Here's how it goes.....we told ya so!

Lincoln, Rhode Island residents overwhelmingly OPPOSED 24/7/365 GAMBLING.
Guess what they got from the bankruptcy court?

Lost Local Control!

Anticipating Massachusetts Slot Barns, Twin River got table games.

During one of the Edumacational Forums conducted by the Massachusetts Gambling Commission [no longer available on their web site - the video seems to have disappeared], it was readily acknowledged that Plainridge [AKA Penn National] would return for table games, an expansion of Predatory Gambling.

During one of the early Gambling Hearing held on Beacon Hill in Gardner Auditorium, the public was told that the state becomes a partner in the success of Predatory Gambling, the state becomes addicted to the Gambling Revenues.




There will never be a limit.

RHODE ISLAND

Twin River wins approval for hotel

By Jennifer Bogdan

Journal State House Bureau
Posted Apr. 25, 2015 at 9:16 PM


PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Gov. Gina Raimondo has signed legislation clearing the path for Twin River to build a hotel at the state's only full-fledged casino.

State law prohibited a hotel from being built on the casino's sprawling Lincoln property in recognition of concerns once voiced by the Providence hotel industry, which feared competition.

But with the state facing imminent competition from Massachusetts casinos, elected officials favored lifting the restriction. Massachusetts' first gambling facility — a slots parlor in Plainville — will open in June just 12 miles from Twin River.

"As our neighboring states look to draw revenue and economic development away from Rhode Island, we need to examine every possible way to remain competitive and create more economic opportunities here in Rhode Island," Raimondo said in a statement.

Twin River Management Group will now vet the site plan with officials in Lincoln.

"We're grateful for the support we receive from the legislature and governor in lifting the prohibition on a hotel at Twin River," casino spokeswoman Patti Doyle said.

Twin River officials have said the hotel will be built in the style of a Courtyard Marriott or a Hampton Inn. The four-story hotel will have 150 to 250 rooms and cost $30 million to $35 million to construct.

The project is expected to create roughly 200 temporary construction jobs and 100 full-time jobs for employees needed to operate the hotel.

The House legislation was sponsored by Rep. Jeremiah T. O'Grady, D-Lincoln. The Senate bill was sponsored by Majority Whip Maryellen Goodwin, D-Providence. There was no substantive difference in the bills signed into law aside from sponsorship.

Twin River officials have said the hotel is not intended to draw in gambling from a larger radius. Instead, officials have said the focus remains on retaining "convenience gamblers" within the surrounding area who might be tempted to cross the Massachusetts border.

Casino officials have said they will not seek any tax breaks or concessions for the project.

Twin River and Newport Grand, the sources of a large share of state revenue, are under threat from gambling expansion in Massachusetts. Plainridge Park Casino — with 1,250 slot machines — will open this summer just 12 miles northeast of Twin River in the Massachusetts town of Plainville. In 2017, three resort casinos — with table games, hotel rooms, shops and other amenities are scheduled to begin opening across the the Bay State.

That competition — possibly joined by a tribal-run casino in Taunton — will drain millions of dollars in revenue from Twin River and Newport Grand.

The Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, citing a recent analysis conducted for the Chafee administration by Christiansen Capital Advisors, forecasts a 13.8-percent decline in the state’s video-gambling revenue in 2016, and as much as 40 percent in later years.

“A hotel would complement table games and help Twin River to differentiate itself from the Plainridge casino,” said Alex Bumazhny, a Fitch Ratings financial analyst. “It could soften the blow from the new competition in Massachusetts but not offset it entirely.”


http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20150425/NEWS/150429507/101193/NEWS0301

Casinos suck life out of communities

Casinos suck life out of communities

This November a referendum will appear on the New York state ballot proposing a change to the state constitution which would drastically increase casino gambling across the state. Local communities would have little voice in whether a casino is established in their area or not.

This referendum should be voted down for many reasons but a primary reason is the misconception that casinos attract new customers to the existing local businesses. The truth is that casinos actually suck the life out of the local shops and restaurants in the surrounding towns. This is because casino operators are interested keeping gamblers and potential gamblers on their premises so they provide on-site restaurants, clothing boutiques, gift shops, hair and nail salons and hotel rooms. Local stores and restaurants are not only forced to compete against these shops but they must also compete against the mega-dollars the gambling industry invests in advertising the casino and the "full casino experience."

The local business owners in towns all across New York state work hard to deliver quality products and services. They are a critical part of any local economy. The establishment of a casino culture would not only dramatically increase the financial challenges small businesses must face but could also destroy the charm and uniqueness of our smaller towns.

To support real economic stability for our local communities and businesses, vote “NO” on the constitutional referendum that would increase casino gambling across New York state.

Joyce Hunt
Bearsville


http://auburnpub.com/news/opinion/mailbag/casinos-suck-life-out-of-communities/article_20584a62-7f9e-5346-a165-7a4de457dff1.html

Twin River gets OK for more live table games after less than 3 months

Twin River gets OK for more live table games after less than 3 months
Published: September 09, 2013 Bob Thayer/The Providence Journal

Bob Thayer/The Providence Journal

A roulette table at Twin River in Lincoln. The casino has won state Lottery approval to increase the number of live table games.

By Katherine Gregg
Providence Journal
Published: September 09 2013 11:30

PROVIDENCE — Twin River Casino has won state Lottery approval to increase the number of live table games at the sprawling electronic slot parlor that morphed in mid-June into a full-blown casino.

A spokeswoman confirmed Monday that the Lincoln casino has been granted permission by state Lottery Director Gerald Aubin to up the number of Las Vegas-style betting games — such as blackjack and roulette — from 66 to 80. The permission was granted on Friday.

Twin River’s owners spent roughly $7 million to renovate the gambling hall to accommodate the live gambling action, after winning voter approval last November. They also hired approximately 400 more workers to oversee the expanded operation that opened on June 19.

In an email advising lawmakers of the decision to allow more table games, the state’s director of revenue, Rosemary Booth Gallogly, said: “This proposal can be accomplished with the existing footprint of the building without reducing the number of VLTs.”

VLT is the acronym for the 4,538 electronic gambling machines — also known as Video Lottery Terminals — placed at Twin River by the state Lottery, under terms where the state keeps roughly 61 cents of every dollar a gambler left behind.

The state’s share of the table game action is only 18 percent, and Twin River had dropped the number of VLTs from 4,752 in January to the current 4,538. The casino nonetheless predicted the new games would generate $16 million to $20 million in additional revenue annually for the state, including “companion play” on the VLTs. The state’s own projections for this year are more conservative.

August numbers are not yet available. But in July, the state’s share of the gambling bounty went up.

