Now that Maui Circuit Court Judge Joseph Cardoza has lifted his earlier injunction preventing Hawaii Superferry from sailing into Kahului harbor, removing the final legal impediment to the ferry's operation, some may question whether the vocal opposition to the ferry served any meaningful purpose.

After all, there had long been a discussion in the community over whether the Legislature would go into special session to allow the Superferry to operate while an environmental review is conducted. The bill's passage by a vote of 20-5 in the Senate and 39-11 in the House of Representatives was almost anticlimactic.

But the Senate vote, at least, merits a second look. Fourteen of those "yes" votes were "with reservations." That is a very high number of my colleagues expressing reservations about the process, and the fact that we were asked to pass a law that would allow a single company to do business, despite what the existing law required up until that point.

In my mind, that vote mirrored the uncertainty of the community in general. While polls showed that a majority of the public supported the Hawai'i Superferry, most of us also support the protection of our natural and cultural resources, and expect that laws to protect the environment will be followed.

The central problem was not with the Superferry itself. A high-capacity interisland ferry service does provide a transportation alternative for Hawai'i residents and visitors.

Maui County, which includes the district that I represent, has more experience with ferries than any other place in the state; we have had an interisland ferry service for years, running between Maui, Moloka'i and Lana'i, and with very good ridership. As the only senator with a district that spans four islands, I know that people value having that alternative.

I believe that the core concern for those who expressed reservations, both in the Senate and in the community, was not with what was done, but how it was done. Creating a separate environmental review process, even for a desirable service that enjoys broad public support, was an extraordinary act.

The management of the Hawaii Superferry did little to improve matters. Rather than support a bill passed by the Senate in the past session which would have allowed the ferry to run while an environmental assessment was completed, or even to propose amendments to address any concerns they may have had, they lobbied for its defeat. And rather than engage the community in a meaningful discussion of public concerns, they unleashed their PR machine, began service before their announced commencement date and tried to buy public support with artificially low fares.

Each of the senators who voted no on the Superferry bill - myself included — attended at least one Neighbor Island informational briefing to hear from the communities that would feel the direct effects of the Superferry service. I found it impossible to come away from those meetings without a profound sense of the deep feelings the controversy engendered.

In the end, my concern for the environment, the community, and the established review process convinced me that a "no" vote was warranted.

But I have no quarrel with my colleagues who voted "yes," or "with reservations." I respect the fact that we all considered the information before us and reached different conclusions, and understand that mutual respect is critical to our continuing to serve our respective districts.

I hope the rest of our community - divided as it has been by the Superferry controversy - will likewise be able to look beyond those divisions and consider the long-term need for mutual respect.

And as the task force created by the Superferry bill performs its mandated review of ferry operations, I hope there will always be room for discussion and diversity of opinion.

Sen. J. Kalani English represents District 6 (Hana, Upcountry Maui, Moloka'i, Lana'i and Kaho'olawe). He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.