WTF???? Oracle CEO to Buy Most of Hawaiian Island Lanai

[marmar]

(Bloomberg) Oracle Corp. (ORCL) Chief Executive Officer Larry Ellison has agreed to buy 98 percent of the Hawaiian island of Lanai, according to the current landowner and the state’s governor.

“It is my understanding that Mr. Ellison has had a long- standing interest in Lanai,” Governor Neil Abercrombie said in a statement. “His passion for nature, particularly the ocean, is well known specifically in the realm of America’s Cup sailing.”

Lanai, Hawaii’s sixth-largest island with an area of 141 square miles (365 square kilometers), is owned and developed by billionaire David Murdock’s Castle & Cooke Inc. since 1985. Ellison’s software industry rival Bill Gates married his wife Melinda on the island in 1994.

The sale includes two resort hotels, two championship golf courses and club houses, more than 88,000 acres of land including a 600-acre residential development, a solar farm, parks and utilities, according to an application filed by Castle & Cooke with Hawaii’s Public Utilities Commission requesting interim approval for the sale by June 26 so it can close the transaction the following day. .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/oracle-ceo-ellison-bought-most-of-hawaiian-island-lana-i.html

[RKP5637]

1. Wealthy individuals/conglomerates politically buy whole countries, lots of land.

Last edited Thu Jun 21, 2012, 12:31 PM - Edit history (2)

Greece comes to mind. Romney could buy Greece, do his corporate hatchet man routine, and then resell Greece for a profit. People would be immaterial to him. People are expendable.

But as someone basically said, Germany is in the lead for Greece.

[onenote]

3. I guess you missed the part about Lanai being privately owned for decades.

In fact, the private ownership of virtually all of Lanai dates back to the late 19th century -- long before Hawaii became a state. Ellison is buying it from the owner of Castle & Cooke -- and Castle & Cooke succeeded Dole Pineapple (which purchased the island in 1922).

So you might want to amend that "pretty soon".

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. I had no clue that it was privately owned that long.

I find that a bit bothersome, tho.

[onenote]

6. I'm curious as to why you find it bothersome

Its not as if buying this island is buying a state. Its buying a chunk of property that is part of a state. Which is what happens whenever someone owns private property. And not a terribly big part of the state. Ted Turner (whom I happen to like if for no other reason than that he hates rupert murdoch) owns nearly 2 million acres of land, all of which was privately owned before he bought it, just by different people. In fact, one of the properties that Turner owns in Montana is larger than the total acreage on Lanai.

FWIW, Ellison donates money primarily to Democratic candidates (although he also has donated to repubs in the past). David Murdock, the guy who used to own Lanai, gives money exclusively to repubs.

[RKP5637]

11. Interesting! Thanks for the clarification you've done! n/t

[question772000]

25. Hawaii belongs to Hawaiians, not Larry Ellison

How can you buy, sell, or trade someone elses land? Hawaii belongs to the native Hawaiian people. Every square inch of it is theirs. Hawaii was taken by force by the white man.Read about the full history of Hawaii. Just like Australia, New Zeland, Canada, and the U.S. Every square inch belongs to the native people. If white people were honest, they would admit this. The real discussion should be when will white people take responsibility for all the things they have done to other people throughout history? Give them their land back!

[onenote]

27. I take it you don't own your own home or any other land. And your history seems dubious too.

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 05:24 PM - Edit history (1)

While I'm no expert on the history of Hawaii, my understanding is that in the early part of the 19th Century, a Hawaiian, King Kamehameha I unified the islands as a monarchy under his not so benign rule. A successor, King Kalakaua, eventually took over and he was the one who sold most of Lanai, which was owned by the monarchy/government, not the "people" to Walter Gibson in latter half of the 19th Century. And its been in private hands ever since.

Now, if you have different facts, that fit your narrative, I'd be interested in hearing them.

[RKP5637]

9. Updated it!!! Thanks!!! n/t

[HiPointDem]

17. castle & cooke is a corporation & the island was a pineapple plantation. ellison is one guy.

interestingly, bill gates has a role in this story:

http://www.forbes.com/2000/07/13/mu4.html

[onenote]

21. Not really that much of a difference, if any

The island has largely been owned by one person or entity for 150 years, starting with Walter Gibson, who first bought up most of Lanai as an individual. His holdings ended up in the hands of the Hawaiian Pineapple Company which was essentially owned by one person, James Dole. Castle & Cooke (a corporate entity) ended up acquiring the Hawaiian Pineapple Company and renamed it the Dole Food Company. Eventually, Dole split its real estate and food operations into two companies, one with the food operations and one a real estate company. The real estate company was given the Castle & Cooke name and it was taken "private" by David Murdock. So while its technically true that Castle & Cooke, which is the seller, is a corporation, its really just Murdock. And while the reports are that Ellison is taking over ownership of the property from Castle & Cooke, its not clear at all that he's buying just the assets (the land) or if Ellison, in effect, is buying Castle & Cooke. Even if Ellison is just buying the assets, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to learn that he had set up a company to hold those assets rather than is buying them to be held in his own name as an individual.

