Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

[Amati]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

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.

Whether I have never been to the State Capitol, or if I am a paid lobbyist who frequents every session, it does not change the fact that Unity House put forth pitifully biased logic in presenting their position that requiring a hotel stay would protect the poor people from gambling [all the while benefiting their members].
I singled them out because their testimony appeared in a bill (HB 2251)that was referred to in this thread. This is a thread about gambling bills, remember? And matter of fact YOU brought up HB 2251 in the first place.

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.

Well you will recall that I posted my comments here on the HT website for discussion, not on Unity House's website. By the way, membership to the non-profit Unity House is open to the public. (And don't be mistaken by thinking that non-profits are not aware of their public image. PR is one part of the foundation of most sound non-profits.)

[TuNnL]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Do your homework. Unity House is now a non-profit, but originally started by Art Rutledge

So if Art Rutledge started Unity House, it must be f*cked up in the eyes of Amati, right?

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).

The vast majority of programs administered by Unity House are designed to help Local 5 retirees (i.e. seniors). Other benefits they provide are college scholarships for young people. Unity House is supposed to complement Local 5, in that Local 5 is an active union that represents and assists its active membership. Others that are affiliated but not necessarily active members (i.e family members, retirees, etc.) of Local 5, would turn to Unity House.

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.

The point I was making (and apparently went over your head) is that you could have said Local 5 which would be far more accurate, but chose to single out Unity House simply because they testified at the legislature. Unity House is NOT a union, nor does it have any bargaining power, nor does it claim to represent the active membership of any union. It’s simply a non-profit that benefits union retirees and/or their families.

Or is @ss kissing an endearing term to you?

No, actually I thought you were a stool-pigeon for Eric Gill (whose Local 5 leadership rival Tony Rutledge headed Unity House until 2005). But now I see you’re just hopelessly ignorant about organized labor in Hawai‘i and local politics in general. I’m not trying to insult you. Just calling it the way I see it.

[Amati]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

So if Art Rutledge started Unity House, it must be f*cked up in the eyes of Amati, right?
....
No, actually I thought you were a stool-pigeon for Eric Gill (whose Local 5 leadership rival Tony Rutledge headed Unity House until 2005). But now I see you’re just hopelessly ignorant about organized labor in Hawai‘i and local politics in general. I’m not trying to insult you. Just calling it the way I see it.

Call it any way you want, but the fact remains that my points are valid. Unity House, the organization that sent in testimony to the legislature that poor people should not be gambling, so it would be a public service to require a hotel stay as part of admittance to a casino [and thereby benefit their members], is self-serving, illogical reasoning.

Your name calling and assumptions about me won't change those facts. Read Unity House's words, it is in black and white:

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.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Call it any way you want, but the fact remains that my points are valid. Unity House, the organization that sent in testimony to the legislature that poor people should not be gambling, so it would be a public service to require a hotel stay as part of admittance to a casino (and thereby benefit their members), is self-serving, illogical reasoning.

I don't know any more about Unity House than I've read here, but I certainly agree with Amati's points that the reasoning they use is illogical. It's also unfairly discriminatory - sounds more like they are trying to make the casino into a private club for the privileged. How about a dress code as well? "No slippahs, no t-shirts...."

What I don't understand is why anyone's making huhu at Amati! Unity House's testimony speaks for itself.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Whether I have never been to the State Capitol, or if I am a paid lobbyist who frequents every session, it does not change the fact that Unity House put forth pitifully biased logic in presenting their position that requiring a hotel stay would protect the poor people from gambling [all the while benefiting their members].

First of all, your idea of "poor people" vs. Unity House's idea of "poor people" seem to be at odds here. In Unity House's letter, it says:

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.

The cheapest kama'aina hotel rooms in Waikiki that I'm aware of currently starts at $75 per night. Tack on another $10 or so for tax. Now if someone can't afford that, we're talking about someone so poor, they're probably living on the street with no job. That, or someone who is housed/sheltered as a dependent, but is living on a very severe fixed income. That is Unity House's idea of a very poor person.

