Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

    Originally posted by surlygirly View Post
    Molokai? Really? Hmm. Maybe they should start with a casino on Kaho'olawe or Ni'ihau first. If those do well, then they can think about expansion.
    ..or Chinaman's Hat
    A proud sponsor of
    http://www.haleamano.com

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

      Originally posted by Amati View Post
      Perhaps these are the two bills:

      HB 2396
      Grants 10-year license for 1 stand-alone casino in Waikiki not in a hotel. Establishes Hawaii gaming control commission. Imposes 6.75% wagering tax on gross receipts. Creates state gaming fund and compulsive gambler program.

      To access HB 2396 testimony, committee reports, etc. go to:
      http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessio...illnumber=2396

      [But, note that this bill has not had any committee hearing dates set yet. It stands of good chance of dying on the vine.]
      HB2396 is dead. However, that is far from a victory for the anti-gambling proponents.

      HB2251 HD1 isn't far removed from the basic intent of HB2396, with some alterations in detail, scope and duration.

      HB 2251 HD 1
      Establishes a gaming commission to oversee casino gaming. Allows the gaming commission to issue one 5-year license to a casino gaming operation in a county with a population of more than 500,000. Limits casino gaming to persons over 21. Creates a wagering tax on casino gaming.

      HB2251 HD1 passed second reading in the House (as did HB2759 HD1, which would pave the way for legalized gaming on Hawaiian Home Lands.)
      This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

        Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
        Establishes a gaming commission to oversee casino gaming. Allows the gaming commission to issue one 5-year license to a casino gaming operation in a county with a population of more than 500,000.
        Side thought: Why didn't they just SAY "Oahu"??
        Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

          Originally posted by Mililani View Post
          Gambling on Hawaiian homestead property on the Big lsland or maybe Molokai?
          Originally posted by surlygirly View Post
          Molokai? Really? Hmm. Maybe they should start with a casino on Kaho'olawe or Ni'ihau first. If those do well, then they can think about expansion.
          Originally posted by Mililani View Post
          ..or Chinaman's Hat
          ...or on a cruise ship, FTW!

          We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.

          — U.S. President Bill Clinton
          USA TODAY, page 2A
          11 March 1993

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

            Too bad the Oceania isn't still in the harbor, that would make a cool casino.
            https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

              Today's Advertiser did a major write-up on the legalized gambling issue.

              Lingle, U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, Honolulu's prosecutor and police, and several religious and good-government groups oppose gambling.
              I already exposed the Hawaii Catholic Conference for their blatant hypocrisy on their anti-gambling stance. Now comes Linda Lingle and Dan Inouye's turn.

              Governor Lingle opposes legalized gambling, even though she apparently has no problem accepting donations from mainland casinos. A quick search through the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission database reveals the following individuals who each donated to Lingle's campaign coffers.

              Johnson Marianne B (Boyd Gaming:Executive)
              Boyd William S (Boyd Gaming Corp:Chairman/CEO)
              Boyd William R (Boyd Gaming Corp:VP & Director)
              Landau Ellis (Boyd Gaming Corp:CFO)
              Gaughan Michael (Coast Casinos:President/CEO)
              Toti Frank (Coast Casinos:VP)
              Boughner Robert L (Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa:CEO)

              Wow. Notice all of the Boyd Gaming execs. It's no secret that this particular corporation of casinos are heavily dependent on the Hawaii market. Kinda puts an interesting light into this quote from Lingle, doesn't it?

              "My thought has always been, if you want to gamble, I say go to Vegas and have a good time," she said.
              As for Senator Inouye: OpenSecrets.org says that in the 2005-2010 cycle, casino/gambling interests ranked as the 3rd highest industry group providing payoffs donations to Inouye's campaign committee and leadership PAC, behind only lawyers/law firms and lobbyists. The total take during that time period? $215,850.

              And then you have those lawmakers who are just plain clueless.

              "We can do better," said state Rep. Corinne Ching, R-27th (Nu'uanu, Liliha, 'Alewa Heights). "I'm not a prude about gambling. I'm really not. Las Vegas may be the perfect situation for people who are responsible to go to Vegas and then come back.

              "What I'm concerned about is the other side of gambling. The very real side of gambling, where people get involved and then they can't pay their debt. That's real."
              Geez. Would someone tell Rep. Ching that illegal gambling is very real in Hawaii right now, and has been for a long, long time? Would someone tell her that some of these folks also get up to their necks in debt gambling right here at home?

              And don't get me started on her cockamamie assumption that traveling to Vegas, in and of itself, makes a person more "responsible" than say, someone who places bets with a local bookie.

