Once it was about the need, now it's only about the greed

Searching the web for information on 94, 95, 96 & 97 one finds a plethora of editorials covering the issues. What becomes blatantly clear is how shallow the claims are on the "vote yes" side. If it was such a good deal why is it necessary to spend so many millions to convince voters it is what the tribes are claiming? If it was the win-win deal they are touting there would be no argument. It is no longer about tribes living in poverty, it is about unfettered expansion of the worlds largest casinos, might as well leave the word "Indian" out of it. Indeed, many tribes have been taken over by people who have little or no Indian heritage, and have ousted the real tribal descendants.

Editorial: It's simple: No on 94, 95, 96, 97
Chico Enterprise-Record
Article Launched: 01/28/2008 12:00:00 AM PST

Deciding how to vote on the four Indian casino measures on the Feb. 5 ballot is a lot like choosing the best hog in a wallow.

The common characteristic of the three main players in this debate is greed, and the thin self-righteous arguments each offers just leave us shaking our head. Does anyone really believe the hooey they're offering up?

On the one hand are the four tribes themselves, which each operate a casino with 2,000 slot machines and many other devices for separating gamblers from their cash. The four tribes are quite small numerically, and have already advanced beyond the legitimate "lifting themselves up from poverty" pitch Californians agreed to when they first approved Indian gambling.

The four tribes have grown from desert slums to shimmering moneymaking palaces. They spend as much on manipulating state government through campaign contributions and other means as is spent on the welfare of their members. And that political spending is largely exempt from most state and federal regulation as the tribes are sovereign states.

Then there's the state, which eagerly accepted the compacts with the four tribes as a way to increase revenue to its overdrawn general fund. At the time the compacts were moving through the Capitol in 2006, they were sold as adding more than a billion bucks to state coffers each year. The estimate is now down to below $200 million over the next few years, maybe rising to a half-billion dollars annually by 2030 when the deals expire.

The increase comes at the expense of local government, by the way. Currently the four tribes pay into what's called the special distributions fund, most of which is used to offset impacts to local government.

For example, the two Oroville casinos kick about a million dollars a year into that same fund, and that money has been spent on upgrading fire and police protection and fixing roads in Oroville and southern Butte County.

The four south state tribes are paying about $28 million into that same fund, which is being spent on the same kinds of benefits for the Riverside and San Diego County jurisdictions near the casinos. That $28 million payment vanishes under the four compacts covered by Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97. It's replaced with a requirement that the tribes negotiate with the local jurisdictions to cover any impacts. And we wish those two counties luck in dealing with the sovereign states within their boundaries.

Finally, there are the opponents to the four propositions. Gambling interests. Go figure. Why would horse track operators and Las Vegas casino operators oppose these compacts, since they're brothers in arms?

Oh yeah, they're competitors. More money spent at the casino means less money spent at the track or Vegas.

That points to one of the reasons we oppose all four measures. They aren't boosting the economy of the state. Expanding these four casinos just channels spending from one venue to another. And the venue the spending is being diverted to doesn't pay sales or property taxes, another hit on local government.

If these four propositions pass, state government gains slightly, the economy is largely unaffected, and the local governments that have to haul the freight get whacked. And four wealthy tribes that have shown themselves to have an agenda beyond aiding their people get their coffers stuffed.

We suppose those of us in Northern California could say, "So what, two south state counties take a hit and state government's a little better off." But there should be no question that other tribes will seek similar deals if these four stand. And at some point, the hurt's going to hit home.

In any case, these four propositions deserve a no vote.