In the meantime, your idea of a poor person might be someone who is better off, but perhaps shouldn't be gambling for their own good and that of their family's.

Whatever the case may be, Unity House was not talking about people who are merely lower-class in the socio-economic scale. The only "pitiful" logic I see here is your misapplication of who Unity House considers the "very poor."

Moreover, Unity House did not make their proposal purely for the idea of trying to block out poor people from gambling. What you have failed to quote from the letter are the overall objectives that Unity House put forth in submitting their proposal.

In short, the single casino should be no more than an entertainment amenity that primarily targes off-island visitors and secondarily targets local residents who can afford to gamble. This could help provide many new jobs, generate increased occupancy for the hotels and generate new revenue for our government.

You've thrown around the characterization that Unity House's reasoning behind their proposal is "self-serving" and "illogical" a couple times now. Fine, that's your opinion.

Here's my opinion as to why your characterizations fall flat.

1) Everybody who pays for a hotel room, be it kama'aina or outside visitor, has to also pay both the state excise tax and the transient accomodation tax (widely referred to as the hotel room tax). So whether or not you agree with Unity House's proposal, the undeniable fact is that the Hawaii state govt. will take in more tax revenue when more hotel rooms are sold. More tax revenue benefits the whole state. There's nothing illogical or self-serving about that.

2) Unity House's proposal was to require local residents to be "registered in a Waikiki Hotel" in order to enter the casino. It didn't say they had to be registered in a hotel that hired union employees. Nor did it state that the hotel had to have as much as a single person who is a beneficiary of Unity House.

In fact, of the 70 or so hotels that are now operating in Waikiki, only 14 of those properties are Local "5" shops. The point here is that Unity House's proposal will benefit the entire hotel industry in Waikiki and help both union and non-union hotel employees alike. What's self-serving about that?

Once again, let me make it clear. You're entitled to your opinion that not having casino gambling will make Hawaii better off. That's all well and good. But Unity House is also of the opinion that their proposal will make Hawaii better off, and they have the legitimate arguments to back it up, whether you want to acknowledge or ignore them.

Noboby hold the moral high ground on this one. Nobody should be demonized as "self-serving." Can't we just agree to disagree?

[turtlegirl]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

The cheapest kama'aina hotel rooms in Waikiki that I'm aware of currently starts at $75 per night. Tack on another $10 or so for tax. Now if someone can't afford that, we're talking about someone so poor, they're probably living on the street with no job. That, or someone who is housed/sheltered as a dependent, but is living on a very severe fixed income. That is Unity House's idea of a very poor person.

Wow, really? Because I for one would prefer to put that $85 into a slot machine! I have a home, its in Kailua, and I don't need some casino mandating that I sleep elsewhere! That is such a dumb idea!

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Wow, really? Because I for one would prefer to put that $85 into a slot machine! I have a home, its in Kailua, and I don't need some casino mandating that I sleep elsewhere! That is such a dumb idea!

Actually, I'm not in favor of the "hotel ticket" proposal, either. But there are those folks who have an irrational fear that there's going to be an epidemic of people going to the casino and losing whatever life savings they have.

So yeah, while I'm not in personal favor of it, it is something that might be considered as a compromise to pacify those meddling busybodies who have nothing better to do than to worry about how other people (rich, middle class, or poor) spend their money.

As it stands right now, if someone from here wants to gamble at a legitimate casino, they'll have to travel to the mainland. What's the cheapest roundfare now vs. the cost of the cheapest Waikiki hotel room?

Even the shipboard gambling idea that some people are enamoured of would require paying some kind of fee to get on board.

[Amati]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

First of all, your idea of "poor people" vs. Unity House's idea of "poor people" seem to be at odds here.

Regardless of what standards they are using to define “poor”, their proposal is still illogical.

