing on the monuments.

Marine monuments shouldn’t have higher priority than people
By Kitty Simonds
Honolulu Star-Bulletin
January 18, 2009

WestPac – The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council – appreciates the Bush administration’s recognition that the newly proclaimed U.S. Pacific island marine monument waters have been “effectively regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and by WestPac.” These new national monuments “are complementary strategies” to the fisheries management plans developed by the council, noted Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality.

Under the council’s plans, a ban on all fishing from 0 to 50 fathoms (300 feet) depth has been in effect since 2004 in all of the areas. Coral reefs do not live below this depth. Pelagic fishing by vessels larger than 50 feet in length has been banned within 50 miles of the Rose Atoll wildlife refuge in American Samoa since 2002. Under the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge status, commercial fishing has been banned within 12 miles of Palmyra since 2001.

The council looks forward to continuing its work to protect everyone’s interest in these areas.

However, it is concerned that the Antiquities Act, used to create these enormous marine monuments, currently bypasses the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates an environmental review as well as an appropriate participatory process for the indigenous people and other members of the public. The Antiquities Act should be amended to require NEPA as well as congressional approval of future monuments, as it does in Wyoming and Alaska.

The U.S. Pacific Islands now account for half of the marine protected areas in the United States. Local commercial fishermen are banned from nearly a quarter of the waters surrounding the U.S. Pacific islands. The significant loss of fishing areas can be counterproductive to sustainable fishery goals. Reduction of available fishing areas often leads to increased fishing pressure in other areas. It also undermines cultural and ecological goals. Our populations consume three times the national average in seafood and should be able to eat their own fish. When local fisheries are closed, the consequence is air-freighting imported fresh fish, which has negative effects on climate change and ocean acidification by increasing the U.S. carbon footprint. The U.S. currently imports 86 percent of its seafood.

While well-regulated and monitored commercial fishing with no proven negative ecosystem effects are being banned, other activities that can harm the monument resources will be allowed. Military activities will continue and are expected to increase with the relocation of 8,000 Marines, plus their families, and 15,000 contract workers to Guam.

Military bombing in nearby Farallon de Medinilla in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is allowed to kill all the endangered megapodes (a flightless bird) on the island, under a Fish & Wildlife Service-issued biological opinion. Hawksbill, green and leatherback sea turtles, fruit bats and other plant and animal species are also affected by the bombing and other military activities.

The Bush administration has compared the new monuments to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, where monument designation has led to increased human activity from tourists, visitors and researchers. While traditional indigenous fishing is permitted, the fish must be consumed within the monument and cannot be brought back to family and communities.

The only way to realize the president’s dream for the new monuments is through much-needed funds to the U.S. Coast Guard and local government agencies to adequately patrol and enforce the waters surrounding the U.S. Pacific islands. The Marianas’ waters are within 1,500 to 2,000 miles of the Asian mainland and Southeast Asia and could be accessed by every major Asian fishing fleet.

We look forward to the promised economic bounty that the Marianas and American Samoa communities will receive from the monument designation, but hopefully, if it comes, it will not be at the expense of the environment or the indigenous people. Kitty Simonds is executive director of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

From yesterday’s Garden Isle News:

After many months of waiting, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public today, revealing many impacts the Superferry could have on the four main Hawaiian islands if operation were to continue.

The EIS assesses the direct impacts the ferry could have to the islands caused by new construction needed to support a large-capacity ferry vessel, and indirect impacts, such as affects on Hawaiian waters and cultural practices.

The report declares that the cumulative effects of the Superferry would significantly and adversely affect traffic within the vicinity of Nawiliwili, Kahului, Kawaihae and Honolulu Harbors. The large-vessel ferry could potentially impact the number of endangered humpback whales, the dispersal of inter-island invasive species and the traditional cultural practices conducted on the islands, the EIS said.

