Originally Posted By Darkbeer Came across this article in the LA Times yesterday... <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-cap4feb04" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/co lumnists/la-me-cap4feb04</a>,1,5244121.column >>Two other opponents of the compacts are tribes that fear gambling competition: The United Auburn Indian Community and the Pala Band of Mission Indians. A third opponent is the hotel workers' union, Unite-HERE. It contends the compacts would hamper union organizing. To squeeze the compacts out of the Capitol, the four tribes apparently made the politicians some offers they couldn't refuse. The vulnerable governor cut the deals during his 2006 reelection campaign, it's widely believed, to "neutralize" the tribes and keep them from spending $50 million against him, as they'd quietly threatened. When the Assembly balked at approving the compacts last year, one tribe -- Morongo -- committed $20 million to an intimidating TV, radio and mail attack against Democrats. The tribes also hinted they'd spend millions to bury the term limits initiative, Proposition 93, that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) coveted. The Democrats caved, jilting their longtime ally, organized labor.<< Should be interesting to see the final election results tonight...
Originally Posted By jonvn I voted for these. It's money to the state, and who cares about gambling if it is out in the middle of nowhere, like these reservations are.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer But who will have to pay for the new roads and other infrastructure to get to the Indian Tribe. We are talking about more than tripling the size of 4 casinos, that will create a lot of impacts on the nearby communities, and the current rules exempt the indians from having to follow current enviromental impact rules, and not have to work with the nearby cities nd/or have to pay for any of the impacts that are not on the actual Indian Tribe land. Let the casinos expand, but also let them pay their fair share for the impacts they will create, just like any other developer would have to do. And also allow other tribes than just the big 4 to also expand. Put in more third party controls to watch over the tribes and the gambling income, allow smaller tribes that do not have casinos, or think they don't need more slot machines to have the right to sell those machines to other tribes, similar to the original deal that allowed slot machines in California. These new deals have no such provision, it is just the big 4 that gets the big gains.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Let the casinos expand, but also let them pay their fair share for the impacts they will create, just like any other developer would have to do. >> If you think developers pay a "fair share" of impacts on projects, you are living in a fantasyland. The next big shoe to drop in the real estate bust is the bankruptcy of municipal governments that can't afford all the services and infrastructure maintenance required to keep up the suburban sprawl developments that they championed for years. Developers rarely pay their fair share and taxpayers almost always get stuck with the bill.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But who will have to pay for the new roads and other infrastructure to get to the Indian Tribe." Since they are paying a ton of money in taxes to the state, why not the state? The state builds roads to everything already. "We are talking about more than tripling the size of 4 casinos" Good. Hope they're profitable. Let them get ten times bigger. That makes them closer than Nevada, we get the money, and the Indians finally found something they can do. It is not really that big a deal. If this law doesn't allow for that, then the next law might. In the meantime, let the law pass, and then if changes are needed, do that. If you wait for the PERFECT law, nothing will ever get done.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP I don't like gambling in any way shape or form. So, I voted against these without reading them closely, all I needed to kmow was that they expanded the casinos and I was out. However, if this measure expands the San Manuel casino, it's NOT in the middle of nowhere. It's not in the middle of nowhere. It abutts a development and is a couple of miles from a middle school. (I don't mean to imply the casino is polluting the middle school by being so close, just indicating it's NOT in the middle of nowhere.) Morongo is right off I-10, like one mile off, Fantasy Springs is also that close to the 10, are they owned by the same tribe?.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP Sorry for the repeat sentence, I'm typing w/a baby in my lap and not paying attention.
Originally Posted By jonvn Don't blame the baby for typing that repeat sentence. I know for a fact that babies can't type. Where is the San Manuel casino?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Casino gambling, in general, does not contribute to the overall benefit of society. States advocate these sorts of things in the name of economic growth, but in the long run, gambling operations consume more than they produce.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Mario Cuomo, when he was governor and opposed casinos in NY, said something I thought was interesting. Something like (paraphrasing): "People say casinos generate money (for the state). But they don't really generate money. They basically redistribute money. Often, from people who often can't afford it to the casinos."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, the state, to my knowledge, isn't running to any Indian casino and blowing money, so anything the casinos add to the revenue stream of the state are a good thing. I say this because it's a revenue source only recently available and therefore has saved many jobs and programs. If people don't like the perceived power the tribes now have, then they can allow their taxes to be raised, because short of legalizing prostitution or marijuana, there aren't too many new ways to add to the government bottom line.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Gambling is the "greed tax" so yes it is a redistribution of wealth. I'm glad our government is negotiating to get more of it back.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << so anything the casinos add to the revenue stream of the state are a good thing. I say this because it's a revenue source only recently available and therefore has saved many jobs and programs. >> It's not a good thing. Casinos employ a lot of people at the lowest possible wages -- this is a service industry. They don't produce anything of economic value to the overall marketplace. They siphon money away from citizens that could be spent on more beneficial goods and services. In the end, casinos contribute to a broad economic deterioration that is hard to perceive, but very real.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP jovn: San Manuel roughly is at the intersection of victoria and hemlock on this map. <a href="http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.155355" target="_blank">http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF 8&ll=34.155355</a>,-117.226696&spn=0.031181,0.027466&z=14&om=0 The reason there is so much empty space behind it, is it's on the foothills of the San Bernardinos. The big empty square to the south east is Patten, a large mental hospital. (surrounded w/ barbec wire)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It's not a good thing. Casinos employ a lot of people at the lowest possible wages -- this is a service industry. They don't produce anything of economic value to the overall marketplace. They siphon money away from citizens that could be spent on more beneficial goods and services. In the end, casinos contribute to a broad economic deterioration that is hard to perceive, but very real." I look at it very simply. The state has X million in its budget. With casino money, the state now has X million plus casino money. That's a good thing.
Originally Posted By jonvn "short of legalizing prostitution or marijuana" I'm for that too. OK, San Manuel looks to be next to San Bernadino? That would be next door to the middle of nowhere. Just kidding. It's still pretty far out there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I've never seen a really good study about it (and part of the difficulty is that casinos in State X are never patronized solely by residents of State X), but I know there are typically thought to be "hidden costs" associated with casinos in the form of gambling addiction and all the problems that can cause (some of which are ultimately paid for by the state), and lost revenue that could be spent on other things, as Sport Goofy said. I don't know what the state "cut" of any given casino is, and how that compares with the social costs, plus how much a state might lose in sales tax, say, if you blow your paycheck at the craps table rather than buying something at Best Buy or going to DL or whatever. And I say this as someone who visits casinos a few times a year, and LOVES the craps tables. I actually tend to win though - it's all about knowing when to walk.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >"short of legalizing prostitution or marijuana" I'm for that too.< So am I.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP better link: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/32vg3k" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/32vg3k</a>