Moreover, Unity House did not make their proposal purely for the idea of trying to block out poor people from gambling. What you have failed to quote from the letter are the overall objectives that Unity House put forth in submitting their proposal.

I quoted what they wrote – I quoted the pertinent part that was related to my comments on their testimony. Obviously, other parts of their testimony could, or could not, have merit.

Everybody who pays for a hotel room, be it kama'aina or outside visitor, has to also pay both the state excise tax and the transient accomodation tax (widely referred to as the hotel room tax). So whether or not you agree with Unity House's proposal, the undeniable fact is that the Hawaii state govt. will take in more tax revenue when more hotel rooms are sold. More tax revenue benefits the whole state. There's nothing illogical or self-serving about that.

What I said was that the quoted testimony was illogical and self-serving. I did not say anything about tax revenue benefits - that is another issue, which may or may not have merit.

In fact, of the 70 or so hotels that are now operating in Waikiki, only 14 of those properties are Local "5" shops. The point here is that Unity House's proposal will benefit the entire hotel industry in Waikiki and help both union and non-union hotel employees alike. What's self-serving about that?

The assumption that all hotels would benefit equally does not change the fact that Unity House’s proposal would have a direct self-serving affect for its members. While making outcasts of the "very poor". (What makes someone rate as “very poor”? Evidently it is the unwillingness to plunk down an additional $100 for a hotel room stay when all you really want to do is spend a few hours in Waikiki in a casino.)

You're entitled to your opinion that not having casino gambling will make Hawaii better off. That's all well and good. But Unity House is also of the opinion that their proposal will make Hawaii better off, and they have the legitimate arguments to back it up, whether you want to acknowledge or ignore them.

My position is that having legalized gambling will be detrimental to Hawaii. Regardless of my opinion, it does not negate the fact that the proposal presented in Unity House’s testimony is a crock, as I first said. [“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)”.]

Nobody hold the moral high ground on this one. Nobody should be demonized as "self-serving." Can't we just agree to disagree?

I quoted the portion of Unity House’s testimony that was self-serving. Yes, I’ll certainly agree to disagree, but that does not change the fact that their testimony is on the record saying what it does.

[TuNnL]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Unity House, the organization that sent in testimony to the legislature that poor people should not be gambling, so it would be a public service to require a hotel stay as part of admittance to a casino [and thereby benefit their members], is self-serving, illogical reasoning.

Regardless, of how illogical or self-serving their reasoning is, at least Unity House had the balls to put their testimony on the record, unlike some of the armchair quarterbacks posting on this board. I applaud them for it. They are a human face among a sea of two-faced lobbyists who generally show up to testify on any given day at the legislature.

That being said — as before, I am not in favor of the bill. I maintain my original position that shipboard gambling would be a much better choice than a brick-and-mortar casino.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Actually, I'm not in favor of the "hotel ticket" proposal, either. But there are those folks who have an irrational fear that there's going to be an epidemic of people going to the casino and losing whatever life savings they have.

Yeah, you're right, Frankie.

More better the poor people who can't afford a hotel room, you know, locals, military, Hawaiians, homeless, other disenfranchised...

More better they continue to gamble illegally - at least that way the poor peoples' money stays in the community! Making more local jobs, not going to pay taxes (pilau!), spreading the big money around where it's needed rather than sending some to the state, some to the casinos and some to organized crime. Oops, some illegal gambling goes to organized crime anyway - scratch that.

This Unity House proposal is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep "undesirables" out of their casino: Hawaiians, mixed Hawaiian-Portagee, various flavors of 'locals,' Pacific Islanders, homeless, military, and why don't they also throw in every other group that has been discriminated against.

Put up a sign: NO LOCALS! TOURISTS and RICH ONLY!

It's pure B.S.

And like TuNeL, I'll go on record for my original opposition to a casino, except my preference would be a state lottery to benefit k-12 education in the state.

