Californians set to vote on massive expansion of Indian casinos [four measures hotly debated]

Christian Science Monitor ^ | January 18, 2008 | Daniel B. Wood

[NormsRevenge]

If it’s not For and Against ads for these props, it’s obama ads.. aaiiieeee.. he’s in the bay area today,, bubba was here yesterday at a bbq joint in oakland stirring it up

[Defiant]

I haven’t paid much attention to this issue, but it seems to me that if California is going to go all-out with Casinos instead of just have them in isolated Indian Reservation areas, then we ought to have real casinos, with sports betting, all the games, not just blackjack, and let people other than Indians make all the money. Why the pretense?

[calcowgirl]

And when we get past the barrage of false advertising for the Feb 5 election, we’ll get to do it again in June... and then November. I’m beginning to hate elections.

Good news? A strong eminent domain measure gathered enough signatures for the June ballot. (Another one, a bit more mild, may also make the cut in a few days). At least there will be something to vote FOR. :-)

[NormsRevenge]

we’ll get to do it again in June... and then November.

a vicious cycle indeed,, considering most folks ignore the goings on in between and are ill-informed or apathetic as all get out, when they can least afford to do so.. people are strange.. california voters and non-voters prove it every election.. talk about stacked decks.. (as I use a little negative gambling cliche) :-)

[calcowgirl]

if California is going to go all-out with Casinos instead of just have them in isolated Indian Reservation areas, then we ought to have real casinos, with sports betting, all the games, not just blackjack,

I agree. It would be a whole lot more honest to just put an initiative on the ballot to legalize gambling. The casinos would sure be a lot more fun than the ones now.

... and let people other than Indians make all the money. Why the pretense?

Indians can claim sovereignty, significantly reducing the level of monitoring and enforcement that can be imposed by the State. It doesn't seem to matter that the Indian casinos are run by Las Vegas interests now (who definitely make a huge chunk of those profits), as long as it is on sovereign land.

[NormsRevenge]

Think of it as an example of a public private venture and the state gets its cut and the mob does too.

[beethovenfan]

I’ve gotten to the point where I just vote “no” on everything.
There’s always a hidden agenda we know nothing about.

[calcowgirl]

...an example of a public private venture

Yep! Those not connected need not apply. ;-)

[calcowgirl]

Voting “no” is usually a safe vote. Occasionally there is something worthy of a “yes,” but rarely.
It seems there are always damaging repercussions buried in the fine print.

[fish hawk]

Actually it is pretty smart of the Indians who know very little about running a gambling casino to hire seasoned,experienced people to do so. Yes, they pay them handsomely but gain millions more for their reservations. I liken this to people who know very little about the stock market hiring Brokers to help them buy stocks. They get paid well for their services.

[Ben Mugged]

The propositions do more than simply add 17,000 slot machines. They increase the percentage of revenue that the state gets from the casinos. While that increased revenue will not balance the budget, it will help until we get a Republican majority in the state senate to reduce spending.

The opposition to the measures is being paid for by the casino owners in Las Vegas.

I also agree that casinos should be allowed across the state and not just on reservation property but that proposition has failed miserably several times and has no hope for passing.

When the county of Santa Barbara and city of Solvang granted the Chumash Indians land for a reservation, they gave them the worst possible land, literally in a ditch. The Chumash have turned that ditch into the most valuable land in the area and are attempting to buy adjoining property to expand their reservation. The cities in that area benefit from the generosity and lavish donations by the Chumash to local charities yet they distrust their desire for additional land.

[MovieMogul]

I haven’t paid much attention to this issue, but it seems to me that if California is going to go all-out with Casinos instead of just have them in isolated Indian Reservation areas, then we ought to have real casinos, with sports betting, all the games, not just blackjack, and let people other than Indians make all the money. Why the pretense?

The Indian Casino my family goes to on a regular basis (Thunder Valley in Lincoln, CA) has most table games including black jack, 3 card poker, pai gow, baccarat, etc. No sports better (yet), but give it time. And they have more slot machines than your average casino in Reno or Tahoe.

And it's increased the growth of the city of Lincoln, and the neighboring city of Roseville. Traffic's a problem now, but that's because the state and city haven't kept up in over 3 decades. Roseville is a shoppers paradise with just about every major big box store (and several medium sized box stores) located in a 2 mile radius.

[John Jorsett]

The propositions do more than simply add 17,000 slot machines. They increase the percentage of revenue that the state gets from the casinos. While that increased revenue will not balance the budget, it will help until we get a Republican majority in the state senate to reduce spending.

The opposition to the measures is being paid for by the casino owners in Las Vegas.

The problem for me is that the numbers for how much money the state would get come from an analyst hired by the tribes who would benefit. He says he can't disclose the data that he used to arrive at those figures because they came from the tribes and are 'proprietary'. If they can't be upfront when they're trying to push this measure, I'm not going to trust them to honestly report their revenue when it comes time to pay the state.

I'd be more in favor of legalizing casinos in general, not just for Indians, and subjecting them to state regulation, taxation, and oversight.

[jiggyboy]

Vote NO! Starve the beast!

[karnage]

The casions should not be expanded. California government needs to slash spending. Period. Casinos are just another way for ordinary folks to get robbed.

[Argus]

I especially like the “No” ads that show a bunch of sad-looking Indians from the “non-gaming tribes” who are totally cut out of the deal. If they’re so poor, who’s paying for the ads?

Then I try to imagine Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse wrapping their heads around the concept of “gaming” or “non-gaming”.

[karnage]

I feel much the same way. I hate propositions. They just let lazy lawmakers off the hook, add massive future debt, and generally suck hind teat.

[karnage]

Word!!!

[calcowgirl]

While that increased revenue will not balance the budget, it will help until we get a Republican majority in the state senate to reduce spending.

The increased revenue is miniscule. When you are talking about a budget of $140,000,000,000.00, $200 million hardly makes a dent (only 0.14%). That's like trying solve your $10.000.00 credit card problem with $14.00.

The opposition to the measures is being paid for by the casino owners in Las Vegas.

Where did you see that? I've heard the opposite. None of the LV gaming interests are listed as donors to the groups opposing the initiatives (lots of California racetracks have donated as they'd like to be allowed to operate slots, too). LV gaming interests WANT this to pass as they get to expand in California--threefold!