Two propositions this election may set the precedent that could
eventually turn Sunset Boulevard into a local version of the Las
Vegas strip. Propositions 68 and 70 ask Californians how big a
gamble the state should take on casinos.
Voting yes on either of these propositions means bypassing the
governor and state Legislature and making hasty commitments that
would likely increase the number of casinos in California.
Proposition 68 could generate up to more than $1 billion in
revenue for local governments from gambling facilities ““
whether those facilities exist yet or not.
Currently, American Indian tribes have exclusive gaming rights
in the state. If Proposition 68 passes, all tribes with gaming
compacts would have to agree within 90 days to pay California 25
percent of their annual revenues, which are roughly estimated to
total $5 billion per year.
If tribes refuse ““ which is a highly likely scenario
““ the proposition authorizes 16 non-tribal card rooms and
racetracks to bring up to 30,000 slot machines to urban areas.
The new casinos could theoretically create more than $1 billion
in local funding per year, but at what cost? With people flocking
to the slot machines, local law enforcement would be stressed,
highways would become even more clogged, and a slew of additional
environmental issues would have to be dealt with.
A yes vote on the other gambling-related issue, Proposition 70,
would cement all new and amended compacts between the state and the
tribes for 99 years ““ long after we are gone.
The tribes would pay the state at a rate that mirrors corporate
tax rates on private companies, but because tribes are considered
sovereign nations, the state would have no mechanism to perform
audits.
The lack of audits means that the state government would have to
rely on tribes to honestly report their income.
Proposition 70 also allows tribes to operate an unlimited number
of casinos with an unlimited number of slot machines, and removes
restrictions on what other types of games they can offer.
Though provisions in the initiative would allow for
renegotiation of compacts, the governor and the tribe would have to
agree on any changes.
It is unlikely a tribe would agree to change the status of a
compact that works in its favor financially, and who knows what the
next century holds for California.
Both of these propositions circumvent current efforts by the
governor and the Legislature to establish and renegotiate deals
with the casinos. That’s why Gov. Schwarzenegger is strongly
opposed to both.
The governor and Legislature should be allowed to continue doing
their jobs. The compacts currently being negotiated with individual
tribes show more promise than the potential effects of these two
blanket propositions.
Since passing Proposition 1A in 2000, which permitted tribal
casinos, California has struggled defining how large a role
gambling should play in the state landscape.
For now, voters should be cautious about the impact of casinos
and vote no on both Proposition 68 and Proposition 70.