HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/1/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (26) DATE: September 1, 2004
TO: City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager - Administration
SUBJECT: Proposition 68 — Gaming Revenue Act of 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council consider whether to direct staff to prepare a
resolution indicating the City's position on Proposition 68 — Gaming Revenue Act of
2004.
SUMMARY:
On the November 2, 2004 ballot, Californians will be voting on Proposition 68, an
initiative that would allow eleven privately-owned card clubs and five privately-owned
horseracing tracks to operate 30,000 slot machines or gaming devices (includes
roulette, blackjack, baccarat and craps) if any of the 64 Tribal Governments currently
operating under Tribal/State Compacts fail to agree with a specified list of requirements
set forth by this measure.
BACKGROUND:
Proposition 68 would amend the State Constitution to require all 64 Tribal Governments
currently operating under Tribal/State Compacts to agree with a specified list of
requirements within 90 days of the approval of this measure. If Tribes do no comply, 11
card clubs and 5 horseracing tracks would be authorized to engage in the operation of
30,000 slot machines. An analysis of this measure by the State's Legislative Analyst
has been attached for your review.
Specifically, the measure requires that all tribes with compacts agree to (1) pay
25 percent of their "net win" to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund (GRTF, a state fund
established by the measure); (2) pay for an annual audit; (3) comply with certain state
laws, including those governing environmental protection, gambling regulation, and
political campaign contributions, and (4) enter into good faith negotiations with affected
local government agencies to mitigate local impacts.
If Tribes do not reach new agreements with the State within 90 days, the measure
would allow slot machines on non-Indian lands. Specifically, the measure allows
specified racetracks and card rooms located in Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles,
Orange, San Diego, and San Mateo counties to operate up to 30,000 slot machines.
The measure would allow the sale or sharing of slot machine licenses in certain
circumstances. The measure also makes permanent the limit on the expansion of both
the number of card rooms and the size of existing card rooms (due to expire in January
2010 undercurrent law).
Xz A
If card clubs and racetracks are allowed to expand into additional gaming areas, they
would be required to pay 33 percent of the net win from their slot machines to the
GRTF. Funds paid into the GRTF would be allocated as follows:
• Not more than 1% to the Division of Gambling Control and the California Control
Commission for the cost of administering the Gaming Revenue Act.
Monies sufficient to guarantee that each non-gaming tribe shall receive $1.2
million annually from the GRTF.
$3.0 million annually to pay for responsible gambling programs.
After the above distribution, the remaining funds are to be allocated as follows:
• Fifty percent (50%) to County Offices of Education to provide services for abused
and neglected children and children in foster care.
• Thirty-three percent (33%) to local governments on a per capita basis for
additional neighborhood sheriffs and police officers.
• Fifteen percent (15%) to local governments on a per capita basis for additional
firefighters.
On June 21, 2004, the Governor signed new State/Tribal Compacts with 5 tribes, all of
which operate casinos. These new compacts provide that Tribes pay mitigation to local
governments for casino impacts, as well as contribute $97 million towards a $1.2 billion
transportation bond. The new compacts contained a provision that states that if an
entity other than an Indian Tribe (i.e., card club) enters into gaming, the tribes have the
right to declare the Compacts null and void. Therefore, if Proposition 68 passes and the
existing tribes fail to comply with the new requirements, the five tribes could opt out of
their compacts and refuse to pay for the transportation bonds. The loss of the Tribes
contribution to the transportation bond will seriously jeopardize transportation funding
resulting in the partial or complete loss of funds for many critical transportation projects,
including some here in the Coachella Valley.
Proposition 68 has been widely opposed by an extensive list of Statewide Constitutional
Officers, Statewide Public Safety Organizations, County Sheriffs, County District
Attorneys, the League of California Cities, County State Association of Counties, Crime
Victims Organizations and Leaders, Local Public Safety Leaders and Organizations,
Children's Services Organizations, Education Community, Local Government Officials,
National, Statewide and Local Organizations and Individuals, Federal and State
\ Officials, Newspapers and Native American Tribes and Tribal Organizations.
V
Tro L.JButz1as ' tant City Manager-Administration
APPROVED
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Legislative Analyst Office Analysis of Proposition 68 19
�
PROPOSITION NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS.
