You are not logged in.

Login

Username

Password

Remember me
Password Reminder
No account yet? Create one

Who's Online

We have 77 guests online

Chat



You must be a registered user to shout!
Get your account here!

RSS Feed

Subcribe to MabuhayRadio
Home arrow Columns arrow Editorial and Opinion Page arrow Please Vote “No” on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97
Please Vote “No” on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97
User Rating: / 11
PoorBest 
Written by Bobby Reyes - Jan 22, 2008 at 06:57 PM   

The www.mabuhayradio.com urges California voters, especially Filipino-American constituents, to reject the new state gambling compacts with four Southern California Indian tribes.

 

Proposition 94 is about the new slot machines for the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians’ casino in Temecula.

Proposition 95 is for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which operates a casino in Banning along Interstate 10.

Proposition 96 addresses the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, with its casino in El Cajon in San Diego County.

Proposition 97 involves the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, which operates casinos in Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage.

The compacts with the four Indian tribes would authorize them to operate 17,000 more slot machines, in addition to the 8,000 “one-arm bandits” that they already have in their casinos. If Propositions 94 to 97 pass, the four tribes would pay the state 15% to 25% of the profits from the additional 17,000 machines. The four Indian tribes claim that they would pay more-than $9-billion to California during the 23-year terms of the compact. This would mean some $391.30-million per year for the 17,000 slot machines. This would translate to $23,017.65 per year per slot machine or $63.06 per machine per day.

There are social costs that casino gambling creates for the state and the respective counties where the four Indian tribes operate. The state share of $63.06 per slot machine per day may not even be enough to offset the increased costs of providing services to fight compulsive-gambling addiction that in turn brings about violence, separated families, foster-home services for the minor children of divorcing families, etceteras, etc., and what not. The claim that the additional revenue from the compacts would help California with its budgetary deficits is just as vain as the gambler’s hope of hitting the jackpot in the proposed new slot machines.

There are other arguments made by the opponents of Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97. Among the groups that oppose them are even Indian tribes such as United Auburn Indian Community and the Pala Band of Mission Indians, which say that the propositions provide too many slot machines to only four of California’s 108 (1-0-8) federally-recognized tribes. The opponents say that the revenue to the state from the four compacts is overestimated. There is also the argument that the compacts do not ensure that California would get its fair share, as the percentage is based on projected profits from the operation of the slot machines.

Even labor unions are against the propositions. The “Unite Here,” a union that represents hotel workers, claims that the compacts actually hinder efforts to unionize casino workers.

In short, Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 bring more disadvantages than benefits to the State of California and her people, including American Native Indians. Voters should and must reject them. # # #


Bookmark this Article
Add to Blink
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Furl
Add to Google
Add to Simpy
Add to Yahoo!MyWeb
Add to Spurl


User Comments
pechangajg@.com writes: 
 
Thank you for taking the stance you have on these Props. You may also get information on the issue at www.airro.org. Please feel free to cite both sites, and feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss further. 
 
Noon looviq (Thank you in my native language)
Comment by pechangajg@.com on 2008-01-23 01:25:10 Using IP: 76.171.190.236

Wonderful news! Thank you Mubuhay Radio for your NO endorsement. We urge your readers to take your advice on these compacts. Please visit http://originalpechanga/blogspot.com for more information of these compacts and why the Pechanga tribe does NOT deserve either your vote, nor your patronage. 
 
You have lifted up our spirits with this encouraging editorial. 
 

Comment by on 2008-01-23 09:55:51 Using IP: 71.104.12.84

Thank you for putting all this info on your site. 
We need all the help getting the infomation about these Bad Props to the public 
Peace
Comment by on 2008-01-23 10:57:34 Using IP: 76.174.244.114

Thank you for your NO on Props 94, 95, 96, and 97 endorsement. These propositions are bad for the State of California. Any tribe who disenrolls members need their tribal enrollment documents audited by the federal government. The thin veil called Sovereignty needs to be removed.
Comment by Spirit of Pechanga on 2008-01-23 13:10:24 Using IP: 69.154.29.48

The editorial board has come to the right conclusion regarding the expanded gaming propositions. A NO vote will show Pechanga that they can't get away with denying their members their civl rights. The people of California have few ways to mete out justice for the oppressed tribal members and they include, boycotting Pechanga and taking your tribal gaming business elsewhere, and execising the right to vote, which the tribes were trying to keep us from doing. Thank you mabuhayradio, for your NO on expanded gaming recommendation. 
 

Comment by RCuevas on 2008-01-23 16:56:27 Using IP: 71.104.12.84

I thought I would re-visit here to again thank Bobby Reyes for his boards No endorsement and also to let the readers know that we have a blog that discusses the issues in depth. 
 
http://originalpechanga.blogspot.com 
 
Come take a look. These are NOT good for California, but are EXTREMELY good for the big 4 tribes.
Comment by on 2008-01-23 18:07:43 Using IP: 71.104.12.84

Thank you for taking a No stance on these propositions. 
 
These four tribes already have huge succesful casinos already and even if these measures don't pass, they will still have those gaming facilities. 
 
Why should only 4 of the 108 California Indian tribes benefit from expanded gaming? 
 
Besides this, the Pechanga tribe has kicked out 25 percent of their tribe in the last four years. 
 
In an unfair practice known as disenrollment long time members in good standing were removed from the tribe on very weak evidence and the Pechanga tribe would be directly profiting from rights violations. 
 
So people, please vote no on propostions 94, 95, 96, and 97.
Comment by on 2008-01-23 19:53:38 Using IP: 207.200.116.6

Thank you mabuhay radio for you support in our fight to defeat this proposition. Despite what the 4 tribes are saying, This is not a good deal for California, but it's a super deal for the 4 rich tribes, while over 100 poorer tribes get a mere scrap from them.
Comment by on 2008-01-25 02:09:56 Using IP: 207.200.116.6


Your Name / Email Address:

Please enter the above numbers