The comprehensive report declares that cultural activities within the vicinity of West Harbor in Kahului would significantly and adversely be impacted due to “new harbor improvements.” New pier construction at Kawaihae Harbor would also result in significant and adverse impacts, including those to nearby Pu`ukohola Heiau National Historic Park, obstructing views and affecting not only the rock walls of the heiau, but ceremonial activities as well, due to noise and construction.

Indirect impacts noted in the report include activities such as fishing, surfing and diving, including the potential loss of natural resources as stated in the cultural impact analyses.

The only reportedly beneficial impact reviewed in the environmental draft is that the large-capacity ferry vessel would provide to all harbors a “superior” mode of transportation for disaster planning and emergency response. The statement concludes that the vessel would increase the capabilities and response times of first responders and relief efforts.

To view the EIS in its entirety and to leave comment, visit the Department of Transportation’s Web site, hawaii.gov/dot/harbors

From Marti:

Late in the day on December 23rd, the final version of the Monument management plan was quietly published on the Papahānaumokuākea website.  No press release. No email to the list serv.  Just a quick post on the eve of the Eve of Christmas, which just happened to get picked up in a google alert days later.

Given all the eco-mojo the Bush Administration has tried to squish out of this “blue asterisk,” you would expect a mighty deal be made of finally finishing the management plan two years later.  The fact that the release was so secretive has gotta make you wonder what’s actually in it.

On their website, James Connaugton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality is quoted as saying:

“When President Bush first designated the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in June 2006, his goal was to move beyond just thinking about conservation to carefully managing this important area.”

Yikes! What does the federal government mean exactly when it says “move beyond” conservation?

Well, from what we see in the plan it means:

• no limit on military activities affecting Monument resources (not even a discussion of what it would take to abide by the proclamation and “minimize and mitigate” half-pound pieces of fiery shrapnel hitting Nihoa).
• no ban on bioprospecting, which is the taking of public trust resources for exploitation and profit by corporations, academic institutions, and private individuals.
• no limit on the number of people that can access and/or take from this “no take” reserve.
• no assessment of the cumulative risks and impacts of past and anticipated human activity in the Monument.
• no public advisory council, which has been key in forcing transparent & accountable decisionmaking.

Over 50% of the proposed 355 million-dollar budget is for government operations and research, while a mere 12% goes to reducing existing threats, like clean-up of marine debris and legacy military contamination. The plan also fails to allocate sufficient resources for Native Hawaiian involvement in Monument decision-making, and leaves decision-making to a closed-door Monument Management Board.

The plan essentially abandons the “precautionary principle,” which was a hallmark of the State’s visionary pre-monument protections that required biological, cultural and historic resource integrity be favored when the impacts of any proposed activity were uncertain.

So while the revised vision, mission, and goals now commit to conservation as the purpose of the Monument, you can see that the actions to implement this plan remain largely unimproved over the weak draft released earlier this Spring.

When the draft version of this plan was released, the National Wildlife Federation, the Center for Biological Diversity and more than a dozen other organizations–representing well over 5 million people–joined KAHEA in strongly criticizing the management plan.  Despite two years of advocacy, and thousands of public letters and comments calling for a stronger, more protective plan, it is apparent that our united call for a true pu‘uhonua didn’t fit with the federal government’s vision for the future of “conservation” in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

So, here’s our take – a quote for the papers  – on the federal government’s attempt to “move beyond” conservation:

“This is conservation on paper, but not in practice. They have reshuffled the goals to say ‘full conservation’ but their proposed actions speak louder than their words. They are exempting increased military exercises proposed for this extremely delicate ocean habitat from management. They are proposing increased tourism, new construction, and extractive research without adequate public oversight and Native Hawaiian consultation,” said Marti Townsend, Program Director of KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance.

To learn more about this issue, including a detailed review of the draft plan, visit our website at: www.kahea.org

Hawaii Island’s Mayor Harry Kim recently vetoed (aka-squashed) the Big Island ban on GMO-taro & coffee– after the bill democratically passed through three county council hearings with overwhelming public support.