In that one month, July, the state reaped $24,891,666 from the VLTs and $1,078,879 from the table games, compared with $24,722,239 from the VLTs alone in July 2012, according to the Lottery.

“There will be approximately 100 low-performing VLTs taken offline during the construction period,” with no significant financial impact, Gallogly wrote key lawmakers.

“Construction in the Table Game area and in the High Roller room will be done simultaneously, with an estimated completion date around Thanksgiving. At that time, 100 high-denomination VLTs will be added to the High Roller room.”

And “since it will not result in fewer VLTs over the long term, and serves to satisfy a demand presented by these new gaming patrons, I support the request as a defensive measure against competition,” she wrote.

A number of questions have yet to be answered by Twin River and the state Lottery, including a breakdown of the kind of games that Twin River intends to install, and the impact, if any, on the casino’s staffing needs.

But in response to a Providence Journal inquiry, Twin River spokeswoman Patti Doyle said: “We received approval on Friday to increase the number of table games from 66 to 80. The request was borne out [by] the fact that the table games have exceeded our expectations in many respects.

“Twin River chairman John E. Taylor, Jr. has said in the past that the market would largely dictate any expansion plans and that was certainly the case here,” Doyle said. “Twin River is planning to announce later this week the plan and timetable for bringing on line the additional games.”
In the era before voters approved a separation-of-powers amendment to the state Constitution, Lottery decisions such as this were discussed and approved at the public meetings of a Lottery Commission made up of both legislative and executive appointees. Since the dismantling of this and other state boards, decisions are made internally, without public discussion or debate.

Aubin was not immediately available for comment. But when asked, Doyle confirmed Twin River’s request was made to the Lottery on Aug. 19.

State sponsored gambling is the third largest source of state revenue, behind sales and income taxes.

The Lottery is expected to contribute a total of $394.1 million to the state treasury during the budget year that began on July 1.

That includes $63 million from traditional Lottery games such as scratch tickets, Keno and other numbers games such as Powerball and Mega Millions, and a total of $324.6 million from the VLTs at Twin River ($298.2) and the smaller Newport Grand ($26.4 million).

The top financial advisers to the House, Senate and governor are betting that the new table games will produce $60 million in net new revenue at Twin River. The state’s 18-percent share would total $10.8 million, but after the $4.3 million estimated cost of regulation is deducted, they expect, the state will net $6.5 million.

House Finance Committee Chairman Helio Melo, who has been watching the monthly revenue numbers closely, issued this statement on Monday in response to an inquiry about the approval of more table games:

“I am pleased to learn that the table games have been so successful, particularly in light of the impending competition coming from Massachusetts. It is also very significant that the Lottery Division is ensuring there will be no negative impact to the VLTs, which are an important revenue source to our state of Rhode Island.”

10 DAYS TO THE PLAINVILLE SLOTS REFERENDUM!

10 DAYS TO THE PLAINVILLE SLOTS REFERENDUM!
Reason #10 to VOTE NO SLOTS: Unless Plainville votes NO on September 10th, we will be bound by a Host Community Agreement (HCA) that allows the developer to EXPAND the slot parlor without another town vote; expanding the number of slot machines and adding table games would already be approved for Plainridge if we don't defeat the referendum now.
The voters need to be fully aware of what we are voting on: according to the Host Community Agreement, we are voting to approve a full, unlimited slots racino. Should the state amend the law to allow table games — something that has already been discussed at early MA Gaming Commission meetings — Plainville residents will NOT have the chance to vote against more machines or table games.

The state will almost certainly authorize an expansion very shortly after the facility opens. The facility will not be able to compete effectively with Twin Rivers, Foxwoods, and Mohegan Sun casinos without table games. It's a trend that's happening all of the country.

Also, as the Commonwealth begins to rely on the increased tax revenue, it will see Plainridge as a place that has the capability to expand, thereby providing more revenue. There will be no thought given to what expansion will do to our town, nor will there be ANY way for the residents to fight it.

When you go to the polls on September 10th, keep in mind that the town is actually voting to authorize a full, unlimited racetrack casino with the soon-to-be-realized addition of tables. This is so much bigger than the 1,250 slot machine racino that is being sold to the town.

VOTE NO SLOTS on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10th.
The polls are open 7am to 8pm.

COME TO OUR FORUM
Sunday, September 8th, 4pm at the Senior Center

Please get the word out to your neighbors and friends by sharing our Countdown of Reasons to VOTE NO.

To volunteer, or for more information, email info@noplainvilleracino.com.

R.I.: Racing to the Bottom

It is known that the sole SLOT BARN license issued in Massachusetts will expand to include table games in order to 'compete.'

Host community residents voted overwhelmingly to OPPOSE 24/4 gambling.
Local control was surrendered in bankruptcy court.

Casino games beginning at RI's Twin River

By DAVID KLEPPER / Associated Press / June 18, 2013

 

LINCOLN, R.I. (AP) — Rhode Island’s bet on expanded gambling starts Wednesday as Twin River Casino begins offering blackjack, roulette and craps in a move to get a head start on neighboring Massachusetts.

 

The Lincoln casino plans to host a ribbon cutting before the action starts at 65 new tables offering Las Vegas-style games. Twin River won voter approval last fall to expand from a slot parlor into a full-fledged casino.

 

Supporters argued the new games were needed to protect the state’s share of gambling revenue from competition from Massachusetts, where casinos have been authorized but not yet built.

 

Following last fall’s referendum, Twin River renovated space for the new tables, hired and trained 400 new employees and passed a long list of state inspections required before the first hand could be dealt. Two ‘‘soft-opening’’ trial runs were held Friday and Monday. Several hundred players participated.

 

‘‘We want to deliver a great customer-player experience that people want to come back to,’’ Twin River chairman John Taylor said Tuesday, while giving The Associated Press a tour of the new casino space. ‘‘That’s what’s going to differentiate us. We have the location, we have the product.’’

 

The space set aside for table games blends easily into the sprawling gambling facility. Most of Twin River will remain devoted to slot machines. While a few hundred were moved out to make way for blackjack and craps tables, the facility still has more than 4,500.

 

If the state’s gamble works, it will be because it retains people like Robert Opalenik, who came to Twin River with his brother Mike on Tuesday. The Massachusetts man said he visits Twin River occasionally to try his hand with the slots and said he'll return to try out the table games — even after casinos open up in Massachusetts.

 

‘‘It'll be a good thing,’’ he said. ‘‘I think it makes sense. It’s less than an hour away.’’

 

The Newport Grand slot parlor had also sought permission for table games, and while voters statewide supported the idea in last fall’s election, local voters balked. Casino referendums must pass statewide and in a facility’s host community to be approved.