K-den

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Everybody who pays for a hotel room, be it kama'aina or outside visitor, has to also pay both the state excise tax and the transient accomodation tax (widely referred to as the hotel room tax). So whether or not you agree with Unity House's proposal, the undeniable fact is that the Hawaii state govt. will take in more tax revenue when more hotel rooms are sold. More tax revenue benefits the whole state. There's nothing illogical or self-serving about that.

What I said was that the quoted testimony was illogical and self-serving. I did not say anything about tax revenue benefits - that is another issue, which may or may not have merit.

Exactly. Only by selectively taking part of the testimony and isolating it from the overall context of the complete testimony, are you able to make the case that Unity House's proposal is "illogical."

By your own admission.

Regardless, of how illogical or self-serving their reasoning is, at least Unity House had the balls to put their testimony on the record, unlike some of the armchair quarterbacks posting on this board. I applaud them for it. They are a human face among a sea of two-faced lobbyists who generally show up to testify on any given day at the legislature.

Let me start by saying that my feelings re: Unity House and the Rutledge clan are very mixed. But I concur with you on the fact that, agree or disagree with U.H., at least they have put their cards down on the table and there's no hidden agenda here. The same can't be said for some of the supposedly "respectable" politicians taking cash from some donors who clearly have a vested interest in keeping gambling outlawed in Hawaii.

That being said — as before, I am not in favor of the bill. I maintain my original position that shipboard gambling would be a much better choice than a brick-and-mortar casino.

I'm not opposed to shipboard gambling. To me, it's another avenue of tax revenue that this state sorely needs. Just don't kid yourself into thinking that this proposal will quiet the gambling opponents. They'll object on the grounds that a floating casino presents a danger for suicide-prone losers who will jump overboard. Ha! You just watch. Those guys will say anything and everything to instill fear in others. To me, those anti-gambling zealots are no better than the same-sex marriage opponents when it comes to imposing their own morals and values on others instead of minding their own goddamn business.

[Amati]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Exactly. Only by selectively taking part of the testimony and isolating it from the overall context of the complete testimony, are you able to make the case that Unity House's proposal is "illogical." By your own admission..

Excuse me, you are very mistaken if you think that I have "admitted" that the balance of Unity House's testimony makes so much sense that it overcomes the illogical and self-serving suggestion that requiring a hotel room stay should be part of the casino approval process, and would protect the "very poor" [their words]. Unity Houses testimony included that ridiculous idea, there is no way around that fact. Surrounding feces with flowers does not hide the feces.

By the way, continuing to call me out is not going to fulfill your idea of agreeing to disagree. Or, is it that we will do that as long as you have the last word?

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Excuse me, you are very mistaken if you think that I have "admitted" that the balance of Unity House's testimony makes so much sense that it overcomes the illogical and self-serving suggestion that requiring a hotel room stay should be part of the casino approval process, and would protect the "very poor" [their words].

Fine, if you say that is so.

By the way, continuing to call me out is not going to fulfill your idea of agreeing to disagree. Or, is it that we will do that as long as you have the last word?

Calling you out? Nah, I think of it as having a civil discussion. Hey, if I'm so mistaken and way off the mark as you claim, then why are you letting anything I say bother you so?

As far as whoever having the "last word" proving themselves to somehow be taking the low road or whatever, then think whatever what you like. The legalized gambling issue is far from over and I'm not going to stop talking about it here, in order to prove anything to you or anybody.

[Amati]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

The legalized gambling issue is far from over and I'm not going to stop talking about it here, in order to prove anything to you or anybody.

With the access on the internet to committee reports and public testimony, we can all keep abreast of the comments about and status of any bill we want to check on.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/
Just put in the bill number and ask for the options you want to see [status, text, committee reports, testimony].

[Kaonohi]

Re: Casino in Waikiki: Is it time for one?

Amati - having had been Frankie's 'whipping boy' once in the past, it simply looks like he has chosen a new target.
I wouldn't take anything personally; it's just my opinion that he needs someone to argue with extensively on occasion.
Wish I had recognized it and told you sooner.

K