68 REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
d RP�NrVW1 W CY . . pAU '�gl�w,.^� L ?. ia4iti e9. 9"Y J ]�051%0 ]CeitCa�
� r�..y..a.Yu..�-...Fr...�u.. '.isysxnub.v«...ue •P•:
Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion.
Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
• Authorizes Governor to negotiate tribal compact amendments requiring that Indian tribes pay 25% of
slot machine/gaming device revenues to government fund,comply with multiple state laws,and accept
state court jurisdiction.
If compacted tribes don't unanimously accept required amendments within 90 days, or if determined
unlawful, authorizes sixteen specified non-tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate
30,000 slot machines/gaming devices, paying 33% of net revenues to fund government public safety,
regulatory,social programs.
• Provides exemption from specified state/local tax increases.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government
Fiscal Impact:
• Increased gambling revenues—potentially over $1 billion annually. The revenues would be provided
primarily to local governments throughout the state for additional child protective, police, and
firefighting services.
i
i� • Depending on outcome of tribal negotiations, potential loss of state revenues totaling hundreds of .i
millions of dollars annually. .j
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND law limits the expansion of both the number of card
The California Constitution and state statutes specify rooms and the size of existing card rooms until January
the types of legal gambling that can occur in California. 2010.
For instance, current law allows wagering on horse Horse Racing. The state issues licenses to racing
races and certain games in licensed card rooms.In addi- associations that then lease tracks for racing events. In
tion, Indian tribes with tribal-state gambling compacts California, there are 6 privately owned racetracks,
can operate slot machines and certain other casino-style 9 racing fairs, and 20 simulcast-only facilities. (These
gambling in California, latter facilities do not have live racing; instead, they
Card Rooms and Horse Racing allow betting on televised races occurring elsewhere in
the world.)
Card Rooms. The state allows card rooms to conduct Gambling on Indian Land
card games where the card room operator has no stake
in the outcome of the game. The players play against Federal law and the State Constitution govern gam-
each other and pay the card room a fee for the use of bling operations on Indian land. Tribes that enter into
the facilities. Typical card games include draw poker, a tribal-state gambling compact may operate slot
7-card stud, and poker pal gow. Certain games—such machines and engage in card games where the operator
as twenty-one—are prohibited. There are 96 licensed has a stake in the outcome, such as twenty-one.
card rooms in the state. Local governments approve Currently,64 tribes have compacts and operate 53 casi-
card rooms, as well as establish the hours of operation, nos with a total of more than 54,000 slot machines.Any
the number of tables,and wagering limits.Current state new or amended compact must be approved by the
54 1 Title and Summary/Analysis 0/2 A 47
NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
Legislature,the Governor,and the federal government. These two scenarios are discussed below.
As sovereign nations, tribes are largely exempt from Revision of Current Tribal-State Compacts
state and local taxes and laws,including California envi-
ronmental laws. Under the first scenario, all compact tribes would be
1999 Compacts.Most tribes signed their current com- required to agree with the Governor to terms required by
pacts in 1999. Under these compacts,a tribe may oper- this measure within 90 days its passage. Specifically,the
measure requires that all tribes with compacts agree to (1)
ate up to two facilities and up to a total of 2,000 slot pay 25 percent of their"net win" to the Gaming Revenue
machines. In exchange, tribes make some payments to Trust Fund (GRIT, a state fiend established by the meas-
the state which can only be used for specified purposes rue)and(2)complywith certain state laws,including those
(such as for malting payments to tribes that either governing environmental protection,gambling regulation,
do not operate slot machines or operate fewer than and political campaign contributions.Net win is defined as
350 machines).These payments total over$100 million the wagering revenue from all slot machines operated by
annually. Under these compacts, tribes are required to a tribe after prizes are paid out,but prior to the payment of
prepare an environmental study analyzing the impact operational expenses. Under federal law, the federal gov-
on the surrounding area of any new or expanded gam- ernment would have to approve the revised agreements.
bling facility.These compacts will expire in 2020.
