Prop 94,95,96,97?? What do you think?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
wendyinoc_IHB

wendyinoc_IHB

New member
<p>What do you all think of these props with the Casino's?? It beats driving to Vegas and at least some of my money would go back to my state. However, I am concerned with only 4 tribes getting the deal. Do you think this is a good idea for Ca? Do we want to be Vegas??</p>
 
<p>No. Do the math, up to, also known as less than, $14 billion over the next 20 years.</p>

<p>In other words, less than $700 million a year. Not even 1/2 a percent of the budget.</p>

<p>Also, I suspect the $700 million won't even cover the additional drain on resources caused by the expansion and additional gambling.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If we want to be Vages, then be Vegas, but this deal isn't anything like Vegas.</p>

<p> </p>
 
my question has always been: if the Indians can have casinos, why not other private developer?? I guess moral doesn't play a part here, all about politically "correct"? I voted NO...
 
<p>If you don't vote for it, they'll back door it via Executive Order and get what they want anyway. This has virtually no cost to the state, and they are going to do what they can to get at these revenues.</p>

<p>This is not about building bigger casinos. If you go to Pechanga or Morongo, they have enough room between banks of slots to play touch foootball. Go to Vegas and the spacing is as close as they can and not violate ADA. This is about raising the caps on the number of slot machines each tribe is allowed to have on the casino floor.</p>

<p>Before you arbitrarily vote "NO" because you ASSume that the indians are a burden on infrastructure, do some research on how the locals who live next to the indian casinos feel about their neighbor.</p>

<p>Private developers cannot have casinos in California because it's against the law. Certain games are allowed (poker, off track horse betting, blackjack) becuase the state regards them as "games of skill" as opposed to slots where they are "games of chance". The tribes are allowed to have "games of chance" by pact with the state because technically the tribes are sovern nations that allow themselves to be subjected to the laws of the state of California.</p>

<p>The "games of skill" are also highly regulated, as your local municipality must issue you a license to run a cardroom, and there is a moritorium on cardroom licenses till 2012 thanks to the last pact that got passed with these four tribes and a couple of other ones the last time they raised the caps on the number of slots they could have. Horse racing is dying a slow ugly death, and only survives by the fact that every county fairground that has horse racing has a sattlite facility. The majjor oposition to these propositions come from tracks like Los Alimitos and Santa Anita (who would die to have a poker room or slots) and Vegas (who would die to have all of California's action alltogether).</p>

<p>Orange County does not have any active card room licenses FWIW. There are more underground games in this county than you can shake a stick at.</p>
 
Yes on all four for me. It will help recover some of that lost Prop 13 revenue all the folks in Turtle Rock are not contributing.
 
I know a Pechanga member. He, and all Pechanga members, are getting $20,000 per month, from the casino. There's some reparations for you.
 
<p>And that's only a fraction of what they are getting for revenue. That tribe is real tight with it's tribal list. I think there's less than 80 members.</p>
 
<p>I just do not see a reason to vote no. No matter how much California gets out of it, it would be money that it would not get otherwise anyways. </p>

<p>I guess gambling is a vice but so is drinking and smoking and the government tries to benefit from it.</p>

<p> </p>
 
IrvineCommuter -



Although my family has a long history of gambling and smoking problems, I will be voting for these Propositions because our state needs the money. If people can't control their excessive gambling, drinking or smoking, I'm all for taxing those habits because one of two things will come out of it:



1) People will kick the habit because it's too expensive.

2) People will continue their habit and California will benefit from the additional revenues.



Since gamblers aren't directly taxed by these propositions, I'd say let's keep them in-state and create a 2nd Vegas in California (per NSR's suggestion).
 
<p>For the record, I only play poker. Cash and tournament. I don't play slots, blackjack, craps, roulette, bet sports, bet horses, nothing but cash and (when I have time) tournament poker.</p>

<p>I noticed on the "No on ......" ads last night (the one with the indian who claims the proposition does nothing for indians outside of these four tribes) it was paid for by Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows (racetracks). In my 1080i HD television I had to get up and get my face about 1' away from the screen to read the fine print. A couple of years ago they (the racetracks) tried to get an amendment passed allowing them to get slot machines. It failed. Duh.</p>

<p>This is a pissing contest between gambling interests in the state of California. The game I play is uneffected one way or another (I usually play at Hawaiian Gardens or Hustler or The Bike) so I don't care one way or another. But the state sure can use the funds.</p>

<p>Funny, if they'd put a cap on Proposition 13 that hadn't been 1% below historic inflation we wouldn't have any gambling in this state (outside of the cardrooms, which were here in the early 1970's) or any budget crisis. Libertarians beware of what you ask for, you might get it - in the form of Mello Roos, HOA's, assesments, increased income taxes, gas taxes, increased vehicle regestration fees........</p>

<p>The big dog's gonna eat and we can't stop it.</p>
 
<p>Social price....bah, people are going to do what they are going to do regardless of what the state says. We might as well reap the revenue benefits of it in California. You are either inclined to gamble or not --- and whether it is 100 miles or 250 miles (Vegas) away isn't going to create any more gambling addicts. Personally, I would be no more inclined to piss away my hard earned money gambling if they opened a Vegas style casino on the Great Park site. But that's me.</p>

<p>Another example --- Last time I checked prostitution was illegal in California. But have you seen the ads on the inside back page of the Register sports section? Yeah, I'm sure those are all theraputic sports massages...</p>
 
Green_cactus;





I have also thought long and hard about the potential social problems that these propositions may bring. But then I remember that casinos and gambling are nothing new to California. Even in SoCal - Commerce, Bicycle Club, Hawaiian Gardens.. ect have been around longer than I've been alive. Heck, Vegas is just a skip and a hop away!





Gambling addicts will continue to gamble everything so might as well keep their money in California.
 
Whatever gives the natives the most is what I'll support.





If they natives think this is a sweetheart deal for them, then that's good enough for me.





It just happens to have the added bonus of paying something into our General Fund.
 
I oppose them because this is a negotiated deal between the state and the tribes. Negotiations shouldn't be done by referendum - it's a lousy medium with no finesse and many opportunities for riders (crazy riders are almost a staple of CA referendums). The should be done legislatively. Referendums should be more principled things - like whether gambling should be legal at all, or should be more broadly legal in CA. It can also serve as an out if the legislature has its head stuck up its nether regions but I don't think the legislature is unreasonable here.
 
Um... I gamble in the stock market... better odds than the slot machine!








Seriously, I don't oppose Indian casinos, as long as they're built far away from residential communities. If they want to stick a few casinos in the middle of the desert, or toward NV border, by all means, go for it. But don't build one next to a elementary school, thank you very much.





Quote from a friend who lives in Vegas, "no I don't gamble, except occasional nickel slots. We depend on you (outsiders) to come and lose $ in our casinos for our income."
 
<p>My policy is to ALWAYS vote NO on referendums unless absolutely necessary. Seriously, not trying to sound stubborn or ignorant, but CA is out of control with the referendums. Have any of you noticed that just about every election there is some massive school bond referendum? Hell, in Costa Mesa, the Coast Community College District managed to get a 3 BILLION (yes, with a B) bond issue passed. They have three schools, and already get huge state funding - what the HELL are they going to spend $3 billion on? </p>

<p>Referendums are special interests by-passing the legislature. If we lock in these gaming pacts, we shoot ourselve sin the foot, in my opinion. There are many other tribes that aren't part of these agreements.</p>

<p>This is government by petition-atherer, and most people rely on what the gatherer tells them the proposition is about. It sure is a lousy way to run a state.</p>

<p> </p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top