If your state doesn't already allow casinos....

[Papa Deuce]

and they were thinking about getting them, which way would you vote, if asked?

 

[Dakota_Lynn]

Why do people have problems with casinos? I don't mean to ask a dumb question; I'm just honestly curious. They seem harmless enough to me.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I say...bring it on!

When I lived in Missouri we went through the "whole thing" and now eh...nothing. The main patrons are RETIRED persons. Never would have thought that.

Now here in Texas..no casinos, heck they have weird booze rules too.

 

[mrsheppo]

I live in the original casino state. I work in a casino and it has provided me with a decent living and given me the ability to raise my family.

 

[helenabear]

We have other forms of gambling, but not casinos or slot machines. I don't get why we don't either. I can only see it helping the state, not hurting

If we didn't have horse racing and the lotto, I am not 100% sure how I would feel.

 

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

We have the lottery and horse racing, and I often see ads in the travel section of the Sunday paper for Atlantic City excursions. I tend to be pretty libertarian in this matter, so I'd say yes. Heck, if anything it would keep that revenue here instead of going out of state.

That's been one thing mentioned with the Indian tribes fighting for federal recognition -- once it's granted, would that mean casinos?

 

[fabshelly]

I miss casinos. I could walk in with 20 bucks, eat, drink, play, and leave with 50 or so.

 

[kydisneyfans]

I'm tired of seeing potential tax revenue crossing the Ohio River when it can be used in my own state.

 

[Crankyshank]

This is a very hot topic around here now. We get to vote on a Constitutional ammendment to allow for casinos.

I haven't decided which way I'm voting yet to be honest. I can see both sides of the issue (making a bad traffic situation worse is a huge con). The Chief Sachem for the tribe looking to build the casino in question has rubbed a lot of people, myself included, the wrong way and I'm tired of being besieged by nightly phone calls by pollers about this issue.

I think the State could potentially get screwed in the deal that is the front and center now, but on the other hand - just because we vote to ammend the Consitution, doesn't mean this particular casino will go through.

 

[mom*to*2*princesses]

I think casinos are a short-sighted "solution" to greater social and economic problems, and that in the end they cause more problems that they solve. This is an issue in the upcoming elections in Ohio. I think bringing them to our state's large cities--or slots or other forms of gambling--would be detrimental. Like a bandage on a gunshot wound. Like how the lottery was supposed to "fix" school funding.

 

[Maleficent13]

There's no "I don't care either way" option.

I don't have to vote on whether or not John Doe can open a deli around the corner; why do I have to vote on whether he can open a casino? My view is, I don't care if you buy a sandwich; why do I have to care if you play cards?

 

[kpm76]

This is a very hot topic around here now. We get to vote on a Constitutional ammendment to allow for casinos.

I haven't decided which way I'm voting yet to be honest. I can see both sides of the issue (making a bad traffic situation worse is a huge con). The Chief Sachem for the tribe looking to build the casino in question has rubbed a lot of people, myself included, the wrong way and I'm tired of being besieged by nightly phone calls by pollers about this issue.

I think the State could potentially get screwed in the deal that is the front and center now, but on the other hand - just because we vote to ammend the Consitution, doesn't mean this particular casino will go through.

You are right, this is a huge issue in RI right now. My biggest concern is amending the Constitution for a single entity. Secondly, there was no competitive bid process and I think that is wrong. The ballot question states that the "resort casino will be owned and operated by a RI business entity established by the Narragansett Indian Tribe and their chosen partner." Their partner is Harrah's. And if this question passes, it does mean this particular deal will be the one to go through. The General Assembly would have to work out the details. Someone will likely sue requiring the Supreme Court to take up the case. However, the partners will remain the same: Harrah's and the Indians. The Indians have a contract with Harrahs so there's no way there will be another partner.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

We went through all the baloney in Missouri and in the end it was ....eh. Usually the limits are low so the high rollers don't bother.

Just don't let them throw you the School crap. Oh it will help the schools and stuff like that. Schools have enough trouble without throwing casino money in.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Bring them on. It's on our ballot this year in Ohio and I'll be voting Yes.

 

[Crankyshank]

You are right, this is a huge issue in RI right now. My biggest concern is amending the Constitution for a single entity. Secondly, there was no competitive bid process and I think that is wrong. The ballot question states that the "resort casino will be owned and operated by a RI business entity established by the Narragansett Indian Tribe and their chosen partner." Their partner is Harrah's. And if this question passes, it does mean this particular deal will be the one to go through. The General Assembly would have to work out the details. Someone will likely sue requiring the Supreme Court to take up the case. However, the partners will remain the same: Harrah's and the Indians. The Indians have a contract with Harrahs so there's no way there will be another partner.

Ah I see. I wasn't aware of the wording on ballot was set up that way. A lot of people aren't aware of that. That definitely makes things lean even more on the con side than on the pro side for me for the reasons you listed plus others. I was under the impression the Harrah's participation was still something that could be negotiated in court.

 

[taximomfor4]

It would depend what else was riding on it. If it would help fund the schools and get us out of the tax-levy system, BRING IT ON. But if it was its own entity, and would just be all about what the lottery ended up being all about (where did THAT money go? Nobody knows, but the schools never got theirs), then why bother.

 

[Al and Kate's Mom]

I would vote no simply because I know I'd go broke and then I couldn't go back to Disney - that just can't happen!

 

[kpm76]

Ah I see. I wasn't aware of the wording on ballot was set up that way. A lot of people aren't aware of that. That definitely makes things lean even more on the con side than on the pro side for me for the reasons you listed plus others. I was under the impression the Harrah's participation was still something that could be negotiated in court.

This is the scariest thing....most people don't understand this. It's a really complex issue. I've had to ask lots of questions in order to fully understand it myself and I am guessing most people don't care enough to do that so they will be voting blindly. I've read your posts and I know you pay attention and even you were confused....imagine the people that don't have that level of knowledge or interest? Even if the question passes, we are still years away from a casino if ever given the legal challenges it will likely face....amending a Constitution is serious business.

 

[Crankyshank]

I have spoken with some pretty savvy people that are very political aware and no one had a clue it specifically mentions the Narragansetts on the ballot.

And have you seen the Vote Yes on 1 signs flashing on the hwy? I've seen it on 195 and 295. scary.
Although if anything, "Chief Scrotum" (as we like to call him here at work) has pissed off so many people with the ads and the calls, only Buddy coming out and saying he's pro casino would cause a lot of clueless people I know to vote for the ammendment.

 

[tiggersmom2]

I would say bring them on!