2004 Compacts. In the summer of 2004, five tribes Expansion of Gambling if Compacts Are Not Revised
signed amendments to their compacts, and these As noted above, if the current compacts are not
revised agreements were approved by the state. Under revised under the first scenario, the measure would
these new agreements, these tribes may operate as allow slot machines on non-Indian lands. Specifically,
many slot machines as they desire. In exchange, tribes under the second scenario, the measure allows speci-
make a specified payment annually to the state, with fied racetracks and card rooms located in Alameda,
additional payments for each slot machine added to Contra Costa,Los Angeles,Orange,San Diego,and San
their facilities. As additional tribes sign similar com- Mateo Counties to operate up to 30,000 slot machines
pacts,payments to the state are expected to total in the (see Figure 1). The measure would allow the sale or
hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Unlike the sharing of slot machine licenses in certain circum-
payments required by the 1999 compacts, the state can stances. The measure also makes permanent the limit
use these payments for any purpose. The newer com- on the expansion of both the number of card rooms
pacts also require the tribes to (1) prepare more and the size of existing card rooms (due to expire in
detailed environmental studies; (2) negotiate with local January 2010 under current law).
governments regarding payments addressing the Net Win Payments. Racetracks and card rooms would
impacts of new gambling facilities on the local commu- pay 30 percent of the net win from their slot machines
nifies;and (3) follow other provisions related to patron to the GRTF.They would also pay 2 percent of their net
disputes, building codes, and labor relations. These win to the city and 1 percent to the county in which the
new agreements expire in 2030,ten years later than the gambling facility is located. The measure specifies that
1999 compacts. the payments to the GRTF be in place of any state or
PROPOSAL local gambling-related taxes or fees enacted after
This measure, which amends the State Constitution September 1, 2003.
and state statutes,sets up two possible scenarios regard- The five racetracks also would be required to pay annual-
ing new state gambling revenues. ly an additional 20 percent of the net win on their slot
•The first scenario would occur only if all Indian machines. These lands would be administered by the
California Horse Racing Board and used to benefit the
tribes with compacts agree to specified revisions to horse racing industry,including the increase of race purses.
their existing compacts.
•The second scenario would be triggered if the Distribution of Gambling Revenues
tribes do not agree to the revisions. In this case, Payments based on net win would be made to the
5 existing racetracks and if existing card rooms GRTF under either scenario—whether tribes revised
would be allowed to operate slot machines. their compacts or racetracks and card rooms operated
slot machines. In either case, slot machine operators
For text of Proposition 68 see page 130. Analysis 1 55
NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
® TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
Sites for Slot Machines at Racetracks and Card Rooms-
.
California Grand Casino
I Garberu
TContra Costa
unty
Lucky Chances Casino \Golden Gate Fields Racenac� `',�`
Cobra C Albany
ArtichokeJoe'sCazino 11 Alameda County
San Bnmo `� ._?..;
Bay Meadows Racomck
San Mate. \
San Mateo 1 L'
County
I
Los Angeles County l
Santa Anti Racetrad<
Armdm Commerce Casino
C.mmerre
&ryde Clob Casino
t Bell Gardens
` Cryse.I Park Casino
cea ptan
, Hawainen Gardens Casino
..... Racetrack F�\ Hawaiian Gorden:
,Orange Los Alamitos Racetrack
-- Card Room &Couny Los Alamims
` Hustler Casino \\
Gardena
Normandin,Casino San Diego County i
Gardena
Oceans Eleven Casino
Hollywood Park Casino Ommrside
nglemeed
Hollywood Park Racetrack
Inglemeod
a Under measure's second scenario (see text).
56 1 Analysis
NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION. fl
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. I "
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
would be required to pay for annual audits of their estimated that the machines are generating net win
reported net win and payments made to the GRTF.The of over $5 billion annually in California. If the tribes
measure establishes a five-member board appointed by agree to this measure's provisions, tribes would pay
the Governor to administer the GRTF. Figure 2 25 percent of their slot machines' net win to the
describes how funds in the GRTF would be distributed. GRTF—potentially over$1 billion annually. These pay-
The bulk of the funds would be distributed to local ments would be provided primarily to local govern-
governments throughout the state for additional child ments to increase funding for child protective, police,
protective, police,and firefighting services. and firefighting services.
Existing Payments to the State. As described above,
r":i"-'; tribes under the 1999 and 2004 compacts pay hundreds
of millions of dollars annually to the state for both spe-
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM cific and general purposes. This measure does not
THE GAMING REVENUE TRUST FUND specifically address whether these payments would con-
tinue or cease under the compact revision process.As a
First,payments would be made for three specific purposes: result,it appears that the continuation of the payments
•yp to 1 percent of the funds for administrative costs of the would be subject to negotiation between the tribes and
initiative.
