Wherever you look, Casino Vultures employ identical arguments to defend and encourage support for their intent to suck discretionary income from local economies.
Notice in South Dakota, they're supporting their argument with the specious statement of "DOLLARS FLOODING ACROSS STATE BORDERS," much as they have in New England.
It seems South Dakotans aren't buying what the Snake Oil Salesmen are selling.
One wise resident had this to say:
"Being reactive isn't a good thought process," he says. "Changing state law to get back at something somebody else did doesn't seem a good way to go."
Isn't it odd that the Casino Vultures are concerned about dollars leaving the sate?
S.D. mood sour toward expansion of gambling in Argus Leader/ Kelo-TV poll
When Lyon County, Iowa, voters in 2008 approved a $120 million casino, golf course and resort for Larchwood, they set in motion South Dakota's reconsideration of its own relationship to gambling.
Now, with the Larchwood casino under construction and set to open next summer, the gambling expansion issue continues to loom over Sioux Falls and the state.
Results of an Argus Leader/KELO-TV poll show South Dakotans are resolutely clear that they do not want to see more casino gaming in the state, even though opponents of the Larchwood casino warn if it is allowed to prosper, it will take millions in video lottery revenue from South Dakota and create law enforcement and gambling addiction problems in Sioux Falls.
In the recent poll of 800 registered voters statewide, 63 percent said South Dakota should not expand casino gambling beyond Deadwood and the tribal casinos.
Twenty-eight percent said South Dakota should expand gambling, and 9 percent were undecided. Among 400 registered voters surveyed in Sioux Falls, 65 percent say they oppose building a competitor to the Larchwood-area casino in South Dakota. Only 16 percent support it; 19 percent were undecided.
Further, 63 percent said they have no plans to patronize the Larchwood development, 29 percent said they would and 8 percent were not sure.
The polls were conducted Oct. 20-22 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington, D.C. The statewide sampling has a plus or minus margin of error of 3.5 percent, and there is a 5 percent margin of error in the results of questions directed specifically toward Sioux Falls voters.
Sioux Falls Republicans most strongly opposed building a casino to compete with Grand Falls. Of Republicans polled, 74 percent turned thumbs down on that. Independents followed at 62 percent and Democrats at 56 percent.
Thirty percent of both Democrats and Republicans said they plan to visit the Larchwood casino; 25 percent of independents said they would.
Shift in attitudes since late 1980s
The dour attitude toward new gaming is in contrast to the mood in the state in the late 1980s when Deadwood sought to introduce gambling. Events that came together then to persuade voters to favor the proposal might no longer be aligned, says state Sen. Tom Nelson, R-Lead, a strong supporter of Deadwood gaming.
"It was just a snapshot in time that worked for Deadwood," he said.
Deadwood gaming proponents made the case for new revenue to restore a badly disintegrating historic downtown, and they were persuasive.
"We said to voters, 'This is our promise to you: If you allow us to have gambling, we will build the town back up,' " Nelson said.
When Deadwood gaming was approved, the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act had just been passed. Since then, more than 200 tribes nationwide have built casinos that do more than $14 billion in business annually. A provision of the act would allow tribal casinos to match the gambling of new nontribal casinos, and Nelson said that has led to South Dakota voters' disinterest in seeing new gambling in Sioux Falls.
The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe remains interested in joining with Sioux Falls in a casino venture, based on the Deadwood model, said Sam Allen, a tribal executive committee member and economic development official.
"What we would do is have a distribution and profit share equal to or better than what Deadwood pays the state of South Dakota and local government," Allen said. "We could really help Sioux Falls and the state with education funds, money for law enforcement, new roads, etc."
Allowing a tribe to build a large casino in Sioux Falls also would help redress a glaring inequality in the state's gaming industry, Allen added. The tribe is limited to 250 gaming machines at its Royal River Casino in Flandreau while Deadwood casino owners are approved for 360 or more, he said.
"You really can't blame the tribes for feeling it is all slanted and not in the tribes' favor at all."
Dim view of building to counter Iowa
Dale Tabbert, a poll participant from Lennox, is among those taking a dim view of gambling expansion. Between video lottery, Deadwood and the tribal casinos, "I think the majority of the state has opportunities to gamble," he said.
"It seems to me you are not more than 150 miles from a reservation casino now. If it is expanded, that would make it more available, and that is not what I want to see happen."
Tabbert said the Larchwood-area casino's planned reliance on Sioux Falls for patrons without providing revenue to South Dakota increases his disinterest.
"I'm not that large of a gambler by any means. But that's more reason not to go there," he said.
Mark Blow of Harrisburg, like Tabbert, is opposed to expanding casino gambling in South Dakota. Blow also said changing the state law to allow a casino to be built in Sioux Falls to blunt the effect of the Larchwood casino is a poor idea.
"Being reactive isn't a good thought process," he says. "Changing state law to get back at something somebody else did doesn't seem a good way to go."
Poll Shows Casino Idea Unpopular
In the upcoming Tuesday voting in South Dakota it appears there will be little support for casino expansion.
South Dakota was one of the first states in the US to approve casino gambling, becoming the third state to do so in 1989. Since then many other states have not only done the same they have outstripped South Dakota in the casino industry.
A recent poll was held to see if South Dakota residents would like to change their position in the national casino industry, and the results came as a blow to those who would see the state expand its casinos.
The poll, commissioned by the Argus Leader and KELO-TV, asked 800 voters if they want casino expansion, with sixty-three percent saying no.
Martin Velky, a casino expansion supporter, expressed one major reason the results were a disappointment: "Iowa is expanding gambling, and so are several other states in our area.
If voters do not realize the importance of bringing more casinos to South Dakota, the economy could get worse. The jobs and revenue new casinos would bring is essential in the state."
