How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008
My vote on Props 94 – 97: Leaning towards No
If it came down to a battle of mailers, Props 94 – 97 would get an enthusiastic yes. I got 9 pieces of mail telling me to vote yes, none telling me to vote against. Oddly, this just makes me more skeptical about a yes vote. Who are these moneyed people behind it, bombarding me with mailers?
Props 94 – 97 are pretty much identical, except each refers to one of four different Indian tribes. Each of these tribes wants to add slot machines to its casinos. Benefit for the state: about $9 billion for the state, derived from a payout of 15 – 25% of the net winnings of the added slot machines.
The debate for and against basically centers on whether this $9 billion is a fair share for the state. The L.A. Times says it’s a fair deal — and thinks the state will likely get even more than that. The SF Chronicle says the $9 billion isn’t a sudden windfall: “It would come between now and 2030 and the additional state revenue from the new slots would amount to, at best, perhaps one-tenth of 1 percent of the state’s budget.”
Honestly, I’m not sure what a fair share is. I also don’t particularly have anything against gambling (yes, it’s a problem for some, but everything’s a problem for some). There are some questions about oversight, workers’ rights and environmental impact issues, but just as it’s difficult to tell wether $9 billion is fair, it’s difficult to tell whether the provisions made to address these issues are adequate. Yes, there are clauses about environmental impact studies and independent audits, but the devil’s in the details, which aren’t in my voter’s guide. One side says the provisions are adequate, the other disagrees.
Labor’s against it, and apparently some environmental groups are against it — but the California League of Conservation Voters hasn’t come out on either side of the issue, and the enviro groups listed on the anti-94-to-97 group No Unfair Deals‘ website are not ones I recognize. When in doubt, I tend to vote no on propositions. That, combined with the fact that the independent audits of casino operations will not be made available to the public, has me thinking this’ll be a no vote from me.
Photo by Gambling
I’m splitting the difference: Yes on the first two, no on the second two.
Comment by don hosek — February 4, 2008 @ 3:35 am
I was wavering back and forth for a while.. a cousin of mine is a Pechanga Tribe member – I sort of felt torn.
But after some thought and research I am leaning towards NO – on all four.
Hopefully my cousin doesn’t get upset, but honestly, each Tribe member gets $30,000 a MONTH… how could they need more. I see how they spend their money and it’s sad. That is not the only reason why I thinking I will vote No.. there are others, too many to write: http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/propositions-94-95-96-97/18259/
Comment by Amanda — February 4, 2008 @ 5:47 am
A NO vote is the way to go. Come see my blog for more on Pechanga: http://originalpechanga.blogspot.com
Pechanga has violated the civil rights of it’s people by disenrolling 25% of their tribe, and this way, they can control the votes and power.
Las Vegas casinos pay $29% to the state and their citizenz have NO income taxes. We could probably reduce ours if the tribes paid more.
Comment by Original Pechanga — February 4, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
I’m curious (and, Amanda, maybe you or your cousin can supply some insight)–why the need for slots? If Pechanga can afford to buy an ad during the Super Bowl, isn’t their current cash flow pretty good?
It seems to me that $9 billion wouldn’t go far enough, even if we got it all the day after the election.
Comment by Kate — February 4, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Economic progress must include tribes, too. The 4 tribes seeking amended gaming compacts want more slot machines to meet customer demand. Every other successful American business grows, and so should tribal casinos. Tribal casinos function as economic engines in their communities, employing tens of thousands of citizens with good jobs and benefits. From the 4 amended tribal gaming compacts, the state will receive hundreds of millions of dollars without new taxes or debt. Let us hope the voters on Feb. 5th see the positives, and vote Yes on Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97.
Comment by anotherview — February 4, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Dude, if the casinos were simply meeting “customer demand,” they wouldn’t even need to advertise during the Super Bowl.
Comment by Siel — February 5, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Siel: Advertising serves to create awareness of a tribal casino, to attract customers, and to penetrate the market. Las Vegas casinos regularly do the same, by advertising in California. A few tribal casinos have become successful to the point where the artificial cap of 2000 slot machines could not meet their customer demand. These casinos naturally wanted to add more slot machines, to continue to grow their business. Thankfully, the voters of California have again sided with the tribes to support their gaming enterprises on their reservation lands.
Comment by anotherview — February 6, 2008 @ 3:11 am
My point is that casinos aren’t simply expanding to meet existing customer demand, as you implied in your first comment. They are actively working to increase customer demand via ads, etc.
Comment by Siel — February 6, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Siel: Tribal casinos do advertise to penetrate a market where demand already exists. Strictly speaking, advertising itself may or may not induce demand, but surely brings a product to the attention of consumers. Take milk as an example. One could assume a fairly steady demand exists for this product. Yes, advertising may marginally create demand for milk, but more likely an advertiser may aim to sway consumers to buy milk from one over another. Likewise, a demand for slot machines exists apart from any advertising. Please note that without any advertising for years, the Pechanga tribal casino attracted tens of thousands of patrons to come there. Awareness of this casino occurred via word of mouth. In this circumstance, one might call this patronage an expression of natural demand. This patronage often reached numbers exceeding the capacity of the casino to accommodate it. The casino continually expanded to meet this natural demand, without advertising. Yet, market consultants informed the tribal leadership that its casino still had not reached its entire market. Advertising would help to do so. The casino began advertising to bring awareness of its existence to gamers throughout its market. In the end, of course, an unquantified fraction of the gaming market will become created wholly anew from the activity of advertising. But nearly all the gamers already gamble elsewhere, usually at other tribal casinos or in Nevada. Your point about advertising creating demand holds validity while at best defining only a tiny fraction of the gaming public. Virtually all demand among gamers now occurs without an iota of advertising. Tribal casinos fill this demand.
Comment by anotherview — February 16, 2008 @ 9:41 pm