 

Supporters of the expansion had argued that a failure to offer casino games to compete with new casinos in Massachusetts could undermine the state’s financial stability.

 

Twin River and Newport Grand contribute about $300 million a year to state coffers.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/06/18/casino-games-begin-twin-river/JurmifUXMyg786TpB8bBYM/story.html

 

 

Markey: Opening the Floodgates

With local approval, there is nothing that prevents tribes from providing economic opportunity, but that isn't what this is about.

This is about legalizing Predatory Gambling by removing local control.

Federally recognized Tribes receive taxpayer-funded subsidies with no oversight, some is clearly misspent and fails to appropriately aid tribal members. Both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have continued to receive taxpayers' largess, even when Tribal Casinos were immensely profitable. Was it reasonable to subsidize Tribes that pay each adult member + $100,000 tax-free per year?

Massachusetts currently has 2 federally recognized Tribes, with other Tribes awaiting approval.

Any Carcieri Fix would remove state and local control and it would seem that much work is needed to convince the Massachusetts delegation that this is not an appropriate solution.

Recently, during a meeting with Congressman Kennedy, he indicated his support for a Carcieri Fix.

This outdated article offers the positions of some --

The issue has split the Democrats who are in charge of both the House and the Senate, including those in the Massa­chusetts delegation. Sen. John Kerry and Reps. Stephen Lynch of South Boston, Michael Capuano of Somerville, John Olver of Amherst, and Bill Delahunt of Quincy, who is retiring, favor the change. Delahunt’s district, which includes the South Shore and Cape Cod and the Islands, is the home base of both of the tribes.

[As we know, Delahunt is currently lobbyist for the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.]

Proponents like Lynch say it’s only fair to treat all Indian tribes the same. The court decision, he says, was a “slap in the face” to American Indians, threatening “tribal sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and self-determination.”

But Rep. Barney Frank of Newton, whose district would be home to both of the proposed Indian casinos in Fall River, opposes the so-called Carcieri fix because it would potentially allow tribes to open gambling facilities on trust land even if local officials opposed them. He insists that decisions on gambling should be made at the state and local level, not by the federal government in cooperation with the tribes. He nevertheless supports the Massa­chu­setts tribes’ efforts to acquire reservation land in Fall River for a casino because the local community strongly supports the effort.

http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/Departments/Washington-Notebook/2010/Fall/Tribes-lobby-for-reservation-land.aspx

Please contact Ed Markey, as well as your Congressman to oppose this legislation.

....includes language which would overrule the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Carcieri vs. Salazar, and permit newly recognized Indian Tribes to take land-in-trust, thereby removing it from state and local control.

If this bill receives Congressional approval, it will drastically affect communities across the United States. Urge the members of your congressional delegation to take whatever action is required to remove this pending bill. #666.

REMOVE THIS BILL FROM THE house resource committee now #666. Sponsored by Ed Markey from Massachusetts!

Markey--

Call 202-225-2836

Fax 202-224-0092

30 states (*including RI) are opposed to a Carcieri fix.

17 states wrote an amicus brief supporting the case, They are:

Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.

17 states’ attorneys general wrote a letter supporting the Supreme Court after the Carcieri opinion was released.

The 11 additional states that support the decision are:

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

Markey's bill could help Mashpee casino plan

By Gerry Tuoti

Taunton Gazette Staff Reporter

Posted Mar 08, 2013

Associated Press | Elise Amendola

U.S. Senate hopeful Edward Markey shakes hands with 

supporters outside the Statehouse in Boston on Monday.

TAUNTON —

As the Massachusetts Gaming Commission continues to evaluate whether to open southeastern Massachusetts to commercial casino applicants, a piece of federal legislation could be the latest card on the table.

Congressman Edward Markey, D-Mass., has sponsored a bill — H.R. 666 — that would eliminate questions surrounding the federal government’s ability to take land in trust for American Indian tribes such as the Mashpee Wampanoag, who are working to build a casino on land in East Taunton.

“This legislation has been the priority for Indian tribes since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2009,” Markey said in a statement his office provided to the Taunton Daily Gazette. “As the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee that has responsibility for Native American issues, I’ve supported legislation to correct the flawed ruling, which held that the Secretary of the Interior may only take land into trust for Indian tribes under federal jurisdiction as of 1934.”

The Mashpee, who didn’t receive federal recognition until 2007, currently have no reservation land, but hope to establish an initial reservation through a land-in-trust application that’s pending with the Department of the Interior. The tribe cannot open a tribal casino without possessing sovereign land.

In the 2009 Carcieri v. Salazar decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the language contained in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 means that the federal government cannot take land in trust for tribes that were not under federal jurisdiction at the time of the act.

“Tribes, like (the) Mashpee that were federally recognized well after 1934, are therefore significantly impacted by the decision and efforts to establish their reservation and create a homeland for their citizens are jeopardized,” said Markey, who is running in the special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry. “I co-sponsored legislation in the last congress and have reintroduced it with my colleagues in the beginning of this congress.”

The Mashpee have argued that they were under federal jurisdiction long before 1934, even though they weren’t formally recognized.

“While we are confident that the Department of the Interior has the legal authority to take land into trust on our behalf, a clean Carcieri fix would help clear up the confusion caused by the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision and would spur economic development across Indian Country,” Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell said in a statement.

Others, however, have questioned the tribe’s ability to establish a reservation.

Under the 2011 state law that legalized casino gambling, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission can only solicit applications for a commercial casino in the southeastern region of the state if it determines the Mashpee are unlikely to meet the requirements to open a tribal casino under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Government official have said the intent of that provision was to ensure that there won’t be more than three casinos statewide.

The Massachusetts law authorizes no more than one commercial casino in each of three regions of the state, but southeastern Massachusetts is the only region that’s home to a federally recognized American Indian tribe. Under federal law, any eligible American Indian tribe can open a casino on its own sovereign land in a state in which casino gambling is legal.

The Gaming Commission has discussed whether to open southeastern Massachusetts to commercial casino applicants, but decided to delay a decision. The commission, however, is poised to revisit the discussion at a March 21 meeting at Bristol Community College in Fall River.

H.R. 666 isn’t the first legislative attempt to amend the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to “fix” the Carcieri decision. In 2011, former Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., who has since retired, filed a virtually identical bill, which Markey co-sponsored. Markey has since succeeded Kildee as ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Kildee’s bill was filed approximately seven months before Massachusetts approved expanded gambling, and more than a year before Taunton passed a local referendum supporting the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe’s casino plan.

Markey’s bill was introduced Feb. 13, then sent to the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs on Feb. 22.