              As I said, if any politician is opposed to gambling, that's their right. But to be opposed to legalized gaming with the idea that they are somehow "protecting" the people of Hawaii from the ills of gambling is just plain laughable. This is one example of a state lawmaker who is truly living in a plastic bubble isolated from reality.
              Last edited by Frankie's Market; February 14, 2010, 11:08 AM.
              This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

                Just comparing the number of bills and the newspaper reports regarding legalizing gambling in Hawaii, it appears as if it may get shoved down our throats whether we like it or not.

                Business as usual.
                Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
                ~ ~
                Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
                Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
                Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

                  Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                  HB 2251 HD 1
                  Establishes a gaming commission to oversee casino gaming. Allows the gaming commission to issue one 5-year license to a casino gaming operation in a county with a population of more than 500,000. Limits casino gaming to persons over 21. Creates a wagering tax on casino gaming.

                  HB2251 HD1 passed second reading in the House (as did HB2759 HD1, which would pave the way for legalized gaming on Hawaiian Home Lands.)
                  I decided to check out the testimony of who was for and against the various gambling bills. I found a winner on having a biased interest:
                  http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessio..._02-04-10_.pdf
                  Unity House (support of HB 2251)
                  We agree with the concept that social problems must be minimized by the one casino. However, we are not certain that the idea proposed in HB 2251, that persons must be nonresidents or have roundtrip tickets for destinations outside of Hawaii, will meet judicial requirement. Some individuals may claim discrimination. Thus, we would encourage changing HB 2251 to include a provision that anyone attending the casino must first register for an overnight stay in a Waikiki hotel. This would effectively block the very poor, who should not be gambling, from going to the casino because they could not afford the hotel cost. More than that, it could raise the occupancy of all Waikiki hotel because those local people who can afford to gamble might stay overnight in Waikilci once in awhile, as opposed to going to Las Vegas.

                  What a crock! Let people from Hawaii gamble, but prove they can afford it by having a requisite overnight stay in a Waikiki hotel. ["This would effectively block the very poor, who should not be gambling, from going to the casino because they could not afford the hotel cost."] It is OK for a middle or high income person to gamble their money away [but not the poor], just as long as Unity House gets a bit of the action by requiring a hotel stay (which would result in Unity House members having more work).

                  Anyhow, that is MY pick of the day for "thinking of your own interests first".
                  Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

                    Amati,
                    Your sharp perception might have been formerly disabused by me (not sure)
                    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
                    ~ ~
                    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
                    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
                    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

                      Originally posted by Kaonohi View Post
                      Amati,
                      Your sharp perception might have been formerly disabused by me (not sure)
                      Well, I was not sharp enough to know what "disabused" meant, but I WAS sharp enought to google the definition.
                      Even though, I'm not sure if your comment is a compliment or not.
                      Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

                        Originally posted by Amati View Post
                        It is OK for a middle or high income person to gamble their money away [but not the poor], just as long as Unity House gets a bit of the action by requiring a hotel stay (which would result in Unity House members having more work).
                        If you mean Local 5, then say Local 5. Unity House, as HT’rs may or may not know, is a non-profit organization that benefits retirees. Why are you picking on our seniors? Local 5 is the union whose membership would receive more work from hotel occupancy. Seriously, you need to pry your lips off of Eric Gill’s @ss.

                        We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.

                        — U.S. President Bill Clinton
                        USA TODAY, page 2A
                        11 March 1993

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

                          Originally posted by Amati View Post
                          I decided to check out the testimony of who was for and against the various gambling bills. I found a winner on having a biased interest:
                          http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessio..._02-04-10_.pdf
                          Unity House (support of HB 2251)

                          What a crock! Let people from Hawaii gamble, but prove they can afford it by having a requisite overnight stay in a Waikiki hotel. ["This would effectively block the very poor, who should not be gambling, from going to the casino because they could not afford the hotel cost."] It is OK for a middle or high income person to gamble their money away [but not the poor], just as long as Unity House gets a bit of the action by requiring a hotel stay (which would result in Unity House members having more work).

                          Anyhow, that is MY pick of the day for "thinking of your own interests first".
                          Hmmm. An officer of Unity House providing testimony that would benefit his constituency group. What's the big deal with that?

                          If the head of the carpenter's union was in favor of lifting zoning restrictions to allow for larger scale development and to create more jobs for his constituents, are you going to be shocked about that?

                          If the head of the public school teacher's union was opposed to random drug testing of its members, would you demand an investigation?