Urge the County Councilmembers to once-again stand with the people, override the Mayor’s veto!!
Click and send your letter to the Council!
Letters of support are due by Monday, Nov. 10th.

The Star-Bulletin’s report on why Mayor Kim vetoed, with commentary from KAHEA community-coordinator and pa’i'ai lover, Bryna:

Kim vetoes ban on gene-modified taro, coffee
By Rod Thompson
Oct 31, 2008

HILO » Big Island Mayor Harry Kim vetoed a bill yesterday that would make it a criminal violation punishable by a $1,000 fine to research or grow genetically engineered coffee or taro on the Big Island.

The bill was passed 9-0 by the Hawaii County Council on Oct. 8, meaning there are more than enough votes to override the veto.

Kim cited two general concerns: that police cannot enforce such a law and that the world needs research on genetically modified crops to ensure food supplies.

“How would the Police Department make a determination on which taro or coffee has been genetically engineered?” Chief Lawrence Mahuna wrote to Kim. The department has no equipment or personnel who know how to test for genetically modified organisms, and no money to upgrade its capabilities, Mahuna said.

Hmmm. If the police can’t detect the presence of GMOs, how will local people & pollinators be able to prevent spreading GMOs? Or unknowingly consuming them?

Maybe the feds should require that all GMOs must also be engineered to glow in the dark. Biotech can do it with jellyfish genes. Not sure what the longterm effect on the rest of the natural world would be though. Then again, at least those GMOs could be traced.

Kim added, “There is global demand for new, improved, safe and dependable plant genetics, and Hawaii is a special place for research because of its location and its year-round growing environment.”

Where is there a global demand for GMOs? I have never heard of rallies of people begging for GMOs, or consumer inititatives to support GMOs. Weird. I’ve only heard of international biotech corporations demanding laws to allow them to operate experiments & business without public informed consent. In fact, I dont think most americans even know what GMOs are, or that they are eating GMOs without labels or fair choice.

Over a thousand people wrote in support of this bill– to protect their local coffee and taro. How important are our local needs & demands to the Mayor?

There are many successful & emerging programs to develop sustainable farming practices and natural varieties of traditional plants to encourage drought resistancy, etc. Here’s a great example. No need for GMOs to feed the planet.

Council Chairman Pete Hoffmann scoffed at both statements.

In the case of a violation, scientists would report anyone undertaking forbidden research, and police would act on that information, Hoffmann said.

Regarding research on other crops, the bill does not impose a ban on them, and there is no intention of widening the ban to include other crops, he said.

Such a widespread ban has been the fear of opponents of the bill. On Oct. 8 the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce testified, “This bill is just the beginning of an anti-science agenda.”

Hoffmann called such fears “a bunch of nonsense.”

Indeed. It makes me sad when they say we hate science, cause really we don’t. I love science, especially agronomy & botany. Taro growers practice science for a living. We’re not stupid.

Its kind of like saying that spraying chemicals is science, so if you don’t want to inhale pesticides then you must be anti-science, and you must be against progress too!

Hoffman is looking into calling a special meeting of the Council to override the veto, since he anticipates public testimony would last all day, he said. Previous testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, he said.

Kim repeated a call for more public education about genetic modification, including the strict state and federal regulations it must meet.

Ok. Right, kinda. Education -around TRUTH- starts with labelling, consumer choice and political transparency. Those “strict” regulations were designed and put in place by the biotech industry itself with the purpose of reducing restrictions on their risky business. The biotech industry now corruptly influences the federal FDA & EPA. For example, they are allowing a 1500% increase (!) in approved levels of glyphosphate chemical herbicide applications, all for the recently developed RoundUp Ready GMO-sugar beets. That is not strict, that is simply special interest political favors.

Mayor Kim should know better. We’re still cleaning up heptachlor from the pineapple days… lets be careful about what these biotech chemical corporations may forget to tell us about exactly what they are doing to our ‘aina.. and our economy.

The only truly strict laws to protect food safety are those that regulate Organic certification. And no, GMOs do not qualify for Organic certification.