“The people of Massachusetts have rendered their verdict on gaming,” Markey said. “It is coming to our state. In light of that fact, I have supported the state developing a gaming compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag as a way to support revitalizing its tribal culture, providing fundamental health, housing and other government services to its people, and encouraging economic independence.”


Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x766878440/Markeys-bill-could-help-Mashpee-casino-plan#ixzz2N31vO4k5

Taunton: A Pittance

Wait until Taunton figures out what those Low Wage Jobs cost and how flawed the Agreement is.

Agreement between Mashpee Wampanoags, Taunton City Council would protect bingo if casino comes to town

By Gerry Tuoti

gtuoti@tauntongazette.com

Posted Feb 23, 2013

TAUNTON —

Although conventional wisdom may dictate that the prospect of a casino coming to town would hurt local churches and charitable organizations that bring in revenue through bingo games, those organizations could actually stand to see a modest increase in cash.

Under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement inked last year between the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Taunton City Council, the tribe would make payments to charitable bingo operations to offset a loss of revenue caused by a tribal casino, plus an extra 5 percent.

The arrangement calls for the tribe to pay each identified charity an annual sum that would bring each charity’s bingo revenue to 105 percent of its typical level.

The tribe added that provision to the intergovernmental agreement last spring after residents commenting at a public meeting raised concerns about the proposed casino’s potential impact on local bingo games, particularly at Our Lady of Lourdes School.

Under the arrangement, the city would present the tribe with a list of identified charities and accounting records to determine how much each charity brings in through bingo in a typical year. The tribe would then make annual payments to the charities to offset any loss in bingo revenue, bringing the charities’ total bingo revenue to 105 percent of their typical annual pre-casino take.

The charities must consistently run bingo games to be eligible under the terms of the agreement.
The Mashpee hope to build a $500 million resort casino on 146 acres in East Taunton. The proposal passed a citywide referendum last June, although many in that section of the city adamantly opposed the plan, raising concerns of negative impacts on safety, infrastructure and quality of life.

The amount the Mashpee would pay out to charitable bingo operations would be dwarfed by other payments the tribe would make to the city in exchange for agreeing to host the casino. The intergovernmental agreement, ratified last year by the Taunton City Council and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, calls for the tribe to pay Taunton approximately $33 million in upfront infrastructure mitigation funds and an additional annual payment of nearly $13 million. Included in the annual payment is 2.05 percent of slot machine revenue, or a minimum of $8 million.

The tribe is currently awaiting a decision from the Bureau of Indian Affairs as to whether the federal government will take land in trust for the tribe to establish a reservation for the purpose of building a casino.

The Mashpee say they are working with Gov. Deval Patrick to negotiate a new casino compact between the state and tribe. The BIA rejected a previously agreed upon compact on the grounds that its revenue sharing provision was unfair to the tribe.

Read more: http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x846061447/Agreement-between-Mashpee-Wampanoags-Taunton-City-Council-would-protect-bingo-if-casino-comes-to-town#ixzz2LvJWd5ZC

Uh, Oh, New York! 73% would vote NO!

Poll: Constitutional change for casinos presently in trouble

Posted on February 21, 2013 at 12:02 pm by James M. Odato in GAMBLING

 

About three quarters of people polled recently would vote “no” to change the state Constitution to allow for up to seven casinos based on the scant information and uncertain local control so far discussed by the state leaders, a new report said Thursday.

The Benenson Strategy Group did the poll for New Yorkers for Local Approval of Casinos, a group partly underwritten by the Oneida Indian Nation, operators of Turning Stone Casino in Verona.

Findings released by the group, which is comprised of local government activists and communications consultants, suggest that most people liked the idea of amending the Constitution as Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposes, but they want more information.

“Without local control, the amendment’s supporters are left with little path to victory. Even when their strongest argument is pitted directly against one for local approval, by an overwhelming margin voters agree that the governor can’t ask any New Yorker to vote for this amendment without guaranteeing them the right to vote to prevent casinos in their own communities if they don’t want them,” the group said. Poll results show:

-59% of likely voters agree that Albany shouldn’t expand gambling without communities being protected and given a vote in the process.

-33% agree with supporters who say this amendment “will boost tourism, create tens of thousands of jobs and provide a billion dollars in revenue to the state which will be invested in the surrounding community and schools across the state. A nonpartisan Gaming Commission will decide where casinos make the most sense, without local politics being injected into the process. We need to vote yes on this proposal so we stop losing out on the revenue and jobs going to other states.”

 

[Well, at least the majority know the facts!]

-After hearing the messaging from both sides, without disclosing the location of proposed casinos or guaranteeing local referendums on them, 73% say they would vote no, and only 21% say they would vote yes.

-30% of voters say they would be more likely to vote for the amendment and 37% say they would be less likely to vote for it if the locations of the new casinos would be decided upon by a nonpartisan state Gaming Commission (a Cuomo proposes.)

 

 

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/179202/poll-constitutional-change-for-casinos-presently-in-trouble/

Rhode Island's Race to the Bottom

The arguments are the same - straight from the Gambling Industry Playbook.

The tactics are identical - make political contributions.

Schmooze the Rotary and Chambers of Commerce, they'll never question.

Make sure you pretend this will create jobs, even if the estimates are overstated.

Make sure you don't tell them that Table Games are now automated - no employees required.

Never let them know that this isn't the end of Gambling Expansion.

Casinos Pour Millions into Table Games Question
Monday, October 29, 2012
Dan McGowan, GoLocalProv News Editor

Twin River and Newport Grand have now poured more than $4 million into the campaigns to convince Rhode Islanders to vote in favor of bringing table games such as blackjack, craps and roulette to the state’s two casinos on next week’s ballot, according to a review a campaign finance reports.

The majority of the $3,987,711 Twin River has spent has gone toward toward polling, advertising and consulting fees, spending $3,987,711. Twin River’s political action committee (PAC) had contributed $7,700 to more than 20 lawmakers, including every member of House and Senate leadership, since the beginning of the year, but the PAC hasn’t filed a campaign finance report since June.

Meanwhile, Newport Grand’s has spent $379,314, which has Providence public relations firm Duffy and Shanley running its campaign. The slot parlor has spent nearly $130,000 with Warwick-based PriMedia on newspaper and radio ads and at least $80,000 on direct mailings.

The spending is not unprecedented. In 2006, Las Vegas-based Harrah’s Entertainment spent more than $12 million in an attempt to open a casino in West Warwick, but voters overwhelmingly shot down the proposal.