•$3 million annually for"responsible gambling"programs. the Governor.If the revised compacts do not include a
•Supplemental payments to tribes that do not operate slot continuation of these payments,the state would experi-
machines or operate fewer than 3SO machines. ence a reduction in payments—potentially totaling
'- dSecond,remaining funds would be distributed to local hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
governments throughout the state as follows:
•SO percent would be allocated to counties to provide services Expansion of Gambling at Card Rooms and Racetracks
for abused and foster care children.The amount allocated to a Net Win Payments. If the tribes do not agree to revise
county would be based on the number of child abuse referrals.
•35 percenh to local governments(based on population)for their compacts within the time required, specific card
additional sheriffs and police officers. rooms and horse racing tracks would be authorized to
•15 percent to local governments(based on population)for operate up to 30,000 slot machines. These entities
additional firefighters. would pay 30 percent of the net win to the GRTF. The
The measure also specifies that these funds could not replace amount of these payments would depend on the num-
funds already being used for the same purpose. her of slot machines in operation and their net win.
These revenues could potentially be over $1 billion
Related Provisions in Proposition 70 annually. These revenues would be provided primarily
Proposition 70 on this ballot also contains provisions to local governments to increase funding for child pro-
affecting the number of slot machines authorized in the tective,police,and firefighting services.
state. That measure would allow tribes entering a new Additional Payments to Local Governments.Also under
or amended compact to expand the types of games this scenario, the cities in which these establishments
authorized at casinos.It would also eliminate the exist- are located would collectively receive payments in the
ing limits on the number of slot machines and facilities high tens of millions of dollars (2 percent of the net
a tribe can operate.In exchange for the exclusive right win). Counties in which these establishments are locat-
to these types of gambling, tribes would pay the state a ed would collectively receive payments of half of this
percentage of their net income from gambling activi- amount (1 percent of the net win). The use of these
ties. The State Constitution provides that if the provi- funds is not restricted.
sions of two approved propositions are in conflict, only Increased Tamable Economic Activity.If the tribes do not
the provisions of the measure with the higher number agree to the requirements of this measure, the expan-
of yes votes at the statewide election take effect. sion of gambling at card rooms and racetracks could
DSCAL ETTECT result in an overall increase in the amount of taxable
The fiscal effect of the measure on state and local economic activity in California. This would occur if,
governments would depend on whether current com- over time, there was a large diversion of gambling activ-
pacts are revised or if racetracks and card rooms oper- ity and associated spending from other states to
ate slot machines.The fiscal effect under each scenario California. This would also be the case to the extent
is discussed below. that the gambling authorized by this measure replaced
existing tribal gambling activities (since much tribal
Revision of the Current Tribal-State Compacts activity is exempt from state taxation). This additional
Net Win Payments.While tribes do not publicly report gambling-related activity would lead to an unknown
information on their slot machine revenues, it is increase in state and local tax revenues.
For text of Proposition 68 see page 130. Analysis 1 57
AAA G
NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
1 TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
........
Can we share some straight talk? These-card clubs and horseracing tracks are located in
Indian casinos are earning between $5 Billion and the cities of:Arcadia,Bell Gardens,Commerce,Compton,
$8 Billion per year through a monopoly granted to them Cypress, Gardena, Hawaiian Gardens, Inglewood, and
by the state of California. Under this monopoly, only Oceanside in Southern California and in the cities of
Indian casinos can operate slot machines in California. Albany, Colma, Pacheco, San Bruno, and San Mateo in
But while the rest of us pay taxes on what we earn, the Northern California.Unlike Indian casinos,the card clubs
tribes pay almost nothing on their Billions of earnings— and racetracks would pay 33% of their revenues from the
even though they use the same roads,schools,police, and slot machines to local government.
fire and emergency medical services chat we all pay for. With California's current budget crisis, we need the
Last year, one Indian Casino alone had a slot machine money.
profit of over$300 million and paid no taxes. According to the state's former Legislative Analyst, Bill
It's time Indian Casinos paid their Fair Share. Hamm, Proposition 68 will generate nearly $2 Billion
In Connecticut and New York, Indian casinos pay the every year—monies that will be sent directly to all local
state up to a 25%Fair Share of their winnings in exchange governments around the state with all communities bene-
for keeping their monopolies. filing equally.