Representatives of the Biotechnology Regulatory Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and from the state Department of Agriculture have offered to discuss these matters with the Council, Kim said.

Will these powerful biotech-backed agencies be appearing at a public hearing? If what they have to discuss wasn’t or couldn’t be explained at the past 3 public hearings, then what are they up to?

Its not over yet, YOU can help! Please send the county council a letter of support for the GMO-ban today- its quick & easy! Take a minute to demonstrate your support for protecting Hawaii’s local agriculture, people, and culture from genetic modification.

Letters of support are due by Monday, Nov. 10th.

All in the same month! (The good, the bad, and the ugly):

- The “Na Kupuna Council O Moku O Keawe”, the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs and the Mayor-Elect for Hawaii Island came out in support of protecting Mauna Kea from uncontrolled telescope construction. (Maika’i!)

- Proponents moved forward with plans to seek the construction the new, massive Thirty Meter Telescope proposed for Mauna Kea, despite the fact that there is NO court-mandated mangement plan in place to protect cultural and environmental resources of the mountain. (Bad)

- The Land Board agreed to hand-over management authority of the Natural Area Reserve on Mauna Kea to the proponent of all the telescope construction on the summit: The University of Hawaii. (Ugh. Lee.)

On this last item, over 400 of you submitted letters to the Land Board opposing this give-away.

But with glossy photos of the sacred summit and empty promises to better protect the unique resources of the summit, the University’s self-appointed advisory group called the “Office of Mauna Kea Management” lulled Land Board members into believing the University has the expertise and motivation to protect the Natural Area Reserve on Mauna Kea.

The community knows better. The University’s presence on the summit has only led to 40 years of over-development, loss of native habitat, and interference with traditional cultural practices.

The Reserve should not be managed by the University in any way. The mission of the Mauna Kea Reserve is to protect the natural and cultural resources of the area, which is in direct conflict with the University’s mission to expand telescope activities on the summit. In fact, the Reserve was established and removed from the University’s control in 1981 precisely because the significant resources there needed more protection from the University’s telescope construction.

The Reserve on Mauna Kea protects a unique and threatened mountainous desert habitat and Hawaii’s only alpine lake, Lake Waiau. The Reserve includes the largest adze quarrry in the Pacific, ancient and modern burials, and Queen Emma’s shrine. These are public trust lands–Hawaiian lands held by the state in public trust for the people of Hawaii. Protecting this area needs management by experts in land conservation and cultural resources, not telescope construction.

The University has an appalling record of protecting resources while it constructed over 50 telescope and support structures on Mauna Kea. A 2005 EIS confirmed that the cumulative impact of 30 years of telescope activity on the cultural and natural resources of Mauna Kea has been “substantial, adverse and significant.” And this trend continues today, despite the mantra there is “a new management paradigm” on Mauna Kea. Just as it has done many times before, the University is currently pushing to draft a management plan on its own terms, not the community’s, while at the same time entertaining the construction of a new massive telescope on the last pristine plateau of Mauna Kea.

The University has long sought more direct control over the mountain to further its long-standing financial interest in developing the summit for telescopes. This week, the Land Board’s decision brought the University one step closer to consolidating its control over the summit.

But there are many opportunities coming up to reign in the University and telescope activity on Mauna Kea. Stay tuned to help out in the effort to uphold the protections already on the books for Mauna Kea. In January, we expect the University to once again seek the Legislature’s approval to change the law to allow continued telescope expansion on the summit. The University has tried and failed many times before to command complete control over the summit, but each time the community has successfully educated decision-makers on good policy-making and upheld the protections for Mauna Kea.

Let’s get ready to do it again this year!

The Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve protects a unique and threatened mountainous desert habitat and Hawaii’s only alpine lake, Lake Waiau. The reserve includes the largest adze quarrry in the Pacific, ancient and modern burials, and Queen Emma’s shrine. These are public trust lands–Hawaiian lands held by the state in public trust for the people of Hawaii.