In August, Twin River spokesperson Patti Doyle said the casino’s board chairman John Taylor has attended Rotary and Chamber of Commerce meetings from across the state, talking about the importance of approving the table game question in order to bring jobs to Rhode Island. She said the campaign was working on “building an online community via our website where you can register to volunteer, and via Facebook and Twitter.”

“The education campaign isn't just about the paid media,” Doyle said at the time. “We've spent the summer months employing a street team of college students to be visible with education materials at a host of community events throughout the state.”

Campaigns Promise Hundreds of Jobs

The two ballot referendums (questions 1 and 2) will need to be supported by the majority of voters statewide as well as the town of Lincoln (for Twin River) and Newport (for Newport Grand) in November. It is possible for only one of the referendums to earn support.

Both campaigns have touted the benefits of voting in favor of table games, with Twin River claiming it will create 650 new jobs while preserving 900 jobs. Newport Grand says voting to expand to table games will preserve 200 jobs and create 50 more while protecting the $30 million the casino contributes in taxes to the state annually.  

But with Massachusetts committed to building three resort-style casinos and a slot parlor over the next decade, supporters of full-fledged gaming say the state could face economic peril if the referendum fails.

Gambling related revenue is the state’s third-largest source of income, at more than $300 million each year and Twin River has provided the state with over $2.5 billion since 1992. A report issued earlier this year by the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) suggested that table games would benefit Rhode Island, but it also noted that the state will not be able to depend on gambling income as much once the casinos are built in the Bay State.

“The advent of casino gaming in the commonwealth of Massachusetts – under any scenario – will likely negatively impact both revenues for the casino operators in Rhode Island, and the state of Rhode Island itself,” the RIPEC report stated. “While it appears that the opening of casinos in Massachusetts may occur later than originally anticipated, they will open in the next few years, and that Twin River, Newport Grand and the state will all see revenues decline. Allowing Twin River and Newport Grand to operate table games will offset some of these projected revenue losses; however, it is also clear that the state can no longer rely on gaming revenues to support the same share of government services once casinos open in Massachusetts.”

Opponents Line Up

Still, not everyone is convinced table games are the answer for Rhode Island. In Lincoln, District 17 State Senate candidate John Cullen, a Democrat, is urging voters to oppose the plan, claiming the town may now receive acut from table games.

“What's good about zero percent for Lincoln,” Cullen wrote in an op-ed earlier this year. “The bankers and the [General Assembly have a seat at the table games, while Lincoln and Newport get thrown under the table! This time Lincoln's no casino vote will get us a seat at the table!”

Cullen is joined by former Lincoln Town Council President Dean Lees Jr. in opposition to the proposal. Both men argue that the town will not benefit from table games.

“It is important for Lincoln’s voters not to be intimidated,” Lees Jr. said earlier this year. “For years, state and local officials have said that we may lose revenue to other states and that we need to compete. With Foxwoods facing an over 2.3 billion dollar deficit, Mohegan Sun laying off 346 employees and Vegas Casinos in the red, these only show me that gambling is not the answer to compete with other states, nor to put false hopes on increasing our revenues to manage our ever-failing economy.”

http://www.golocalprov.com/news/casino3/

The Community Voted NO!

From: Stop the Casino 101 Coalition:

AFTER????

This is only a portion of the entire casino-Click Pic for More

Tribal casino to pay at least $9 million a year to Sonoma County

Graton Rancheria could pay up to $38 million more in deal to offset Rohnert Park casino impacts

By JEREMY HAY
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
10/20/2012

Published: Saturday, October 20, 2012

The tribe building a casino in Rohnert Park has agreed to pay at least $9 million annually to Sonoma County to offset the impacts of the project, plus up to $38 million more a year if its revenues hit projections.

Facts

TRIBAL PAYMENTS TO SONOMA COUNTY

Under an agreement that Sonoma County supervisors are to take up on Tuesday, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria would make a series of payments to the county, including:

ANNUAL PAYMENTS
$3.1 million for law, justice, public safety and tribal relations.
$2 million to the Sonoma
County Transportation Authority to complete work on the Marin-Sonoma Narrows project on Highway 101. After the 10th year, or following completion of that project, the tribe would pay $2 million annually to fund projects on 101 between Highway 12 and the Sonoma- Marin County line or other arterial roads serving casino.
$1.79 million to be paid as development and mitigation fee programs. The payment is equivalent to what a commercial developer would pay in order to obtain a permit.
$1 million to fire districts.
$700,000 to be paid in lieu of county transient occupancy tax once a planned hotel opens.
$600,000 for education, prevention and treatment programs to address gambling addiction and problems associated with substance abuse, mental illness, elder abuse, domestic violence and child abuse and neglect.
$500,000 to mitigate the impacts on local roads within a two-mile radius of the casino.
$416,918 to mitigate crime impacts. Santa Rosa will receive $286,923; Petaluma, $102,591; Sebastopol, $14,596; Cotati, $12,808.
$275,000 for a water conservation program.

ONE-TIME PAYMENTS
The tribe's proposed one-time payments to the county include:
$1.7 million to hire and train four new sheriff's deputies and purchase two new sheriff's vehicles.
$1.5 million for fire and emergency services.
$1.5 million for measures to offset the project's groundwater use.
$370,000 for traffic improvements near the casino.
$60,000 for "tribal relations."

The payments from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, some of which would start this year, are nearly four times what the county previously estimated it would get.

And they are separate from those laid out in a 2003 agreement between the tribe and Rohnert Park, under which the tribe is to pay the city about $200 million over 20 years.

“Without a doubt, I think it's the best agreement that's ever happened between a tribe and a local government,” said Shirlee Zane, chairwoman of the county Board of Supervisors. She lauded the tribe for its participation.

“I think they've set a good role model for other tribal agreements in the future,” she said. “The tribe has been continually trying to put their best foot forward in terms of negotiating and really giving back to the community.”

The county in 2008 concluded that although it opposed the casino, it could not stop it, and reached a deal with the tribe to negotiate payments to address its impacts. Those negotiations led to the agreement announced Friday.

The casino, with a maximum of 3,000 slot machines, is projected to open next year. The tribe secured $850 million in financing in August.

Of the money the county would get, Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Sebastopol and Cotati would share $416,000 a year for law enforcement, and county fire districts would split $1 million.

Page 2 of 4

Also the tribe is to make one-time payments totaling $5.1 million, mainly to address costs associated with public safety, traffic improvements and measures aimed at addressing the casino's anticipated impact on groundwater supplies.

An initial payment of $3.52 million is expected to come in January to cover public safety costs, including the hiring of four new sheriff's deputies.

