Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jamarquez a: Ok here is the REAL DEAL with 68......
If you Vote YES you will want NON-INDIAN CASINOS LIKE MGM, (LAS VEGAS CASINOS) TO COME INTO CALIFORNIA....
If you VOTE NO you DON"t WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.....
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 25% TAX ON INDIANS...."YES on 68" IS LYING ON THEIR TV SPOTS |
The proposition is actually proposing that UP TO 30,000 slot machines be allowed at 16 existing race tracks and card rooms. I can see these existing places expanding themselves, but how can expansive casinos like MGM move into California when these slot machines are limited only to these 16 places? That statement seems misleading and a bit of an exaggeration.
Opponents claim "Governor Schwarzenegger, fire-fighters, sheriffs, police, tribes, taxpayers, labor, educators say: NO on 68." Yet the contact FOR Prop 68 is Sheriff Lee Baca and Sheriff Lou Blanas! Another misleading statement.
Revenues from these casinos, should the prop pass, are to be divided as follows: 30% of revenues go to the state fund. 2% goes to the city, and 1% goes to the county. Why would the state try to take money away from the locals if they are already receiving 30%?
BUT all this comes to pass only IF the state is unable to get all the gaming tribes to agree to "contribute" 25% of their slot machine profits within 90 days. 90 days?? Are they kidding? It probably takes that long just to set up a date for starting negotiations! This sounds unrealistic and bogus to me. It would be so easy to stall for that long, then part two of the provision will kick in, allowing the non-tribal casinos. Either way it seems like strong-arming the tribes into something they don't want.
Then there's the traffic issue. Heaven knows traffic is bad enough as it is, not sure how it will be like with casinos. It takes over half an hour just to drive a mile down The Strip in Las Vegas. Granted that street is lined with nothing but casinos. Without them their streets would be empty. But our streets are already full WITHOUT the casinos.
Then there's the whole "renegotiating the tribal compacts" thing. What renegotiating will there be? From what I understand it's an ultimatum: Pay up or we're going to take away your monopoly. It seems more like bullying to me, much like the historical actions of the U.S. government towards the tribes in the past. That ain't cool in my book.
I was still undecided because both sides have fairly convincing arguments. The primary website against prop 68 quoted a bunch of editorial sources so you can see what organizations are really against this measure. The primary website in favor of prop 68 was very slick and polished, complete with a flash intro for their website. It screams "big money" to me and I don't quite trust it. The whole "Fair Share for California" seems like such a spin story. What kind of "fair share" did the tribes get when they got sent to the armpit deserts of California? How fair is it to live in 120-degree squalor where no one wants to visit and spend money? How do you live like that and still have pride in your tribe?
Okay, so despite the exaggerations on both sides of the proposition, I have [finally] decided that Proposition 68 is a Bad Thing and I will vote no on it. Does anyone else care to share their insights? Maybe I missed something?