Now, with only 5 days notice to the public, the Land Board has announced they will consider giving away authority to manage Mauna Kea’s Ice Age Natural Area Reserve to the primary developer of the mountain–the University of Hawaii.

The Land Board will make their decision this Friday. You can click here to tell them: “NO!”

The University has a long-standing interest in developing the public trust lands of the mountain, and benefits financially from the construction and lease of telescopes on Mauna Kea. For 30 years, they have been given free-reign to oversee their own activites with little accountability. Financial interest and lack of oversight have resulted in substantial, significant, adverse impacts to Mauna Kea’s unique and threatened habitats, species and sacred cultural sites.

The reserve lies directly adjacent to the University of Hawaii’s telescope developments. The reserve was created and removed from University control in 1981 because of its significant resources.

The University has long sought more direct control over the mountain. In centralizing oversight under the UH umbrella, they seek to avoid outside accountability, and making future developments easier to push through.

Five Days Notice?
A mere five days public notice is not enough–there can be no true public consultation, community hearings, or public consent to this massive land giveaway in five days!  Which makes us wonder: what’s the rush?

What’s Really Going On?
Today, a new billion-dollar, football stadium-sized telescope is being proposed for the summit–the Thirty Meter Telescope, or TMT. The University is seeking more control–and fast–to allow this four-acre development to move forward as scheduled.

In addition to seeking control of the Ice Age Natural Area Reserve adjacent to the telescopes, UH is seeking new legislation giving them rulemaking authority over the entire summit area.

As it stands, a 2007 state court ruling says the Land Board must prepare and approve a comprehensive management plan to protect Mauna Kea’s cultural sites and natural habitats before allowing any more bulldozers. The intent is to allow time and a honest process for charting a future for the sacred summit of Mauna Kea.

Instead, eager to move forward with the TMT, UH is writing one for themselves. In fact, UH has written a whole series of false “management plans” over the past 20 years and set up a hand-picked advisory board they call the “Office of Mauna Kea Management” (OMKM). The 3rd Circuit Court has struck down every one of these previous UH “management plans.” But UH is not taking “no” for an answer.

Today, UH is pressuring the Land Board to approve its latest false “management plan”– to clear the way for the gigantic Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) complex the last undeveloped plateau of Mauna Kea’s summit area.

Public Trust Resources for Public, not Private, Benefit
It is the job of the Land Board to protect, conserve and properly manage the public trust lands in the interest of the public and the Native Hawaiians. This means “conservation over development” is bound in their public duty. They are to be independent public servants, serving the public trust resources which are entrusted to them, for the public interest. Board members cannot have an interest–financial or other–in any decision before them.

The University has no such mandate. The University has deeply entrenched financial interests in the continued development of Mauna Kea. The public trust lands of Mauna Kea are being rented for only $1 a year–far less than the fair market value required by law. Under this sweetheart deal, the University takes the public’s lands and resources and offers them to some of the riches countries on earth. But the Public’s resources are not the UH to give away or sale for their profit and gain.

“[UH] focused primarily on the development of Mauna Kea and tied the benefits gained to its research program… at the expense of neglecting the site’s natural resources.” – State Auditor’s Report

Can’t Win in Court? Try Change the Law in Your Favor–Or Ignore the Law Altogether
In 1968, the people of Hawaii agreed to allow one telescope to be built atop Mauna Kea. Today, more than 50 telescope and support structures cover the sacred summit–built without the consent of Native Hawaiians and local communities. For 30 years, local leaders and organizations have united to defend the once-pristine resources of Mauna Kea’s sacred summit from the harms of uncontrolled telescope expansion. They have successfully upheld the law and stopped several illegal and aggressive UH plans for expanded telescope construction.

The people won and the Land Board and the University lost mulitple times in court. The court has affirmed the Land Board’s duty to protect Mauna Kea. Now, UH is seeking to change the rules to give themselves more direct control of Mauna Kea. The University seeks to create a new bureaucracy under the UH system with authority to “manage” the public trust resources of Mauna Kea, despite their already dismal record.