The agreement extends for 20 years, the term of the gambling compact between the state and Graton Rancheria that allows the tribe to operate a Las Vegas-style casino. That compact required the tribe to sign agreements with the county and Rohnert Park before opening the casino.

Work on the project started in June and its steel framework began rising on 66 acres last week.

The board is to vote on the agreement Tuesday. Zane wouldn't predict the outcome of that vote, but she said the agreement, reached after 3½ months of negotiations, achieved everything the county wanted and more.

“This agreement has met, I believe, every single concern that we've put forward in terms of mitigation,” she said.

“In addition to that, there are community benefit dollars that will come back to the county for mutual interests,” she said, referring to money that the tribe would give the county, primarily for open space projects, if it has money left over after its payments to the state, county and Rohnert Park.

In practice, the tribe is to pay, for the first seven years of operation, 15 percent of its net earnings from gambling to the state into a Graton Mitigation Fund. After seven years, that drops to 12 percent. The state then distributes that fund to Rohnert Park and the county.

Page 3 of 4

In April, the state and tribe projected those earnings, known as net win, as $350 million in the casino's first year, rising to $418 million in its seventh year.

Neither the tribe nor its attorney responded Friday to requests for comment. Nor did opponents of the casino, who are still fighting it in court.

The agreement includes language allowing the county and tribe to reopen negotiations if impacts are found to be greater than projected, something supervisors had pushed for.

“There might be unforeseen issues that come up outside the scope of the agreement, the tribe may want to do something, or the county may recognize something that we want to address, and there's a mechanism to do that,” said Supervisor David Rabbitt, whose 2nd District includes the 254-acre Wilfred Avenue casino site just south of Home Depot.

Over and above the $9 million a year the county is guaranteed, the agreement stipulates that once the tribe meets its financial obligations to Rohnert Park and the state, it will begin paying the county more.

It would give up to $25 million a year to county parks and the county's Open Space District. The money could not be used to buy more land. It would go to create public access to parks and open space, conserve and protect environmental resources, develop organic gardens and farms serving “disadvantaged” people and enhance understanding of local Native American tribes.

Should that $25 million be paid in full, additional monies would go first to other environmental projects and then to the county's Indian Health Project and other Sonoma County tribes that do not run gambling operations.

Page 4 of 4

Asked whether the casino, which has been one of the most controversial projects ever in the region and is still bitterly resented by many, might prove to be a net win for the county, Rabbitt said: “I think that the proof's really in the pudding going forward, and we'll see.”

“My hope is that it will be seen as a positive,” he said. “My hope is that the majority of people will visit the casino in a bus, leave their money here and go home.”



http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20121020/COMMUNITY/121029996/1362/community?p=4&tc=pg

The Future is Always Expansion

Watch closely! This will happen in Massachusetts. 

Remember when a Slot Barn was going to preserve racing? 

The Bankruptcy Court nixed that! 

The Host Community overwhelmingly opposed 24/7/365 Gambling. 

The Bankruptcy Court nixed that. 

Lost Local Control! 

And now? Let's EXPAND! Let's pretend this is about jobs and ignore that table games are being automated.  

If you listened to the Massachusetts Gambling Commission, you would have clearly heard the plans for future expansion. 

R.I. Senate President Paiva Weed endorses casino gambling at Twin River, Newport Grand

October 11, 2012

By Katherine Gregg

NEWPORT, R.I. - Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed has reversed her long-held opposition to casino gambling in her home city of Newport, and endorsed the drives by the Newport Grand and Twin River video-slot parlors to offer live casino-style table games such as blackjack.

The proposals are on the November 6 ballot.

She said: "Increased competition from casinos in Massachusetts will have a serious impact on jobs and revenue from Newport Grand and Twin River. A study commissioned by the state has shown that adding table games at the facilities could help to mitigate the loss in revenue.''

She said passage of the referenda will preserve and create jobs

"For these reasons, and after much reflection and discussion with constituents, I have chosen to support the referenda allowing for table games at Newport Grand and Twin River."

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/10/paiva-weed-endorses-casino-gambling-at-twin-river-newport-grand.html

More Woes for Casino

There are important similarities between the Cowlitz Tribe and the Mashpee Wampanoag/Genting proposal in Massachusetts.

The Mashpee Wampanoag/Genting proposal ignores the Tribe's lack of historical ties to Taunton, as well as their recent recognition, among other things.

The BIA's failures destroyed that fantasy.

In Our View: More Woes for Casino

Federal judge imposes deadline as Cowlitz Tribe and BIA lose momentum

 

Fortunately for Clark County residents who want to maintain the community's high quality of life, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's proposal for a mega-casino near La Center has encountered yet another obstacle, this one placed by the federal agency that tribal officials have long hoped would champion their cause.As we've learned recently, the Bureau of Indian Affairs either lost or never reviewed important historical documents provided by casino opponents. That led the Justice Department to seek a delay in the federal proceedings.

But U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts recently denied that request and — to make matters worse for casino hopefuls and BIA official — set an Oct. 5 deadline for making a difficult choice:

The federal government must decide if it will defend itself in court or rescind the BIA's 2010 decision that supported the casino proposal, which lacked the crucial information from casino foes. Clearly, the BIA and tribal officials are backed into a corner by the federal agency's blunder, and the lingering reality that casino opponents are making a compelling case.

A year and a half ago The Columbian applauded the decision by several casino foes to appeal the BIA ruling to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Those parties included Clark County, the city of Vancouver, owners of property near the proposed casino site on Interstate 5, La Center cardrooms and Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS).

And now, that appeal reveals itself to be eminently valid. (Among CARS members is Columbian Publisher Scott Campbell. The newspaper has long opposed the proposed casino because it would negatively impact the local quality of life).

How the BIA could've lost or ignored key data provided by casino foes is a question that must be answered after close scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department. For now, the second in a double whammy has been delivered to casino supporters.

The first haymaker was thrown by the worst recession in seven decades. Few visible efforts have been made by casino proponents in the past few years, no surprise considering the financial hole that all of America has been digging itself out of.

The second severe setback was this recent confusion and legal desperation within the BIA. According to a Thursday Columbian story by Stephanie Rice, some of the overlooked documents dispute tribal claims that the Cowlitz have historical ties to the land near La Center. That tribal argument was countered years ago, as revealed by these assertions we presented in a 2007 editorial: "Tribal headquarters are in Longview (Cowlitz County), a housing center is farther north in Toledo (Lewis County) and ample historical evidence" places the tribal homeland to the north of Clark County.

Another matter of dispute pertains to federal recognition. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the federal government can only put land into trust for tribes that were under federal jurisdiction in 1934. But the Cowlitz tribe was federally recognized in 2000.

