Home › Elections › Elections Opinion
Editorial: Yes on Props. 94, 95, 96, 97
A better deal for California
ELECTIONS '09
Check out our one stop for all the information and news you need to be ready for to cast your vote.
Election Central »
Elections stories »
STORY TOOLS
More from Elections Opinion
The Star supports the Indian gambling compact amendments the state Legislature and governor approved last year for four tribes and, thus, supports yes votes on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 on the Feb. 5 ballot.
The compact amendments were negotiated with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in August 2006, vetted by the state Legislature after multiple hearings and approved by the federal government last year. They were ready to take effect Jan. 1.
The amendments were stalled by two other Indian tribes, race-track operators and a hotel workers' union, which collected enough signatures to put the four propositions on the ballot to try to block them. The United Auburn Indian Community of Auburn Rancheria of Rocklin (Placer County) and the Pala Band of Mission Indians of Pala (San Diego County) and race-track owners at Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows in San Mateo are bankrolling the referenda to reduce competition for their own gambling operations. They are not motivated, as their ads imply, by concern about expanding gambling.
$9 billion in 20 years
The Star supports yes votes not least of all because all four amendments significantly increase the state's share of Indian gambling revenue at a time the state is facing a shortfall of at least $14 billion in the coming fiscal year. Potentially, the amendments could generate $9 billion for the state over the next 20 years. California voters approved Indian gambling in 1998 and its expansion two years later. Since the compacts with 58 Indian tribes were made in 1999, several tribes have negotiated amendments to them.
The latest tribes seeking amendments negotiated to add a total of 18,000 slot machines and to share a larger amount of proceeds with the state government. Each tribe will pay an annual amount equal to 15 percent of the net revenues of the next 3,000 slot machines it adds. If it operates more than 5,000 slot machines, it will pay the state an annual amount equal to 25 percent of the net revenues of those additional slot machines. The amendments also extend the tribes' compacts by 10 years to Dec. 31, 2030.
Key impacts
PROPOSITION 94 applies to the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, a tribe near Temecula in Riverside County.
— Casinos remain at two.
— Increases Nevada-style slot machines from 2,000 to 7,500.
— Increases annual payments to state from $29 million to at least $44.5 million. The legislative analyst predicts the tribe's payments to the state could be well over $100 million annually by 2030.
PROPOSITION 95 applies to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians near Banning in Riverside County.
— Casinos remain at two plus a small auxiliary gaming facility with no more than 25 slot machines.
— Increases Nevada-style slot machines from 2,000 to 7,500.
— Increases annual payments to state from around $29 million to at least $38.7 million.
PROPOSITION 96 applies to the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, near El Cajon in San Diego County.
— Casinos remain at two.
— Increases Nevada-style slot machines from 2,000 to 5,000.
— Increases annual payments to state from around $5 million to $23 million.
PROPOSITION 97 applies to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, based in Palm Springs in Riverside County.
— Casinos remain at two.
— Increases Nevada-style slot machines from 2,000 to 5,000.
— Increases annual payments to state from around $13 million to at least $25.4 million.
All four compact amendments include safeguards for the environment and state regulation of casino activities and payments.
The amendments also keep in place the fund from which the state distributes $1.1 million per year to each of the 71 federally recognized Indian tribes in California that have no casino or a casino with fewer than 350 slot machines.
Among supporters of Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 are Gov. Schwarzenegger, California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell; Gene Gantt, legislative director of the California Fire Chiefs Association; Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency; California Correctional Peace Officers Association.
Posted by SF1943 on January 20, 2008 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For once I agree with Adam.Roland. Not only did we desecrate the native peoples of this country, these propositions are aimed at favoring a select group of "tribes" and excludes all others. The governor, Jack O'Connell, et al endorse it but I don't see any other tribes endorsing these propositions. Lastly, I've never understood the "media" having an opinion on anything. Your job is to report the news, not editorialize it! By doing so, you keep us informed so we can make an educated choice instead of trying to sway our vote to your liking!
Posted by imp9824 on January 20, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah. How dare the Editorial Board editorialize an issue by giving their opinion in the opinion section of the newspaper. Everybody hold on while I grab my pitchfork and torch.
Posted by sslocal on January 20, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Indians don't pay federal taxes on the reservation. They do pay a fee to the state for the right to open a casino. Reparations to them is another subject altogether.
Voting yes on these for the reasons the Star states is just like telling the state that it's okay that they can't balance their budget. Just raise the fees on the casinos to make up the difference.
Posted by allblacks on January 20, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How much of the money given to the state will be set aside for gambling addiction treatment, and the financial fallout of more people losing everything at the casinos? And, aside from the state, how much will be set aside for the local cities in the areas around the casinos for the increase in infrastructure use and fire/police activities?
