Tuesday, January 22, 2008

More Reasons to vote NO on the Props 94-97

Here's what happens should Californians pass the expanded gaming Propositions:

Decreases in Other State and Local Revenues.

The compact amendment would result in reductions of other revenues received by the state and local governments:

Effects on Taxable Economic Activity.
As tribal gambling expands, Californians would spend more of their income at tribal facilities, which are exempt from most types of state and local taxes. This means Californians would spend less at other businesses that are subject to state and local taxes—for example, hotel, restaurant, and entertainment businesses off of tribal lands. This would result in reduced tax revenues for the state and local governments.

Reduced Gambling-Related Revenues.
The state and local governments currently receive revenues from other forms of gambling—such as the California Lottery, horse racing, and card rooms. Expanded gambling on tribal lands could reduce these other sources of state and local revenues. In addition, as the Pechanga tribe expands its casino operations, it may attract customers who otherwise would go to the casinos of other California tribes. If this occurs, these other tribes would receive fewer revenues from their casinos and could pay less to the state under the terms of their compacts.

Less Money in the SDF.
If voters approve this proposition, the Pechanga tribe would stop making payments to the SDF. (Other propositions on this ballot also would reduce payments to the SDF.) Under current law, the first priority use of money in the SDF is to cover shortfalls in the RSTF so that tribes with no casino or a small casino receive a $1.1 million annual payment. If there is still not enough money to cover RSTF shortfalls, the compact amendment requires the state to use a part of the Pechanga tribe’s payment to the General Fund to make up the difference. In addition, other programs (such as grants to local governments) funded by the SDF might need to be reduced and/or paid for from the General Fund.
While these revenue decreases are difficult to estimate, the combined impact would be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

And that is IF the tribes put all 7,000 machines in. What is the incentive to do so, if they are going to be taxed at 25% of those machines. They won't be able to fill the casino now. Wouldn't it make better sense to increase the tax to 25% of the NEXT 3,000 and then 15% of the last 2,000? Otherwise, it's a net of about $13 million to the state, at best. We need a better deal.

5 comments:

Going to vote said...

I understand that this doesn't seem like a very good propostion. What can be done to make it better?

Why should I vote no for the other tribes when it looks from your blog that Pechanga is the tribe that has treated their people so badly. Do I have to vote yes on all or no on all? I'd just rather Pechanga does not get expanded gaming....

O Pechanga said...

You absolutely can vote on each compact separately. In fact, I'd encourage you to vote NO on 94 and decide on the other propositions based on what you read.
Frankly, we CAN do better with these propositions, but The Temecula Band of Mission Indians, from Pechanga Reservation, deserve a NO vote from Californians, because of how they have treated their tribal members. They SHOULD NOT receive the reward of more slots and more income, when they are NOT doing as they promised with Prop. 5. This is OUR opportunity to tell Pechanga NO WAY.

Please vote NO on 94.

'Amo'kat said...

GOING TO VOTE, EVEN IF THE OTHER THREE TRIBES HAVE NOT VIOLATED THEIR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, THESE AGREEMENTS ONLY BENEFIT 4 OF THE 108 TRIBES IN CALIFORNIS, A VIRTUAL MONOPOLY ON GAMING.

WHY SHOULD SO FEW OF THE TRIBES BENEFIT AND GET A LION'S SHARE OF GAMING?

BESIDES, THESE FOUR TRIBES ALREADY HAVE HUGE SUCCESFUL GAMING OPERATIONS ALREADY AND THEY WOULDN'T BE LOSING A THING IF THE MEASURES DON'T PASS.

CONSIDER THAT IF YOU HAVE RECENTLY DRIVEN DOWN THE 10 FREEWAY NEAR PALM SPRINGS NOTICE THAT HUGE FACILITY THAT MORONGO HAS.

THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THAT HUGE CASINO AND HOTEL IF THEIR PROP. DOESN'T PASS.

A NO VOTE IS NOT A VOTE AGAINST ALL INDIAN GAMING.

Creeper said...

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

Spirit of Pechanga said...

We, the citizens of California, need to send a message to the corrupt Indian tribes like Pechanga that enough is enough. The tribes not only have the opportunity to cheat California by not allowing audits in their casinos, but the people who go to the casinos and lose are the ones who will suffer the most. Does Pechanga care? Does the Governor care? The greed of the Pechanga People is never ending. They are laughing all the way to the bank. And just as Chairman Macarro said---What goes on within the tribe is of no concern to the white man.. Well, all men, women, and children should take that as a warning that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians is doing things that are not moral or just.