I've seen the benefits that can help the people of Hawai'i: more decent-paying jobs, more people on the tax rolls, more schools, better pay for teachers, better health services, etc.

Although there are downsides, such as gambling addiction, corruption and crime, there are ways you can regulate gambling by limiting how much a person can gamble, having a non-alcohol gaming facility, etc.

As for corruption and crime, everybody who is involved should be put through extensive background checks. At the casino where I worked, everybody (CEO to the housekeepers) went through the same annual local, national and international background checks.

If you are gonna have a gaming facility here, just have it at one location so crime can be better handled.

I've been reading The Advertiser since I moved here and have been listening to the gambling debate for a while. I think the benefits outweigh everything else.

Carl Leith

Digital Island isn't all that great a success

I am furious with the May 24 letter by Keith Mattson regarding Digital Island ("There's more behind success story"), as it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

My understanding of the story is that the state, through its Hawai'i Strategic Development Corp., incubated Digital Island and made a $450,000 loan for the start-up of this Internet company, receiving 415,000 shares in return. Digital Island did become a success story for a while, but now is being bought out at $3.40 a share as it struggles to stay afloat since the Internet-stock bubble burst. What Mattson fails to relate is that:

• Digital Island moved all but a small department out of Hawai'i and has its corporate offices in San Francisco, no doubt due to the anti-business climate and high costs associated with staying in Hawai'i.

• Someone, an "investment professional," according to Mattson, had to make decisions as to when to sell these 415,000 shares to get back the money the state invested. Well, this "investment professional" did sell 25,500 shares at $105, after the stock had risen to $148 a share, but rode the remaining 389,500 shares all the way down from a high of $148 a share to the buy-out price of $3.40 a share. Wouldn't a prudent "investment professional" have sold some shares at, oh, let's say, $120, or $100, or $80, or $60, or even $40, at which time the state would have netted $15,580,000, as opposed to the comical $2.85 million that Mattson boasts about?

• Finally, as my son works for Digital Island here in Honolulu, I know that Digital Island employees have been told nothing as to their future status with C&W, the U.K. firm that bought Digital Island. He has no idea if he will even have a job in six months, so why would Mattson say that no downsizing is planned?

I like the concept of the state helping to start high-tech companies in Hawai'i, but let's tell the truth when things go wrong.

Mike Reilly
Kane'ohe

State retirees should unite over benefits

State retirees should organize to protect their health coverage.

They were promised specific coverage at their retirement, and taking away these benefits would be a breach of contract. The benefits from the health fund made up for the low pay they received during their employment. To change their benefits now would be a reduction of their low retirement pay.

Military retirees who enlisted prior to 1956 were promised lifetime medical benefits. The federal government broke its promise and cut benefits. A class-action suit was initiated by a group of retirees. Some benefits are now being restored. There is a possible payment of a large monetary sum to those retirees.

State retirees, don't wait; take action now.

George Young

UH also webcasts graduation ceremony

Regarding the May 15 "Digits" article by Vicki Viotti on Hawai'i Pacific University's graduation webcast: You should know that UH-Manoa and UH-West O'ahu have been using this technology to make their graduations available to a global audience for some time now (go to www.uhwo.hawaii.edu/ or www.hawaii.edu/webcast/commencement/).

In fact, many institutions use the Internet to webcast graduation ceremonies to friends and family members who cannot be there in person. Perhaps you might want to do a more in-depth story on what all of our local campuses are doing with technology in a global context.

Melinda Wood

Honolulu Zoo should be phased out, closed

Regarding the May 24 article "Councilman intrigued by study to move zoo": Any city resolution to "study the feasibility and desirability" of moving the Honolulu Zoo should include the more easily achieved and cost-effective option of phasing it out and closing it forever.

The "steady decline in the number of zoo visitors" is an abundantly clear message that people are changing their view of zoos and are more aware of an inherent problem: that displaying caged animals is a morally corrupt business with little to offer in the way of education and even less in entertainment value

Not much can be learned by looking at animals in an artificial environment any more than looking at a prison population to define the human species. Gawking at utterly bored or captivity-induced neurotic animals is a sad and pathetic reflection on us, not entertainment. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure out that animals don't belong in cages and don't belong in a dismal and artificial habitat with its roots in exploitation.

