Ready to wager? / LJWorld.com

Archive for Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Proponents tout financial fix of expanded gambling plan

March 27, 2007

Supporters of expanded gambling hit the jackpot!

The Kansas House approved a bill today that could bring casinos to Kansas - as well as slot machines at dog and horse tracks. Enlarge video

Journal-World Illustration

Topeka — Let the arm-twisting and vote-counting begin.

Gambling interests Monday turned up the heat on Kansas lawmakers to approve legislation that would allow development of major casinos and the use of slot machines at horse and dog tracks.

The House approved 64-58 a bill that could set up four major casinos and add 2,200 slot machines at three racetracks.

The measure was sent to the Senate despite the protests of many lawmakers, some quoting Bible verses about the evils of sin.

"For what shall it profit a man, to gain the world and lose his own soul?" Rep. Virgil Peck, R-Tyro, said.

But supporters said revenue from increased gambling could provide dollars to take care of critical state needs without increasing taxes.

Hours after House approval, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius urged the Senate to adopt the bill.

Lawrence lawmakers key

Now the focus is on the Senate, where in 2006 a gambling bill failed on a 16-20 vote.

Two Lawrence senators were key in that legislation's death.

Sen. Roger Pine, a Republican, voted against it, saying he opposed expansion of gambling.

Sen. Marci Francisco, a Democrat, abstained despite being telephoned by Sebelius on the Senate floor, asking her to vote for the bill.

So what do they think of the new bill?

"Until I have a little bit more information about it, I'm not sure where I'm at on that bill at all," Pine said. "I haven't totally said I wouldn't support anything. On the other side of that coin, I haven't found anything that I would want to support."

Francisco said she needed to study the proposal.

She said her major objection last year was that she thought the 5,000 allowed slots at the tracks were too many. The number of slot machines has been decreased to 2,200 in the new bill.

"The most important thing to me is that we do it in a way that limits the detrimental effects" of gambling, she said.

Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, said the bill's prospects were uncertain at this time in the 40-member Senate, where it takes 21 votes for approval.

"We need to evaluate what's in the bill. We need to see where we are with the votes before we could really proceed," Morris said.

Local benefits, liabilities

If adopted, the bill would benefit Lawrence in a couple of ways.

A portion of gambling revenue sent back to the state would go to local units of government for property tax relief, infrastructure improvement - which could include repairs at universities - and debt reduction.

"This is really our best opportunity to get a funding stream for deferred maintenance," state Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, said.

The six Kansas Board of Regents universities - including Kansas University - say they need $663 million for repairs at their campuses. So far, lawmakers have failed to come up with a solution to the problem, although some have said the proposed gambling legislation could be a funding source.

The gambling proposal calls for state-owned but privately operated casinos in Wyandotte County, Ford County, Sedgwick or Sumner counties in south-central Kansas, and Crawford or Cherokee counties in southeast Kansas.

It also would allow 2,200 slot machines distributed among three pari-mutuel racetracks: The Woodlands in Kansas City, Kan.; Wichita Greyhound Park; and the now-closed Camptown Greyhound Park in Frontenac.

Voter approval would be required in the host counties before a casino could be built or slots added to tracks.

Gambling proponents said the state eventually could receive $200 million per year.

Under the bill, casino developers would have to invest at least $225 million for the mega-casinos and hotels, and pay a one-time, nonrefundable fee of $25 million. The state would receive at least 22 percent of the casino revenue and 40 percent of the slot revenue from the tracks.

But opponents said the increased gambling would come with a large societal cost through more problem gamblers, leading to bankruptcies and broken families.

"The (gambling) industry is treating Kansas the way it does problem gamblers. It is promising us to be winners. It is handing us cash as we enter the door," said Rep. Forrest Knox, R-Altoona.

Kansas already has a state lottery and four American Indian casinos that operate in northeast Kansas, but the state receives no revenue from those casinos.

Even lawmakers not especially in favor of gambling said the state was losing out on revenue from increased gambling operations in Missouri and Oklahoma.

And they noted that under the proposed bill, an additional 2 percent of the revenue from casinos and slots would go to programs to help gambling addicts, raising an estimated $16 million to $17 million a year.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

27 March 2007
at 7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

If your not going to build the SLT, put a gambling casino in the Baker/Haskel wetlands.
27 March 2007
at 8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Raider (Anonymous) says…

Sig; hell, I've said all along that if you WANT to build the SLT then let the Indians have a casino out there. That road would be built so fast it would make your head hurt.