Conflicts of Interest Result in Poor Oversight and Irreparable Harm
- The Hawai‘i State Auditor found UH’s program of self-oversight “inadequate to ensure the protection of natural resources” and “neglected …the cultural value of Mauna Kea.”
- The Auditor’s report stated the University “focused primarily on the development of Mauna Kea and tied the benefits gained to its research program,” and that its focus on telescope construction has been “at the expense of neglecting the site’s natural resources.”
- A 2005 NASA environmental impact statement (EIS) confirmed that the cumulative impacts of the telescope industry on the cultural and natural resources of Mauna Kea have been “substantial, adverse and significant.”

30 years of University control has endangered and desecrated of one of Hawaii’s most precious and sacred places. Enough is enough! Mauna Kea needs accountable decision-makers and legitimate management.

Public trust resources must be managed by the public agency charged with their care–not to those who have a vested financial interest in more bulldozing.

You can tell the BLNR to: Follow the law and uphold their duty to protect and conserve Mauna Kea against any further development. Vote this co-managment agreement down! Click here to send your letter.

From Jim Quirk’s article in Hawai’i Island Daily West Hawaii Today:

The Hawaii County Council voted 9-0 Wednesday in favor of a bill from North Kona Councilman Angel Pilago on its second reading to ban genetically modified taro and coffee.

It was a circus-like atmosphere Wednesday in Hilo’s Ben Franklin building, where the meeting was held. Children played in the hallways outside of the council chambers waiting for their chance to speak along with their parents. A man standing in the hallway corner sang as he strummed the strings of a guitar.
The council, meanwhile, listened to a different tune, one delivered by the seemingly endless convoy of residents who took turns at the microphone to give their two cents on the proposed ban.

About 70 residents testified in Hilo, while about 30 testified via teleconference from the council offices in Waimea and Kona. There have been no major complaints about banning genetically modified taro, but with coffee it’s a different story.

On one side of the debate are those who believe genetic modification of coffee could eventually spell disaster for the island’s coffee industry. Off-island buyers would not be interested in Kona coffee that has been purposely or accidentally genetically modified, the proponents believe.

Then there are residents who believe, among other things, without genetic modification of coffee, there will be no scientific answers when disease strikes and destroys Big Island coffee.

A vast majority of residents who spoke Wednesday said they were in favor of the ban.

Dr. Hector Valenzuela, a vegetable crops extension specialist with the University of Hawaii at Manoa, said he — unlike all of his peers at the college — supports the bill.

He said the scientific community should be concentrating on aspects of agricultural research, such as teaching farmers how to sustain crops without having to rely on chemicals, rather than genetic modification.

Bill proponent Chuck Moss, a Kona coffee farmer, said one potentiality of genetically modified coffee is that experiments in creating coffee trees without caffeine could spread to other trees. If that happened, it would be hard to market Kona coffee, he said.

“How can you tell the difference from a regular tree from a decaf tree, or a regular bean from a decaf bean?” Moss asked.

Hamakua Councilman Dominic Yagong furnished results of a poll he conducted recently that shows 82 percent of 89 Big Island coffee farmers support the bill.

He said during a separate interview that his office identified isle coffee farmers using the phone book, Internet and personal knowledge.

During a previous meeting, representatives of the Hawaii Coffee Council indicated a majority of island coffee farmers are against the bill, Yagong said, which is why he wanted to conduct a poll to find out for sure.

Hilo Councilman Stacy Higa, who voted against the bill on its first reading, said Yagong’s survey changed his mind.

Mayor Harry Kim, who is still not back to work full time because of his recent heart attack, made an appearance early in the meeting and expressed concerns that the bill wouldn’t allow genetic testing of coffee in the lab setting.

He requested the council consider developing a system where research at places like the University of Hawaii at Hilo would be able to continue.

Kim could attempt to veto the bill, but it seems unlikely it would succeed because of the unanimous council vote Wednesday.