Proposition 68 says to the Indian Tribes: You can keep It isn't fair that the tribes can build casinos wherever
your monopoly on slot machines, but only if you pay a 25%Fair they want and make Billions of dollars through a monop-
Share like the Indian Casinos in Connecticut and New York. oly granted by the state without paying taxes or a Fair
The 25%Fair Share would go to pay for local police and Share like the rest of us.
fire services and local programs for abused,neglected,and But Proposition 68 is fair. It doesn't take any rights away
foster children. The Tribes would also be required to from the Indian Casinos.But it says that if Indian Casinos
comply with the same political campaign contribution and won't pay a Fair Share to support local public services like
environmental protection laws that all of us already must all of us, then they can't keep a state monopoly to them-
comply with. selves.You can't have it both ways.
Proposition 68 actually gives the Indian casinos a It's time for the Indian Casinos to pay their Fair Share.
choice: If they pay their Fair Share, they keep their We urge you to Vote YES on Proposition 68.
monopoly on slot machines.But if they don't,the state will LEE BAGA, Sltenff
also grant rights to a limited number of locations where Los Angeles
gaming already exists. LOU BLA County of L Los Sheriff
The Indians would keep operating their slots,but they'd County of Sacramento
get a little competition.A limited number of card clubs and ROY BURNS,President
horseracing tracks where gaming already exists would be Association Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs(ALADS)
allowed to add slot machines to their existing games.
Proposition 68's promoters—card clubs and race- 30,000 new slot machines NEAR MORE THAN 200
tracks—are using a bait-and-switch scheme, They want SCHOOLS.
voters to think 68 is about"making the Indian tribes pay •Education leaders and child advocates OPPOSE
their fair share,"It's not. because Prop. 68 WILL END UP COSTING OUR
It's really a deceptive attempt to change California's SCHOOLS MILLIONS,hurting our kids.
Constitution to create huge Las Vegas-size commercial •Public safety and local government leaders OPPOSE
casinos on non-Indian lands throughout California. because Prop.68 means MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
In fact, the very organizations Prop. 68 promoters claim to on already overcrowded freeways and surface streets.
help, overrehelm2ngly reject this deceptive measure., Please join Governor Schwarzenegger, law enforce-
•Taxpayer groups OPPOSE Prop.68 because IT WILL ment,firefighters,educators,parents,Indian tribes,busi-
HURT—NOT HELP—THE STATE'S BUDGET— tress,labor,seniors,local government,environmentalists,
not one dollar will go to reduce the state's deficit, and taxpayer groups,and VOTE NO ON 68.
and 68 exempts its promoters from paying any future STOP THE DECEPTIVE GAMBLING PROPOSI-
state and local tax increases, TION.It's a bad deal for all Californians.
•The California Police Chiefs Association, California Please VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 68.
State Firefighters Association,the California District CARLA NINO,President
Attorneys Association, and more than 30 County California State PTA
Sheriffs OPPOSE because Prop. 68 means MORE DAVID W.PAULSON,President
CRIME AND HIGHER LAW ENFORCEMENT California District Attorneys Association
COSTS.Prop.68 would place HUGE NEW CASINOS MIEE.SPENCE,President
on non-Indian lands in our cities and suburbs— California Taxpayers Protection Committee
58 1 Arguments Arguments punted on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
.0 7
NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. ® '.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Message from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. `I am officially Enforcement Associations California District Attorneys .... ....,,
opposed to Proposition 68, and I strongly urge you to VOTE NO." Association, More than 50 California Indian Tribes, State
This measure is not what it seems.While proponents claim Treasurer Phil Angelides, State Controller Steve Westly,
the measure will force Indian gaming tribes to pay their fair Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell,
share to the state,Proposition 68 does nothing of the sort. Crime Victims United of California, Peace Officers
Proposition 68 is not a guaranteed source of revenues for Research Association of California, Sierra Club California, .
California from Indian gaming tribes.Instead it authorizes California School Boards Association, The Seniors
16 new Las Vegas-style casinos to be built in urban areas Coalition, Prevent Child Abuse California, California . .. ,.....1
throughout California. Taxpayer Protection Committee.
