Friday, October 26, 2007



This was going to be a comment to Jeff Turbitt's own opinion of the SCA but as I thought about it I decided to expand it and share it with everyone.
Jeff, I think you might have hit the nail right on the head, along with Lil Hammerhead (a must read) and some others. A casino within it's self probably wouldn't be a bad idea along with some other new tourist attractions in a broad scheme of things. In fact, operated fairly and equally could actually be a good thing for all.
All the naysayers are the ones afraid of changes, and have weak excuses not to have a casino. All the crime and negative things attributed to casinos are already here. We have existing here probably the seediest of all gambling venues, the lowest forms of poker parlors that exist, broken homes, ruined families, gambling addicts and an excess of crime and illegal operations already, so write off all these as excuse not to have a casino.
BUT.. To say the casino is going to be the savior of the economy and millions of dollars will be freely flowing is an impossible pie in the sky dream, this will never happen. Although a lot wishful thinkers would like to believe this. There is no get rich quick solution. No handouts or free money. Never was, never will be.
Now out on a short branch: To place a casino here and now would be a kick in the teeth to Tinian and the new investors that are adding new casinos and resorts there, this is not good for other investors to observe. This will indicate to them that the wind blows any way that that is convenient for the CNMI and to hell with them. This is a whole nother story that needs to be addressed another time, but must be in the overall picture.
HERE IS THE MONKEY WRENCH.. The SCA is a terrible proposal, it is racist, greedy, ill conceived and something no person should vote for without reading the 27 or so pages called The Saipan Casino Act/Initiative. Anyone reading this gimme gimme proposal will never vote for this rip-off. This is a direct slap in the face of all people being ask to vote for this piece of crap. Do they really want to insult the intelligence of the whole community by proposing the SCA in its present form?
In conclusion: A casino is not a bad idea, it could work along with other attractions... It will not increase crime... It will not be the supreme savior of the economy... It will be a blow to Tinian and their progress... It is utterly the worst proposal ever written!
So I'm not going to suggest how you vote, that's up to you, but please know what you are voting for before you cast that ballot. It is a MUST to read the SCA before plunging blindly into the abyss. These are only my personal thoughts on this most important issue. You have now been informed, the choice is yours!........... (Click on the blue lettering to read the entire SCA.)


lil_hammerhead said...

Great post. Couldn't have been stated any clearer.

glend558 said...

Why thank you, I hope you don't mind I used some of your work. It was right on so I had to use it.

SteeleOnSaipan said...

Fun read Glen though you know that the same people who worship the pandering legislators who overrode the CUC rate veto, will be blindly voting for approval of the SCA w/o reading those 17 or so pages.....unless of course they are truly in tune with their religious convictions and vote with the Bishop....or just won't vote for anything that certain, unnamed authors of the SCA are involved in.
I'm guessing that the Fab 5 of Precinct 3 won't suffer at all for their arrogance, yet a straighforward candidate like Waki will being considered aligned against local interests and will suffer. I feel like I'm seeing a lot of wagon's being drawn into a circle though I hope come election day, that's proven wrong.

glend558 said...

Steele: I have already called the SCA DOA. This act will be a victim
of the sloped voting field in place for public initiatives to be ratified. 2/3 of all qualified voters is a tall order. Its like this..
12,000 registered voters
SCA will need 8,000 to pass
Not a chance. Even your none vote will be a No vote.
I'm with Waki, the only one I've heard to make sense...

glend558 said...

Check post #683 'Not Level'
Explains the uneaven voting field.

Anonymous said...

I just want to also add that you stated the case clearly and accurately. I have been saying much the same things too. The deal reads like a scam but a single casino as an added attraction would probably be a good thing but horribly unfair to Tinian consideing the Saipan folks voted against it before

Jeff said...

I obviously agree with most all you said, but I actually think A casino, not this casino, will bring more tourists to this region, and therefore more tourists to Tinian. A few locals who ferry over there might stay in Saipan now, but I don't think a casino will hurt Tinian. In fact I think it will help. Tinian is, and I suspect always will be, a side trip from Saipan. The more people who can take that trip the better.