Here's the Green Party of California Alameda county analysis from http://petra.greens.org/cal/alameda/props98.html : Recommendations for November 3rd 1998 General Election >From the Alameda County Green Voter Guide Proposition 5: Tribal-State Gaming Compacts Yes Proposed by a coalition of California Indian tribes, this initiative establishes a standardized agreement between the state and every tribe that owns a gambling casino. The entire text of this agreement (called a compact) is contained in the initiative, making Proposition 5 one of the longest and most difficult to read of any initiative in recent memory. According to Fair Political Practices Commission documents the proponents (officially Californians for Indian Self-Reliance) are all actual Indian tribes. The opponents (Coalition Against Unregulated Gambling) are the Nevada Resort Association, Walt Disney Co., Hilton Hotels, California Gaming Association, the United Farm Workers and Hotel-Restaurant Workers Unions, and two southern California churches, a strange mixture indeed. The proponents state that tribal casinos provide much needed income to impoverished Indians. Since gaming is a high-profit industry, this is probably true. The language of the compact seems to attempt to ensure that as much as possible of gaming profits go to benefit Indians. It's our belief that gambling is one of the worst possible ways to finance good causes. However, Indian tribes have sovereign rights over activities on Indian lands. Federal law recognizes this fact, and state and local governments have little power to prevent Indians from building and operating gambling casinos on Indian lands. If Indians believe the best way to finance the needs of their people is from gambling by non-Indians, then their tribes have the right to open casinos. The Proposition 5 compact forces the tribes to create health, safety and labor regulations that meet state standards. It limits the types of gambling that can be conducted in Indian casinos, and it specifies ways in which a percentage of gambling profits are to be distributed to tribes with no casinos. The opponents state that tribes will be able to buy land anywhere in California and build casinos, but Federal law defines Indian lands as those declared as such before 1988. Casinos can only be built on such lands, which are rarely located near major cities. On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:08:36 -0800, you wrote: >Jim Craven writes: >>You know I just don't know how to answer this; I don't know the >>specifics of the initiative in California. > >I didn't want to summarize the initiative because I have only a vague >description in my head, though I'm leaning toward voting "yes." The >initiative is pro-gambling on the reservations, allowing the use of video >poker machines. Las Vegas is spending money against it, fearing >competition. The tribes seem mostly for it. > >If someone knows the initiative better than I do, please chime in... well, >here's an editorial from the local marginally left-of-center "alternative" >rag, the L.A. WEEKLY. They're against it. > >>5 - No > >>This is the Indian gaming initiative, on which $60 million has been spent by >proponents and $30 million by opponents. Basically, it requires the state to >permit certain kinds of casino games and accouterments that the state, through >its existing compacts with certain Native American tribes, currently does not >sanction. The chief point of contention is Vegas-like slot machines, which the >current compacts disallow in favor of a new generation of video machines that >are said to be like slots but not slots themselves. > >>Proposition 5 raises three key issues: the economic effect on the tribes, the >economic effect on casino employees and the economic effect on the rest of >working-class California. Clearly, the effect of reservation gambling on the >reservations and their residents has been positive, though it's not at all >clear how >great the negative impact would be if the reservations were constrained to use >these "Class B" slots. The effect on casino employees is something else again: >The existing compact that the state has entered into with tribes, the Pala >compact, includes some remarkably democratic and pro-employee provisions - >notably, that if a majority of casino employees present cards affiliating >themselves with a union, their union achieves immediate recognition as their >bargaining agent (common practice throughout the advanced industrial world, >but unheard of in the management-friendly U.S.). Proposition 5 >unceremoniously wads up the Pala compact and throws it away, along with the >rights it accords to casino employees. > >>As to the effect on working-class California, the coming of the kind of >large-scale in-state casino industry that Proposition 5 augurs ensures the >creation of a kind of regressive recreation industry that >disproportionately soaks >Californians of modest incomes. > >>It's a tough call, pitting the legitimate interests of historically >disadvantaged >communities against one another. By the ever-useful John Stuart Mill standard >of seeking the greatest good (or in this case the least harm) for the greatest >number, however, we come down opposed to Proposition 5.< > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & >http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html >
