Academic Report Criticizes Props 94-97, Big 4 Gambling Deals
December 27th, 2007 by No Unfair Deals
Contact: Scott Macdonald(310) 996-2671FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
LOS ANGELES – Explaining his detailed and well-researched study, a distinguished professor from Occidental College today denounced the Big 4 Gambling Deals on the Feb. 5 ballot as poorly negotiated, dismal for workers and the environment, and insufficient for California taxpayers and other tribes. (Not to mention the 25% of Pechanga's tribal members they terminated, leaving elders without health care, and putting to lie the infomercial they broadcast last week: Pechanga 125 years)
During a statewide teleconference with reporters, Peter Dreier, E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics and Director of the Urban & Environmental Policy Program at Occidental College, said state negotiators need to go back to the drawing board and come up with an agreement that’s fair for taxpayers, workers and other tribes. (Plus added support of ICRA, that provides for civil rights for Native Americans)
Critics say Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 are sweetheart deals for the Big 4 tribes, but are a bad deal for California taxpayers, workers and other tribes. Dreier’s study provided proof.
“The state had the power and the leverage to stipulate environmental standards, to ensure casino working conditions and wages were equal to those of other California workers, and to get fair compensation for allowing the establishment of local gambling monopolies,” Dreier said of the negotiations.
“In these deals, the state failed utterly.”
Dreier found that the casinos authorized in the deals – some two-and-a-half times as large as the biggest Las Vegas casino – would generate as many car trips every night as a sold out sports arena. (OP: ALL on Pechanga Road! Very nice. Try getting home! Guess Pechanga will try to take some peoples homes to find a better route.)