Zoos are nothing more than antiquated holdovers from the 19th century: animal abuse disguised as cheap amusement.

It's time to show compassion for all living creatures, not just dogs and cats. An excellent start would be to phase out the zoo for the benefit of both human and nonhuman animals alike. Even "world-class" prisons are still prisons.

Jim Brown
Kailua

What are you willing to give up to conserve?

My middle school-aged son asked me whether we should conserve or produce more energy. What an odd question, I thought. Common sense told me we should do both. Why was it one or the other?

When similar questions are posed in the media, conservation frequently gets the thumbs-up over producing more energy without thought to exactly what you and your family would have to sacrifice in order to rely solely on conservation.

For example, the rolling blackouts in California are conservation. Think about it. Would you like to be limited to one car per family? How about being able to fill your tank only on designated days (remember the 1970s?) and limited to 5 gallons each time? Perhaps we need two carpool lanes, or more? What about taking showers every other day? How about banning air conditioning?

Next time you think about conservation, substitute words like banning, limiting, restricting and rationing your everyday activities. That would be a reality check.

Think back: Years ago, American families had one car, one black and white TV, one radio, one telephone and one phonograph. Today, there are several cars per family, a color TV in every room, a home entertainment system in the family room, cell phones, personal computers, laptops and a million other powered gadgets that Americans have become more and more dependent upon.

So what are we, or pointedly, you, willing to give up in the name of conservation?

Of course, this is somewhat of a trick question because it is similar to everyone saying that they are for mass transit, but only so that the "other guy" rides to make more room for your car. So I wonder if everyone is hoping that the other guy will make the sacrifices and downgrade his lifestyle so that you can continue with your unimpacted life and still say you are for conservation and against producing more energy.

As usual, there ain't no free lunch.

Currently we import most of our oil. Is it wise to be so dependent on somewhat hostile foreign powers for our energy needs?

Leighton Loo
Mililani

New health fund better all around

As soon as the Public Employees Health Fund bill passed the Legislature, I began receiving telephone calls and messages from constituents asking, "What will this mean to me?"

I won't pretend that I can wholly answer that question because there are so many different factors involved. We need to keep in mind that the reform process is just that, a process. This is part of a "work in progress." The new fund doesn't become effective until 2003, and adjustments might still be made before then.

The need for changing the law has been obvious for some time. The state is rightly concerned about the rising costs of healthcare. It is a fact that Hawai'i's participant population is aging, and we have the longest life expectancy of any state in the nation. In the next few years, the state expects to see a large number of new retirees as well.

These factors, combined with a stagnant economy, have impacted our ability to meet rising costs.

The basic goals of this legislation are to contain healthcare costs, improve access to care for our employees and maintain the quality of services provided to our employees and retirees.

The Legislature understands its obligation to keep the promises it has made to state workers. After much discussion and study, it was believed that the best way to accomplish these goals was to completely restructure the state's health fund system.

The new law changes how state workers and retirees buy their medical insurance and creates a single Hawai'i employer-union health benefits trust fund that covers both groups. In the existing system, the state provides a set dollar amount to unions, out of which they provide health benefits. The unions currently cover only active employees, not retirees. And they can often negotiate lower rates because this pool is younger and healthier.

However, this leaves retirees with higher benefit costs, which must be covered by the state.

The new combined fund will be governed by a board of trustees made up of employer, employee and retiree representatives and will negotiate health benefits for the 81,000 active and retired government employees. What benefit plans the trustees eventually select will have much to do with the ultimate effect of the new law.

Future new hires will be the ones most affected, retirees the least. Many guarantees for active employees remain in current statutes, so whatever changes occur, they will be minimal.

The state Department of Budget and Finance presently implements and administers the health benefits for state and county government employees and retirees. It estimates, because of the economics of scale and purchasing power of a single entity, cost savings to the taxpayers could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the years. This helps the state provide benefits for all employees, not just for today, but for the future.

Rep. Emily J. Auwae
R-44th (Wai'anae, Makaha)