Posted on 01/17/2008 9:59:13 AM PST by calcowgirl
(snip)
In television ads that began airing the first week of January, Governor Schwarzenegger urges voters to endorse Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97, which would expand gambling operations. ...
The agreements allow four tribes [Agua Caliente, Pechanga, Morongo, Sycuan] ... to add 17,000 slot machines to the existing 8,000. In exchange, the tribes will give the state between 15 and 25 percent of the revenue from the added machines.
Last May, Schwarzenegger estimated that the compacts would generate $293 million just this fiscal year, but state finance spokesman H. D. Palmer says this figure has since been revised downward to $154 million. The ads claim the state will receive $9 billion over 20 years.
"[The] likelihood is that all of this additional income is dust in the wind … if you look at the magnitude of the state budget," says Daniel Mitchell, a professor of management and public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Others, such as California's nonpartisan legislative analyst, Liz Hill, give much lower revenue estimates. She says the state will get less than $200 million for the next few years, and less than $500 million a year in the distant future.
Revenues aside, opponents say the casinos will have negative impacts, including increased crime and traffic congestion in nearby areas, increased gambling addiction, and lack of guarantees over who will oversee the process.
Two of their biggest complaints revolve around the size of the expansion – more slot machines than in the top 12 Las Vegas casinos put together – and the concentration of one-third of the state's gambling profits into just four wealthy tribes.
(snip)
The issue has been complicated by the fact that the US Interior Department has already approved the four compacts under allegedly mysterious circumstances. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
The Queen Mary in Long Beach would make a fine casino.
They don’t have craps, my favorite, or roulette, or many of the other games they have in Vegas. And no sports betting. I am against legalized gambling in California. But if they are going to have it to this extent, then legalize it. Why can’t I invest in a casino/hotel, but some dirt poor Indians in Valley Center find out they are 1/16 Indian (so am I) and they get a steady income from the mobsters who actually run the show?
The other thing that bothers me is the change in where revenues go. Today, they go into two Trusts that go specifically to address issues associated with the tribes.
The new process would have all revenues going into the State General Fund for it to get squandered on some new social program (or Arnie’s hydrogen highway) or something. It just feeds the beast.
I seem to recall that Indians are allowed to do gambling because of some federal law that says that if states allow it, they have to give the right to Indian reservations, too. So, states with lotteries and legal poker were forced to allow Indian gambling, through creative judicial decisions. The simplest fix to this idiocy is to amend or revoke the federal law. Barring that, if the states are going to embrace the Indian gaming, they ought not to discriminate against the rest of their citizens.
Agree. No reason its owners should be treated differently than Indians, nor should the citizens of Long Beach have to drive to the desert to play games that the state is in essence approving.
And they know that so they write some of the propositions with double and triple negatives so you don't know whether you are voting for or against.
It's is not the state's gambling profits. Why do these bureaucrats think they own everything?
Not necessary. We simply need a governor who will support the Republican minority in the state senate to reduce the spending.
Actually at Cache Creek they do have craps and roulette.
If they are going to expand gambling, they should open it to anyone, and get full tax benefit.
One of the problems I see as I read through articles on the issue is that the “4 Big Tribes” in SoCal are raking in billions while many of the “Tribes” children are receiving taxpayer funded health care.
Another problem for me is that the for and against camps all seem to be union affiliated i.e. Delores Huerta UFW, against, and California Federation of Teachers, for.
What to do?
A little trickery on the ballot is Prop 93. I'm voting no....at a very brief glance, if you want to continue term limits, you'd think you might want to vote yes, but it's the opposite.
Yep, Prop 93 is the most dishonest of the bunch.
It should have been labeled the "Keep Perata and Nunez in Office" Initiative.
That one definitely gets a big NO! from me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.