Governor Schwarzenegger has a vision for California that AND 34 COUNTY SHERIFFS:
does NOT include making our state the next pot of gold • Sheriff James Allen • Sheriff Terry Bergstrand • Shmff
for commercial casino gambling interests. Governor Virginia Black • Sheriff Ed Bonner • Sheriff Bob Brooks
Schwarzenegger believes casino gaming should be limited • Sheriff Bill Coghill • Shmff Anthony Craver • Shmff John
to Indian lands. Crawford • Sheriff Jim Denney • Sheriff Bob Doyle • Sheriff
THE NEW AGREEMENTS GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER Robert Doyle • Sheriff Bill Freitas • Sheriff Curtis Hill
NEGOTIATED WITH MANY INDIAN GAMING TRIBES • Sheriff William E.olender • Sheriff Dan Lucas
ARE A WINNER FOR TRIBES AND TAXPAYERS. These • Sheriff Ren Marvin, Ret. Sheriff Scott Marshall
agreements keep California's promise to Indian tribes • Sheriff Rodney Mitchell• Sheriff Bruce Mix• Sheriff Daniel
while malting them pay their fair share. They promote Paranick • Sheriff Clay Parker • Sheriff Gary Penrod
cooperation between tribes and local governments to deal • Sheriff Charles Plummer Sheriff Jim Pope
with the impact on law enforcement, traffic congestion, • Sheriff Ed Prieto • Sheriff Michael Prizmich • Sheriff Perry
and road construction, Unfortunately, Proposition 68 Reniff • Sheriff Richard Rogers • Sheriff Warren Rupf
could destroy these new agreements. • Sheriff Robert Shadley, Jr, • Sheriff Gary Simpson
The 16 new casinos authorized by Proposition 68 are • Sheriff Gary Stanton • Sheriff Mark Tracy • Sheriff Dean
located in urban areas of California. They will be near 200 Wilson,
schools and major streets and freeways in Los Angeles, the PROP. 68 WOULD RESULT IN A HUGE EXPANSION
San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego,further congesting OF CASINO GAMBLING ON NON-INDIAN LANDS.
our crowded roads, It's a sweetheart deal for the gambling interests behind it,
NOT A SINGLE PENNY FROM THIS INITIATIVE CAN another broken promise to Indian tribes, and a bad deal
BE USED TO HELP BALANCE THE STATE BUDGET. for the rest of us.
Further,the promoters of Proposition 68 have written it so VOTE NO ON 68.STOP THE DECEPTIVE GAMBLING
they are exempt from paying any future increases in state PROPOSITION.
and local taxes. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER JOINS MORE
THAN 400 PUBLIC SAFETY, TAXPAYER, AND OTHER State of California
LEADERS IN SAYING: JEFF SE CaliforniaSt President
VOTE NO ON 68 rnia State R.,Preside Associ¢tion
California Police Chiefs Association, California State WAYNE QUINT,JR.,President
Cal
Firefighters' Association, California Coalition of Law California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
r.'.:
"[Arnold Schwarzenegger] wants to renegotiate gam- sheriffs, keep local fire stations open, and fund proven
ing compacts with casino-operating Indian tribes in the educational programs for abused and neglected children.
hopes of getting tribes to share revenue with the slate.He To make sure it's truly fair,we give the Indian casinos
noted tribes pay Connecticut 25 percent of their rev- the final choice.They choose to make this 25% contribu-
enues, and said such an arrangement could pay for tion just as they do in New York and Connecticut.
'thousands of police officers, thousands of teachers.'" Otherwise,the state will allow limited and highly regulat-
—Sacramento Bee, Sept. 24, 2003 ed competition with an even bigger financial return to
We agreed then and we agree now. It makes zero California's communities.
sense for the overwhelming majority of Indian casi- Before you make your decision,please read the initia-
nos—a 9$6—$$8 billion industry—to operate in California five.We think you'll agree:it's time the Indian casinos did
while paying virtually nothing to support the common the right thing.And pay their fair share.
good. LEE BACA, Sheriff
It's time for these immensely profitable Indian casinos County of Los Angeles
to give something back to the state that has given them LOU BLANAS, Sheriff
the most lucrative gaming monopoly in history. It's time County of Sacramento
for the people of California to get their fair share. ROY BURNS,President
Proposition 68 isn't a blank check for the politicians Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs(ALADS)
in Sacramento. It requires a real and meaningful fair
share payment that must be used to hire local police and
Arguments printed on thu page are the aprmon.s of the authors and have not been checked far accuracy by any off teal agency. Arguments 1 59