On the gambling bill though, the Senate should pass this. Gambling is like booze. If people want it, they're going to get it. That means if they have to drive to Missouri, they will. You won't stop them. Why not keep the tax dollars at home?
27 March 2007
at 9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

white_mountain (Anonymous) says…

Speaking of the SLT, what was the city commission's decision after the most recent study?
27 March 2007
at 12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

buffalo_star (Anonymous) says…

raider, you imply that “indians” are only out for money perhaps you feel that everyone is infected with this country's long standing national illness, greed. Gaming on reservations provides needed resources that the trail of broken treaties refused to provide. But why not another State sponsored addiction for which there won't be resources to treat the new victims. The poor simple “indian's” ancient way of life had to be replaced because it was inferior to the colonizers. It is so much better today don't you think.
27 March 2007
at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Raider (Anonymous) says…

B_S, I didn't imply anything. I came out and said it. If there had been something in it for Haskell, the road would have been built a long time ago.
27 March 2007
at 1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…

Can someone recommend a good eye doctor?

I've read and re-read this story and I can't find mention of the SLT, Haskell, the trail of broken treaties, or the city commision.

Am I blind or is everyone else whining in the wrong place?
27 March 2007
at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kcwarpony (Anonymous) says…

June 19, 1999

“A package put together by state highway officials to gain Haskell Indian Nations University's support for the South Lawrence Trafficway includes a $3.3 million cash payment to the school.

Details of the draft package which includes cash and projects totaling about $5 million were obtained Friday by the Journal-World.

Haskell is balking at the offer, questioning its validity because the offer hasn't been signed. The school has reaffirmed its opposition to a 31st Street alignment for the partially completed highway meant to loop around the west and south sides of Lawrence.”

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1999/jun…

27 March 2007
at 3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

middle ground sought on slt
By Deb Gruver

Thursday, May 7, 1998

Haskell Indian Nations University is seeking a science laboratory building, among other items, as part of its mitigation plan for the South Lawrence Trafficway.

Haskell Indian Nations University wants ownership of the Baker Wetlands returned, $250,000 for a wetlands management fund, a science laboratory building and additional acreage from the Kansas Department of Transportation as part of a mitigation plan for the South Lawrence Trafficway.

An attorney representing Douglas County in its ongoing trafficway dispute said parts of Haskell's request sound plausible. But others involved in the lawsuit are more critical.

Haskell President Bob Martin released the plan to the school's board of regents on Wednesday, stressing that Haskell has not dropped its opposition to a 31st Street alignment for the trafficway. He said the school is merely planning for its future with the trafficway running nearby.

…….He added that the fact Haskell is looking at mitigation is a good sign.

But others disagree. Thomasine Ross, a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Federal Highway Administration and its division administrator, Douglas County commissioners and the Kansas Secretary of Transportation, said Martin did not sway her that the mitigation plan is not a tradeoff.

“We've come to the conclusion that it's a sellout,'' said Ross, former president of the Haskell National Alumni Assn. and a former member of the school's board of regents. Haskell itself is not a party to the lawsuit…

Orrick adds that Haskell's request for “an improved campus infrastructure,'' specifically a new science facility, is the biggest hurdle.

The mitigation plan says Haskell's science laboratories and equipment are outdated, and “thus, it is imperative that a commitment for a new science facility is secured.''

Martin said Haskell has estimated cost of a new science building at $10 million. He said the school would not expect KDOT to pay for the entire project. Funding would come from a variety of sources, he said…..
27 March 2007
at 5:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tuschkahouma (Anonymous) says…

for all of the knuckleheads who insist on connecting
gaming to Haskell, I have this to say; Haskell is funded
by the government as a way for legitimizing the theft
by fraudulent treaties the land that much of this hopelessly corrupt country exists on. Haskell is not
a reservation for a particular tribe, it was paid for with
many tribe's monies held in trust by the treasury
department. Individual Indian tribes are the only
entities who can operate casinos, either as class II
on rez land held in trust by the government, or
class III in compact with a state on a rez. This
is with approval from the Dept. of the Interior, the
BIA, and the NIGC. The casino in the wetlands
statement is as ludicrous as the people posting such
a farce. Education is not a requirement to comment
on this post obviously. No land is currently held in trust
as a rez in Lawrence. The Haskell campus is technically
“Indian Country” under Title 18 section 1151, parts a,b, and c., but it isn't a rez for a specific tribe. Mr. Oyler's
80 or so acres of land is part of the last of the 1.8 million
acres that the Shawnee People had in Kansas. Lawrence
sits on the former Shawnee rez. Mr Oyler's land is near
De Soto. Please learn something once in a while!