Thus, we see the Cowlitz casino proposal sinking deeper into a regulatory abyss from which it might never escape. And that's good for Clark County.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/sep/14/more-woes-for-casino/

Wednesday, Sep. 05, 2012

Remote Yuba County site presents challenges for casino proponents

Wednesday, Sep. 05, 2012
By Dale Kasler
The Sacramento Bee

A new Indian casino in Yuba County, approved last week by Gov. Jerry Brown, could shake up Northern California's increasingly crowded casino landscape.

There's no guarantee it will rake in riches, however.

Even if the Enterprise Rancheria can overcome potential legal and political hurdles and get the facility opened, the tribe could find it tough competing against the region's dominant casino, Thunder Valley near Lincoln.

A new Indian casino in Yuba County was approved last week by Gov. Jerry Brown. The new casino backers hope to draw crowds like this."

The proposed casino would be located near the 12-year-old Sleep Train Amphitheatre, which has struggled mightily to draw concert crowds from the Sacramento area.

Bill Eadington, a gambling industry expert at the University of Nevada, Reno, said a casino in that spot "is going to draw more than the amphitheater" and would be a "decent revenue generator." But he said a relatively remote site isn't ideal for a casino, particularly one that would have to draw customers away from Thunder Valley.

"Location is such a critical factor," he said.

To get to the new venue south of Marysville, many patrons would have to drive within a mile or so of Thunder Valley on Highway 65.

Ken Adams, a gambling consultant in Reno, said the struggles of Red Hawk Casino in Shingle Springs show that it can be extremely risky to build a casino in a location that's considered too far removed from a metro population.

Red Hawk has performed well below expectations and is generating just minimal profit for its owner, the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

Another issue is the sheer number of competitors. From Cache Creek to Jackson Rancheria, greater Sacramento already has four major casinos. A tribe is planning an $850 million casino near Rohnert Park, which could draw Bay Area patrons who normally visit the Sacramento area venues.

"It's getting more and more crowded," Eadington said. "We're seeing increasing competition among the tribes."

The Yuba County project got a major approval Friday. Brown signed a compact with the tribe, giving it the right to build a casino on the Yuba County site with up to 2,000 slot machines. He signed a similar compact with the North Fork Rancheria near Fresno.

The decision was controversial because both casinos would be miles from the tribes' land. The Yuba County location is 35 miles from the Enterprise tribal office in Oroville, although it does have historic connections to the tribe. The site was approved by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Opponents vowed to fight the proposal in the Legislature, which must ratify the compacts.

In the Legislature, "the tribes have a voice," said Thunder Valley spokesman Doug Elmets. "The compact will run into a buzz saw."

Thunder Valley and other opponents say Brown's decision would open the floodgates for tribal casinos in the heart of urban areas.

If the Legislature doesn't block the Yuba casino, Elmets predicted lawsuits "that will tie this up for years." He refused to speculate on what business impact the casino would have on Thunder Valley.

The Enterprise tribe says on its website the casino would pump $281 million a year into the area economy. Yuba County Supervisor Mary Jane Griego told the Marysville Appeal-Democrat that the casino would be a huge job generator.

"This is a project like any large corporation coming here," she said last week.

The project isn't universally popular around Yuba County, however. County voters rejected the project in a nonbinding 2005 vote.

The casino would be built on a 40-acre parcel owned by Gerald Forsythe, a developer and auto-racing tycoon from Illinois who once tried to build a racetrack there.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/09/05/2358264/remote-yuba-county-site-presents.html#storylink=cpy

Allowing casinos is just plain wrong

Tuesday, Sep. 04, 2012

Published Tue, Sep 04, 2012 12:40 AMModified Tue, Sep 04, 2012 12:45 AOur View: Allowing casinos is just plain wrong
Merced-SunStar

Gov. Jerry Brown waited until Friday's deadline to announce his support for two controversial off-reservation casinos that are likely to usher in a troubling new Indian gambling boom in California.
It's unfortunate that Brown blessed these two bad deals initially approved by the Obama administration's Interior Department.

The first allows the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to build a casino along Highway 99 in Madera County, 40 miles from the existing reservation near Yosemite.  The second allows the Enterprise Rancheria of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe to build its casino near Oroville, 50 miles from its historic tribal lands. The governor approved that casino even though residents of Yuba County signaled decisively in a 2005 advisory vote that they did not want it.
Both casinos were opposed by established gambling tribes, who argue they will not generate new revenues but take profits from existing casinos. The most troubling aspect of Brown's decision is that it adds pressure to approve off-reservation casinos for other tribes.

When voters approved Proposition 1A a dozen years ago, they were promised gambling would be contained on existing Indian lands and that the expansion authorized by the initiative would be modest.

That's turned out to be a lie.

Today, California has more than 60 Indian casinos, some of them quite massive. Gambling tribes rake in close to $7 billion annually, more profits than tribes in any other state in the nation.

Some formerly impoverished tribes -- some with fewer than 10 members -- have become wealthy as a result, but most Indians in California remain mired in poverty. The gambling boom has led to rifts within tribes, with some members seeking to disenroll other tribal members.

In the news release announcing his decision, Brown predicted the casinos would bring hundreds of jobs to depressed areas of the state. In the current economic environment, the impulse to approve any business venture that promises jobs is understandable. But the price the state pays in the expansion of gambling makes these ventures precarious. Whether Indian casinos or the state lottery, gambling preys on those least able to afford it. Many economists argue that gambling just moves money from existing enterprises.

Moreover, tribal sovereignty places casinos outside the normal rules that govern non-Indian businesses. Local governments lose their land use planning authority. Indian tribal enterprises don't pay taxes like the local bookstore or movie house. They are not subject to the same zoning restrictions or environmental regulations.

The governor has negotiated compacts with both tribal governments that he says will protect patrons and the environment and require programs to mitigate negative impacts and address gambling addiction.
 There's reason to be skeptical. Recent history has shown that even when revenue sharing deals are cut with Indian tribes, they can and have been invalidated by the courts. Beyond all that, is gambling really the best way to grow California's economy? http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/09/04/2514117/our-view-allowing-casinos-is-just.html  

Read more here: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/09/04/2514117/our-view-allowing-casinos-is-just.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/09/04/2514117/our-view-allowing-casinos-is-just.html#storylink=cpy

California's Broken Promises

Editorial: Brown places a poor bet on two new tribal casinos

By the Editorial Board

By the Editorial Board

Last modified: 2012-09-01T03:36:53Z

Published: Sunday, Sep. 2, 2012

Copyright 2012 . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Gov. Jerry Brown waited until Friday's deadline to announce his support for two controversial off-reservation casinos that are likely to usher in a troubling new Indian gambling boom in California.

