Gambling Proposition Looks Like a Winner
I read that our governor is negotiating with a group of Indian tribes to allow a casino in the Bay Area (“Pact May Allow First Major Urban Casino,” Aug. 17) and that Garden Grove is considering redevelopment by granting a block of land designated for “Indian” gambling (“O.C. City Hopes to Add Touch of Vegas,” Aug. 18).
The concept of Indian gaming is being redefined by our leaders and, in the process, insulting voters who allowed it in the first place. Today, I heard a radio ad supported by the Indian tribes that urge a “no” vote on Proposition 68, as it would create considerable traffic and crime throughout the state. What it would really do is guarantee that the various tribes would contribute to the state a fair share of their winnings (25%), and if not, other gambling centers could share in the lucrative gambling market but would have to pay 33% of the winnings. This definitely sounds like a no-lose issue for the taxpayers and citizens.
I don’t understand why we would want to give one group exclusive rights to gambling when there are others willing to pay their fair share.
Ben Foss
Baldwin Park
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