The pineapple plantation was shut down in 1992, before the spin off of Dole Foods and Castle & Cooke and before Murdock took C&C private.

In short, there really isn't much of a difference in how the island has been owned for most of the past century and a half and certainly not for the last decade or so.

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. The Germans force the sale at 1% of value, recoup the initial investment by selling the Acropolis.

Then they rent the rest of land back to the surviving Greek people for just a little more than they are paid under the new maximum wage laws. Voilà, the company store model applied to an entire nation.

[HiPointDem]

18. the company store is the model for the world. we work to build their power & our wages go back

to them to increase their power.

there isn't any "outside" to this picture.

[Johonny]

2. Lanai.Island.Org

[hunter]

13. That link is broken.

You're not spamming for island.org, are you?

[mainer]

5. It seemed like a really cheap price until I read about the costs

Apparently it's been a drain on Murdock's finances to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year.

[hunter]

8. "According to the Hawaiian legends, man-eating spirits occupied the island before that time..."

...For generations, Maui chiefs believed in these man-eating spirits. Differing legends say that either the prophet Lanikāula drove the spirits from the island or the unruly Maui prince Kauluāʻau accomplished that heroic feat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanai

What goes around comes around. It's difficult to say if Ellison is the demon or the unruly prince.

The island is begging for some sort of protection, as a national park, or at the very least a nature conservancy similar to Catalina Island in California.

[B2G]

19. This island is very well protected

precisely BECAUSE it's privately owned. It is largely undeveloped and pretty darned pristine.

[mainer]

23. I agree with you. Private ownership has kept Lanai beautiful.

Same with Niihau (although I've never been able to visit that island.)

Under private stewardship, Lanai has remained beautiful, friendly, and largely undeveloped. It is truly a paradise. But open it up to every money-grubbing developer under the sun, and you'll get ... Waikiki.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

24. Private ownership is no guarantee of protection

It's a roll of the dice whether you have a private owner who cares or one who does not. I have Lifetime Membership in the National Speleological Society, an affiliated society with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The NSS is dedicated to the study and preservation of caves. Every year, the NSS budgets thousands of dollars to buy caves and the land around them from private owners to preserve them and the unique animal life found inside them. Many caves have been abused and destroyed by private land owners who mine them for crystals and formations, install machinery for private sources of water, allow unsupervised visitors inside who destroy archeological sites and disturb the fragile animal life. The federal government has closed most of the caves found on public lands, sealing them, in order to prevent the spreading of white nose syndrome, a terrible disease that's killed millions of bats in the last few years and which could wipe out entire species. The disease is thought to be spread by people who bring it in from the outside. The disease has reached the crisis stage. But private owners can't be controlled. When private ownership is involved, the natural environment is as safe as the owner is responsible.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

22. The Lanai underwater Cathedrals are pretty spectacular

Underwater lava tube caves.

&feature=player_detailpage

[HopeHoops]

10. Sounds like a great spot for a data farm.

[Megahurtz]

12. What really burns me up

is the amount of money these CEO's make all for themselves. I'm sure they don't work any harder than most hard-working people, but most hard-working people are given what amounts to peanuts for their hard work. Such is our capitalistic pyramid-shaped system. Gotta find a way to turn that pyramid upside down....

[hughee99]

14. I don't think Ellison is this wealthy because he's Oracle's CEO,

It's because he's also the co-founder. I do agree with your general point, though.

[hunter]

15. I don't begrudge people like Ellison or Gates their $$$. Yes, they are sharks...

... but their net contribution to society is, I think, slightly positive, unlike say, Mitt Romney and a whole lot of bankers and "health" industry executives.

[raouldukelives]

20. Compared to Mitt & the whole lot

Gordon Gecko starts looking like a bleeding heart liberal. I do agree that they are better though. They have contributed to society. Not to the long term health of the planet of course (I don't think you can be attached to the stock market in any way and ever finish your life as a net positive towards the future sustainability of the planet.) but at least they do actually try to spend some of the wealth they are extracting from future generations to good causes for people now. Even if it is mostly golf courses, opera houses and yacht clubs.

[dsc]

16. well his wife said they needed a lanai

and he got a little confused.

[aquart]

26. Millionaires are a sign of success. Billionaires are a sign of decay.