Rolling the dice on nontribal casinos
The Bulletin, Aug. 29, on a proposed casino that would compete with tribal casinos:
This will be remembered as the year Oregonians at least talked in earnest about shaking up state government.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s Reset Cabinet has reminded taxpayers that they can’t support Rolls Royce services indefinitely on a Yugo budget. Gubernatorial candidate Chris Dudley has suggested privatizing some government functions, most notably the sale of hard liquor. And soon, thanks to the initiative process, Oregonians will debate the state’s domination of another “sin” business: gambling.
One of the seven measures on November’s ballot would allow construction of a $250 million resort and casino on the site of the Multnomah Kennel Club. Twenty-five percent of gross gambling revenues would be divvied up by public schools, counties, state police and other government services.
The casino’s backers emphasize this and other potential benefits, including, they say, 2,500 permanent jobs. But there’s no denying such a project would fundamentally shift the gambling landscape in Oregon, whose constitution prohibits nontribal casinos. Currently, raking in gambling loot is a privilege enjoyed almost exclusively by the state and Indian tribes.
Complicating the casino effort is the failure of a second, companion initiative to qualify for the ballot. That initiative would have amended the constitution’s casino ban. Citing a recent legal opinion, backers of the Multnomah County project now believe voters have the right to approve a casino without tinkering with the constitution. No doubt, the courts will settle the issue after voters have their say.
But before any of that happens, Oregonians can expect a heated debate not only on the Multnomah County casino but also on the wisdom of allowing nontribal casinos to compete with the state’s cash cow. We’ve taken no position yet on Measure 75 and won’t today. But its backers have a point: Why should the state and the tribes get all the fun?
We understand the concerns of people who oppose gambling, no matter who profits from it. We’re not particularly thrilled by it either. But gambling opportunities in Oregon abound already. The state operates an enormous network that includes about 12,300 video lottery terminals stationed helpfully in premises with liquor licenses.
Traditional games like scratch tickets, Powerball and Megabucks, meanwhile, are available at minimarts, supermarkets and other stores throughout the state. If Oregonians want to gamble away their savings, they can do it already — without even taking the trouble to drive to a tribal casino — thanks to their own government.
You could also argue, we suppose, that the state must guarantee a kinder, gentler gambling experience consistent with its mission “to earn maximum profits for the people of Oregon commensurate with the public good.” Such a notion, however, is as naive and incoherent as the Oregon Liquor Control Commission’s dual mission to limit the harm done by hard liquor even as it sells the stuff.
To be sure, some lottery proceeds support treatment for problem gamblers. But the lottery treats its real mission — getting gamblers into seats and money into machines — very seriously. The lottery’s 2008-09 Annual Performance Progress Report makes this clear. Following a decrease in video lottery sales in 2009, due in part to the state’s smoking ban, the agency responded as any private business would: by “working to introduce new terminals, games and prize structures that should help rebuild sales levels.” Meanwhile, the lottery spends lots of money “aggressively reinforcing” its products’ “brand message through advertising campaigns.” It even uses focus group research to tailor its message, for instance by emphasizing “green” projects supported with gambling revenue.
And why not? As last year’s performance progress report acknowledges, “the lottery is unique in that its primary mission is to earn profits versus providing some form of government service.”
As far as we know, there is no push to do away with the lottery — at least none on par with the effort to get the OLCC out of the liquor-selling business (which, like gambling, isn’t what most people consider a core government service). Rather, private investors simply want to participate in a profit-seeking enterprise that is now, strangely, dominated by a government agency.
Measure 75, which would allow only one privately owned casino to share in the spoils, may or may not be a good idea. But the underlying question is certainly worth debating.
|
