Stealth Bomber
Well-Known Member
CA AP's - what are your views and opinions on these two propositions? I'm leaning toward voting yes on both.
Indian Gaming in CA - Props 68 & 70
- Thread starter Stealth Bomber
- Start date
Sonny
Well-Known Member
I'm against both
Prop 68 would allow 16 local card rooms and racetracks to have up to 30,000 slot machines on their property. It would turn places like Santa Anita racetrack into huge Vegas-style casinos. Of course, this will only happen if the Indian casinos refuse to "pay their fair share" (as Arnold says). Do you think that this law will make them want to pay up out of the goodness of their hearts? It seems strange to me that a proposition would have a built-in "Plan B" for when it fails.
Prop 70 would basically give the Indian casinos the unlimited ability to expand their casinos. There would be no regulations regarding how many machines they are allowed to have or how much they must pay the state to operate them (currently they are charged a per-machine fee). They would have free reign over the extent of their land with no restrictions on the size of their casinos or the amount of machines they can have.
I personally feel that Arnold's compacts have done a very good job of putting reasonable restrictions on Indian gaming, and most casinos agree. I have faith in his plans for state reimbursement by Indian casinos. I don't want every card room in LA to open up huge slot rooms, and I don't want the Indian casinos to close down valuable community services (like post offices and office buildings that are on their land) in order to create bigger casinos and parking lots. I don't want a new Fremont Street Experience to open up in my backyard...unless they have good blackjack, which they don't =(
Parker went into much more detail about these policies on AdvantagePlayer.com in the "South & West" section. He seems to have the same opinion as me, but I would love to hear what other people think of these new propositions.
-Sonny-
Prop 68 would allow 16 local card rooms and racetracks to have up to 30,000 slot machines on their property. It would turn places like Santa Anita racetrack into huge Vegas-style casinos. Of course, this will only happen if the Indian casinos refuse to "pay their fair share" (as Arnold says). Do you think that this law will make them want to pay up out of the goodness of their hearts? It seems strange to me that a proposition would have a built-in "Plan B" for when it fails.
Prop 70 would basically give the Indian casinos the unlimited ability to expand their casinos. There would be no regulations regarding how many machines they are allowed to have or how much they must pay the state to operate them (currently they are charged a per-machine fee). They would have free reign over the extent of their land with no restrictions on the size of their casinos or the amount of machines they can have.
I personally feel that Arnold's compacts have done a very good job of putting reasonable restrictions on Indian gaming, and most casinos agree. I have faith in his plans for state reimbursement by Indian casinos. I don't want every card room in LA to open up huge slot rooms, and I don't want the Indian casinos to close down valuable community services (like post offices and office buildings that are on their land) in order to create bigger casinos and parking lots. I don't want a new Fremont Street Experience to open up in my backyard...unless they have good blackjack, which they don't =(
Parker went into much more detail about these policies on AdvantagePlayer.com in the "South & West" section. He seems to have the same opinion as me, but I would love to hear what other people think of these new propositions.
-Sonny-