It's unfortunate that Brown blessed these two bad deals initially approved by the Obama administration's Interior Department. The first allows the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to build a casino along Highway 99 in Madera County, 40 miles from their existing reservation near Yosemite. The second allows the Enterprise Rancheria of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe to build its casino near Oroville, 50 miles from its historic tribal lands. The governor approved that casino even though residents of Yuba County signaled in a 2005 advisory vote that they did not want it.

Both casinos were opposed by established gambling tribes, who argue they will not generate new revenue but take profits from existing casinos. The most troubling aspect of Brown's decision is that it adds pressure to approve off- reservation casinos for other tribes.

When voters approved Proposition 1A a dozen years ago, they were promised gambling would be contained on existing Indian lands and that the expansion authorized by the initiative would be modest.

That's turned out to be a lie. Today, California has more than 60 Indian casinos, some of them quite massive. Gambling tribes rake in close to $7 billion annually, more gamblng revenue than in any other state in the nation.

Some formerly impoverished tribes have become wealthy as a result, but most Indians in California remain mired in poverty. The gambling boom has also led to rifts within tribes, with some members seeking to disenroll other tribal members.

In the press release announcing his decision, Brown predicted the casinos would bring hundreds of jobs to depressed areas of the state. In the current economic environment, the impulse to approve any business venture that promises jobs is understandable. But the price the state pays in the expansion of gambling makes these ventures precarious. Whether Indian casinos or the state lottery, gambling preys on those least able to afford it. Many economists argue that gambling just moves money from existing enterprises.

Moreover, tribal sovereignty places casinos outside the normal rules that govern non-Indian businesses. Local governments lose their land use planning authority. Indian tribal enterprises don't pay taxes like the local bookstore or movie house. They are not subject to the same zoning restrictions or environmental regulations.


 The governor has negotiated compacts with both tribal governments that he says will protect patrons and the environment and fund programs to mitigate negative impacts and address gambling addiction.  

There's reason to be skeptical. Recent history has shown that even when revenue sharing deals are cut with Indian tribes, they can and have been invalidated by the courts. Beyond all that, is gambling really the best way to grow California's economy?

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/02/4777254/brown-places-a-poor-bet-on-two.html

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/02/4777254/brown-places-a-poor-bet-on-two.html

 

Fighting for a raise

Labor dispute at San Pablo Casino stretches to Windsor

Friday, August 31st, 2012 | Posted by PD staff

By CLARK MASON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The union that represents workers at an East Bay Indian casino is reaching out to residents of Windsor in an attempt to win a protracted labor dispute.

The reason for appealing to Windsor — about 60 miles and a couple of counties away — may not be obvious. But the tribe that owns the San Pablo Casino has plans to build a large, controversial housing project for its members on land on Windsor’s periphery.

The union includes about 220 employees at the casino owned by the Santa Rosa-based Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, or roughly half the workforce.

They have been working without a contract for three years, unable to reach an agreement on wages, health coverage and other issues with the San Pablo Lytton casino.

The union, Oakland-based United Here Local 2850, filed charges more than a year ago with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the casino owners are refusing to meet and bargain, and are denying union representatives access to the premises.

On Thursday, the union’s case was bolstered when the NLRB found cause for the complaint to proceed and ordered a hearing for Oct. 29 with an administrative law judge.

In the meantime, the union is trying another tactic to pressure the 270-member tribe: Sending mailers to Windsor residents alleging some casino workers were fired unjustly.

A number of tribal members live in Sonoma County, said Jessica Medina, a union organizer, and the tribe maintains an office near the airport north of Santa Rosa.

She said their neighbors should know “the tribe has forgotten about the people who made them all this money.”

But Larry Stidham, general counsel for the tribe, said “we think we are providing fair and reasonable benefits and wages,” based on a survey of other casinos.

The Lytton tribe for the past 10 years has steadily acquired land in west Windsor and has applied to have 120 acres put into federal trust to develop a housing and cultural center.

[Removing it from the tax rolls.]

The plans have frustrated Windsor and Sonoma County officials who say the 147 homes in the plan create much higher density than would be allowed on the rural property if the tribe were subject to local land use and zoning controls.

[Lost Local Control!]

The tribe continues to add to its holdings and has bought an additional 140 acres.

The numerous purchases have helped fuel suspicions that the tribe may be pursuing a second casino.

But tribal spokesmen have steadfastly denied any such intent. And legal experts say the federal law essentially prevents the tribe from building a casino in Windsor.

How much impact the union’s campaign in Windsor will have is uncertain.

“Windsor doesn’t have a lot of authority over what happens at the cardroom, or how they develop the land near us,” said Mayor Debora Fudge. “I can certainly understand everybody trying to get as much input to the process as they can in the hopes it would make a difference.”

Registered voters in Windsor recently began receiving colorful postcards from the union with pictures of former San Pablo casino workers with their children.

The workers pictured claim that they were dismissed unfairly. In one instance, one woman said she was fired from her casino job after nine years because management wanted her to return from maternity leave faster.

In another case a former casino worker, Nirmani Kalaki, said he was fired because he took a short time off from work for his father’s funeral.

“The Tribe’s members are good people. When they were here they took care of us. But after we made them rich, they moved to Windsor and forgot us,” stated the mailer signed by Kalaki.

Union President Wei-Ling Huber said the mailings are intended to gain sympathy and support. “We think the story of the casino workers is so powerful,” she said. “The more we can get the support of the broader community, the more it forces the tribe to really listen.”

Windsor Councilman Steve Allen said residents may have a hard time with what he characterized as a “nebulous” flier, and connecting the casino with what happens in Windsor.

“There seemed to be no point to the flier other than (to say) ‘these guys aren’t very nice,’ ” he said.

The union estimates the casino grosses more than $182 million annually, but pays workers little more than minimum wage, with food servers and janitors making $8 an hour.

The union said it wants to bring their employees up to scale with Cache Creek Casino and Golden Gate Fields, or closer to $12.50 an hour.

They also represent cashiers and bingo machine technicians.

Stidham, the Lytton attorney, declined to comment on the cases of the workers who were fired, saying they were personnel issues.

But he said the casino provides health and dental benefits to workers and has worked hard not to let employees go during the downturn in the economy.

“They have a right to do these things,” he said of the union mailers. “Whether they’re truthful or not, or effective, I guess we’ll leave up to the residents of Windsor.”

You can reach Staff Writer Clark Mason at 521-5214 or clark.mason@pressdemocrat.com.

http://windsor.towns.pressdemocrat.com/2012/08/news/labor-dispute-at-san-pablo-casino-stretches-to-windsor/