                          Amati, you are, of course, free to disagree with anyone who provides testimony in favor of a legislative bill. But being outraged over someone expressing support for a proposal that would benefit his/her constituency group seems a bit silly. Duh!!! Of course, those folks are going to be biased in favor of things that will be beneficial to members of the organizations they represent. Were you expecting otherwise?

                          Keep in mind. We're not talking about the governor or a lawmaker here. Folks like Arlene Ilae (Unity House) and Eric Gill (Local 5) are not accountable to the general public. They serve in their positions because they have the support of those organization's membership. So frankly speaking, if you're not a Unity House member, Ilae, James Boersema, and the rest of the U.H. board don't give a drowned rat's okole about what you think. (Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's the truth.)

                          If you're trying to look for a scandal here, you're barking up the wrong tree.
                          Last edited by Frankie's Market; February 17, 2010, 01:16 AM.
                          This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

                            Originally posted by TuNnL View Post
                            If you mean Local 5, then say Local 5. Unity House, as HT’rs may or may not know, is a non-profit organization that benefits retirees. Why are you picking on our seniors? Local 5 is the union whose membership would receive more work from hotel occupancy. Seriously, you need to pry your lips off of Eric Gill’s @ss.
                            Do your homework. Unity House is now a non-profit, but originally started by Art Rutledge (who was the leader of Hawai'i's Teamsters and long time Business Manager of the hotel workers' union). Unity House is indirectly connected with the Local 5 and Teamsters Unions. Their bulk of beneficiaries are members of those unions. They represent active members (not just "seniors" as you think).

                            If you reread my original posting, you'll see that I specificially said that Unity House "members" would benefit from the insertion of a hotel stay requirement. That remains a fact. And by the way, it was Unity House that sent in testimony, not Local 5. You could have checked that for yourself.

                            You need to get YOUR facts straight, before you attack someone else's point of view.

                            You know, it is interesting how aggressively you went after ME, when I was giving an opinion on an organization. What's up with that? Or is @ss kissing an endearing term to you?
                            Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

                              Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                              But being outraged over someone expressing support for a proposal that would benefit his/her constituency group seems a bit silly. Duh!!! Of course, those folks are going to be biased in favor of things that will be beneficial to members of the organizations they represent. Were you expecting otherwise?
                              The viewpoint they expressed in their testimony that poor people should not be gambling, so by making a hotel stay a requirement it would be beneficial to society, is simply a self-serving twist to an illogical argument.

                              Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                              Keep in mind. We're not talking about the governor or a lawmaker here. Folks like Arlene Ilae (Unity House) and Eric Gill (Local 5) are not accountable to the general public. They serve in their positions because they have the support of those organization's membership. So frankly speaking, if you're not a Unity House member, Ilae, James Boersema, and the rest of the U.H. board don't give a drowned rat's okole about what you think. (Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's the truth.) If you're trying to look for a scandal here, you're barking up the wrong tree.
                              Actually, I know that if I present my views to the appropriate people, my opinion DOES count. That is why I bother to call or submit testimony to the legislature on issues of interest to me. Believe it or not, testimony CAN make a difference. That is where I'd put my focus if I was trying to make a change. I'd never assume that my posting a comment on HT was going to win over Unity House or the UH Board (who you tossed in).

                              Scandal, no. Geez, do you think that an organization sending in testimony is scandalous? Not me. But people need to stand behind what they submit as testimony, and Unity House's view that keeping poor people out of a casino by requiring a hotel stay [but that the casino would be good for Hawaii by increasing hotel stays, and thus its membership would benefit] is simply ridiculous.
                              Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

                                Originally posted by Amati View Post
                                The viewpoint they expressed in their testimony that poor people should not be gambling, so by making a hotel stay a requirement it would be beneficial to society, is simply a self-serving twist to an illogical argument.
                                One could say the same about nearly every other testimony put forth before the legislature by anyone advocating or lobbying for a specific organization or purpose. Singling out Unity House for putting a spin on a proposal they think would benefit their membership..... gee, sure doesn't sound like you get around to the State Capitol very often.

                                Originally posted by Amati View Post
                                Actually, I know that if I present my views to the appropriate people, my opinion DOES count.
                                Obviously, that's true. The key word here is appropriate.

                                In my previous post, I was specifically talking about Unity House's officials, not publicly elected politicians. So I 100% stand by and will repeat what I said. If you are not a Unity House member, then they don't have to give a rip about anything you or I have to say.
                                Last edited by Frankie's Market; February 17, 2010, 12:11 PM.
                                This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X