Posted by LoveSantaPaula on January 20, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW... I, too, agree 100% with Adam...very strange feeling. It is gracious of these four Native American tribes to agree to give anything to a state that together with this nation has historically cared little about them. If you like to play the slots and/or be entertained by great performers then stay in California and visit an Indian Casino! Vote YES on 94, 95, 96, 97
Posted by jamaro099 on January 20, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a perspective about what is going on inside the tribes.
www.laweekly.com/news/news/tribal-flush-pechanga-people-disenrolled-en-masse/18010/
Posted by del on January 20, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't we just throw the door open and allow any bright person to open a casino. Nevada does well on gambling revenue. That way the tribes can keep all their revenue.
Oh, I forgot us white-folk are too puritanical and self-righteous for such things.
What a load of hypocrisy.
Posted by sokol_kiev on January 20, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I tend to agree with Sslocal's statement. A yes vote on these four propositions would, in my opinion, constitute a bailout to our state legislature. It would not stop their over-spending, but in fact would only encourage it. Besides, this $9 Billion over the next 20 years from these Indian gaming agreements won't even register as a blip in our current budget shortfall. California has more than enough tax revenues coming in each year, our state legislature simply needs to be more fiscally responsible by spending within the budget and in being more sound in what they're spending our tax dollars on.
This is one voter who is voting NO on Props 94, 95, 96 & 97!
Posted by SF1943 on January 20, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
imp9824 My point is that newspapers and the media in general should not have an opinion. Their job is to report the news....PERIOD!
Posted by smithjc on January 20, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
allblacks, there is usually no or next to no infrastructure cost for the police/fire services in surrounding areas, other than any mutual assistance agreements that are already in place. most of the reservations in california have their own police and fire departments, paid for by the revenues of the tribal casinos.
Posted by imp9824 on January 20, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And they do report the news, under the heading, "news". Since they are human, they are allowed to have opinions, which get expressed in the opinion section. If you do not want to read about the opinions of some people in community (Star staff or otherwise) then why read the Opinion section? What does it matter if it is from an editorial board or not if it is kept in the Opinion section?
Posted by TheSportsLogoPundit on January 21, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Yeah. How dare the Editorial Board editorialize an issue by giving their opinion in the opinion section of the newspaper. Everybody hold on while I grab my pitchfork and torch."
My early nominee for comment of the year! Congrats imp9824! I couldn't agree more.
Posted by QuestionAuthority on January 22, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/tri...
This is a very sad article but not surprising. The White Man's values have even tainted the Indian Nation. I-- having Cherokee and Blackfoot in my blood am ashamed of the way many Indian Tribes are acting toward their own, while allowing money and greed taint their beliefs and family loyalties. Vote NO NO NO NO... A yes vote will only allow the festering corruption and persecution to grow.
Posted by Spudss2 on February 1, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i personally think adam.roland and anyone who agrees with him is an ignorant fool. the indians around today did not get raped and tortured. sure, we took their land, we also took mexico's land, and enslaved, raped, tortured, and killed blacks. do you want to give mexico back all of southern california? do you want to give blacks reparations for their great grandparents who were slaves, even though it had no direct effect on the blacks here and now? sure it changed rights for them but their equals now. the indian reservations are the only places in california that are allowed to have a casino. i think if anyone should pay high taxes to the state, it's the casinos. if you want to debate how the money is spent, thats fine. don't try to fight taxes with history. Native Americans have just as many rights as anyone else in this country, they can get a job, buy a house, and have a family. they need to pay taxes just the same. las vegas has been built on casino revenue. if the tribes casinos can do the same for california, or even their local area that would be great.
Posted by AnotherSurfer on February 4, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Northern California, here.
I am voting no on Props 94-97.
I don’t like the fact that Indian Gaming Casinos will be exempted from having to do environmental studies. This further reinforces a “special class” of citizen/business.
If I’m not mistaken, gaming casinos in California can only be owned by one class of citizen (Native Americans). This bothers me — it is a form of discrimination. (Two wrongs do not make a right.)
That this class/business is looking for additional special priviliges regarding the environmental act adds to this bothered feeling.
(And maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this request for exemption from environmental impact studies seem odd coming from Native Americans?)
It also bothers me that the state government has this attitude, "So, ya wanna expand your gambling bidness on our turf? Give us a bigger taste and we'll letcha do it."
Yes, the above could be said about any form of taxation, but here it seems especially obvious.
Another Surfer, voting no.
Posted by Fred on February 8, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I voted for it - in general it is hard to not support the indian tribes.
However, I am not sure I did the right thing. I fear that the money we get from this will not be "in addition to" current monies, the govt will suck away other $ and we will be dependent on indian gaming $.
Isn't this what happened to the schools and Lotto? (do we really get $X + lotto for the schools? I doubt it....)
Moreover, gambling in general seems to affect those who can least afford it (I think most wealthy folks know that in the end, the only winner is the casino...). There is little to no help for addicted gamblers, etc. and this essentially sucks money out of poorer folks....
Posted by bg on February 9, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone noticed that casino machines almost quadruple (4X), but amount the is paid by the casinos does not even double for three of the four tribes. Why is that??? There is something wrong with this.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 17 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.