| People Against a Casino
Town
|
| News
of Interest |
|
Oregon Casino Initiative Delay Welcome News
Oregon already is saturated with gambling opportunities and there is little to be gained – and a lot to be lost – by continuing to expand gambling in this state. Editorial Casino’s delay is welcome news Oregon has enough gambling problems already Pamplin Media Group, May 7, 2008, Updated May 7, 2008 (11 Reader comments) Boys and Girls Aid Society Two Lake Oswego businessmen confirmed on Friday something that has been obvious to political observers for several weeks now: They will not proceed with an initiative drive this year to establish Oregon’s first non-tribal casino at the old Multnomah Kennel Club in Wood Village. The decision by Matthew Rossman and Bruce Studer to once again delay their plans is a welcome one. Oregon already is saturated with gambling opportunities and there is little to be gained – and a lot to be lost – by continuing to expand gambling in this state. Up until Friday, Rossman and Studer had declined to say why they hadn’t begun collecting signatures for two ballot proposals – one that would have amended the Oregon Constitution to allow a single non-tribal casino, and another that would have sited a proposed Las Vegas-style casino in Wood Village. This is the second election cycle that Rossman and Studer have missed since they announced their bold plans in 2005, and the explanation they gave Friday for their inertia wasn’t fully convincing. The business partners said this year’s delay is due to their desire to see what happens with two proposed tribal casinos – in Cascade Locks and La Center, Wash. – that are being reviewed by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. We’re certain that the tribal casinos will influence any future campaigns by Rossman and Studer, but the duo’s success also will be determined by other variables – including their ability to attract investors, the overall health of the economy and the current state of public opinion toward gambling. Gambling outlets overrun state No matter what prompted Rossman and Studer to postpone, there are multiple reasons for Oregonians to resist strongly any proposal to make gambling more enticing than it already is. Reliance on gambling for state revenues and for development of tribal communities comes with social costs that often outweigh the economic benefits. To understand just how deeply dependent Oregon has become on people losing their money at video machines or card tables, consider these statistics from the state Department of Human Services: • As of February 2006, the Oregon Lottery operated 10,848 video poker machines in more than 2,000 bars and taverns. • Oregon has nine tribal casinos offering approximately 6,000 slot machines and 100 table games. • In 2004, Oregonians lost $1.27 billion on all forms of gambling, or $457 per adult – and that number almost certainly has grown as gambling devices have proliferated in the past four years. • In the 2005-07 biennium, the Oregon Lottery earned more than $1.2 billion, which is allocated to a variety of state services. Oregon should cut back The above statistics quantify the extent of gambling in Oregon, but they fail to describe the individual misery that results from gambling addiction. Among the public health concerns described by the state are the estimated 47,000 Oregonians who are problem gamblers and the additional 28,000 Oregon citizens who are pathological gamblers. These are people whose lives, families and jobs are disrupted by their gambling addictions. They are prone to suicide, alcohol-related problems, criminal activities and child or spousal abuse. All of those behaviors carry a cost that extends beyond the individual or family level – and that’s why it is foolish to believe that Oregon has anything to gain from additional gambling. Rather than expand gambling, as Rossman, Studer and others have proposed, Oregon should begin to scale back. Yes, the state has balanced its budget and aided certain essential services by growing its Lottery revenues, but it has done so at the expense of people who make poor economic choices and who, in some cases, pay an enormous personal price. http://www.theoutlookonline.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=121016442815673700 |
|
Related Links: |
| PACT SEARCH FACTS LAWSUIT LINKS NEWS RESEARCH ACTION |