Notice in South Dakota, they're supporting their argument with the specious statement of "DOLLARS FLOODING ACROSS STATE BORDERS," much as they have in New England.
It seems South Dakotans aren't buying what the Snake Oil Salesmen are selling.
One wise resident had this to say:
"Being reactive isn't a good thought process," he says. "Changing state law to get back at something somebody else did doesn't seem a good way to go."
Isn't it odd that the Casino Vultures are concerned about dollars leaving the sate?
S.D. mood sour toward expansion of gambling in Argus Leader/ Kelo-TV poll
When Lyon County, Iowa, voters in 2008 approved a $120 million casino, golf course and resort for Larchwood, they set in motion South Dakota's reconsideration of its own relationship to gambling.
Now, with the Larchwood casino under construction and set to open next summer, the gambling expansion issue continues to loom over Sioux Falls and the state.
Results of an Argus Leader/KELO-TV poll show South Dakotans are resolutely clear that they do not want to see more casino gaming in the state, even though opponents of the Larchwood casino warn if it is allowed to prosper, it will take millions in video lottery revenue from South Dakota and create law enforcement and gambling addiction problems in Sioux Falls.
In the recent poll of 800 registered voters statewide, 63 percent said South Dakota should not expand casino gambling beyond Deadwood and the tribal casinos.
Twenty-eight percent said South Dakota should expand gambling, and 9 percent were undecided. Among 400 registered voters surveyed in Sioux Falls, 65 percent say they oppose building a competitor to the Larchwood-area casino in South Dakota. Only 16 percent support it; 19 percent were undecided.
Further, 63 percent said they have no plans to patronize the Larchwood development, 29 percent said they would and 8 percent were not sure.
The polls were conducted Oct. 20-22 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington, D.C. The statewide sampling has a plus or minus margin of error of 3.5 percent, and there is a 5 percent margin of error in the results of questions directed specifically toward Sioux Falls voters.
Sioux Falls Republicans most strongly opposed building a casino to compete with Grand Falls. Of Republicans polled, 74 percent turned thumbs down on that. Independents followed at 62 percent and Democrats at 56 percent.
Thirty percent of both Democrats and Republicans said they plan to visit the Larchwood casino; 25 percent of independents said they would.
Shift in attitudes since late 1980s
The dour attitude toward new gaming is in contrast to the mood in the state in the late 1980s when Deadwood sought to introduce gambling. Events that came together then to persuade voters to favor the proposal might no longer be aligned, says state Sen. Tom Nelson, R-Lead, a strong supporter of Deadwood gaming.
"It was just a snapshot in time that worked for Deadwood," he said.
Deadwood gaming proponents made the case for new revenue to restore a badly disintegrating historic downtown, and they were persuasive.
"We said to voters, 'This is our promise to you: If you allow us to have gambling, we will build the town back up,' " Nelson said.
When Deadwood gaming was approved, the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act had just been passed. Since then, more than 200 tribes nationwide have built casinos that do more than $14 billion in business annually. A provision of the act would allow tribal casinos to match the gambling of new nontribal casinos, and Nelson said that has led to South Dakota voters' disinterest in seeing new gambling in Sioux Falls.
The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe remains interested in joining with Sioux Falls in a casino venture, based on the Deadwood model, said Sam Allen, a tribal executive committee member and economic development official.
"What we would do is have a distribution and profit share equal to or better than what Deadwood pays the state of South Dakota and local government," Allen said. "We could really help Sioux Falls and the state with education funds, money for law enforcement, new roads, etc."
Allowing a tribe to build a large casino in Sioux Falls also would help redress a glaring inequality in the state's gaming industry, Allen added. The tribe is limited to 250 gaming machines at its Royal River Casino in Flandreau while Deadwood casino owners are approved for 360 or more, he said.
"You really can't blame the tribes for feeling it is all slanted and not in the tribes' favor at all."
Dim view of building to counter Iowa
Dale Tabbert, a poll participant from Lennox, is among those taking a dim view of gambling expansion. Between video lottery, Deadwood and the tribal casinos, "I think the majority of the state has opportunities to gamble," he said.
"It seems to me you are not more than 150 miles from a reservation casino now. If it is expanded, that would make it more available, and that is not what I want to see happen."
Tabbert said the Larchwood-area casino's planned reliance on Sioux Falls for patrons without providing revenue to South Dakota increases his disinterest.
"I'm not that large of a gambler by any means. But that's more reason not to go there," he said.
Mark Blow of Harrisburg, like Tabbert, is opposed to expanding casino gambling in South Dakota. Blow also said changing the state law to allow a casino to be built in Sioux Falls to blunt the effect of the Larchwood casino is a poor idea.
"Being reactive isn't a good thought process," he says. "Changing state law to get back at something somebody else did doesn't seem a good way to go."
Poll Shows Casino Idea Unpopular
In the upcoming Tuesday voting in South Dakota it appears there will be little support for casino expansion.
South Dakota was one of the first states in the US to approve casino gambling, becoming the third state to do so in 1989. Since then many other states have not only done the same they have outstripped South Dakota in the casino industry.
A recent poll was held to see if South Dakota residents would like to change their position in the national casino industry, and the results came as a blow to those who would see the state expand its casinos.
The poll, commissioned by the Argus Leader and KELO-TV, asked 800 voters if they want casino expansion, with sixty-three percent saying no.
Martin Velky, a casino expansion supporter, expressed one major reason the results were a disappointment: "Iowa is expanding gambling, and so are several other states in our area.
If voters do not realize the importance of bringing more casinos to South Dakota, the economy could get worse. The jobs and revenue new casinos would bring is essential in the state."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment