MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Monday, September 22, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 69.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

Gamblin': Aye or Nay

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

How will you vote on the casino referendum?

Poll ended at Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:02 pm

Yes, allow the casino
17
63%
No, don't allow the casino
10
37%
 
Total votes : 27

Postby Aphrodite » Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:17 pm

snoqueen wrote:The Indians found a loophole in the law that allows them to run a business perfectly legally, and a number of tribes are doing well as a result. Customers show up voluntarily, just as they do at a tavern. The tribes take the proceeds and spend them according to their own wishes. What could be more American?

It's perfectly fair for potential competitors to try and fend off DeJope's new facility. It's perfectly fair to question whether we want gambling, or bars, or night clubs, or strip joints, or power plants, or giant hog farms, in our towns. But let's lay off the "poor Indians" arguments and treat the tribes like anyone else who puts forth a business proposal. Treating people as business equals is dignified and respectful. To imagine that permitting casinos represents a special favor or has big symbolic implications is demeaning and deluded, if you ask me.


I agree and I think you make a good point, but it is important to remember that in this case the "loophole" is in fact a deal that was made with the tribes in the form of a treaty that gave them sovereign rights as a separate nation on their land...a separate nation that can make their own decisions. The fact that it is a successful business is great for them and obviously there's a market as people patronize the casino.

Personally, I'm not crazy about a casino, and I'd rather see the land used for lots of other things (i.e. set aside as conservation space and we'd all go there to hug trees--but that doesn't make money, does it?). But, it seems to me that this is not like other "business proposals" from other sources, because the tribe has a treaty saying that they are not bound by federal laws on tribal land. I just think that the deal signed with the tribe should be honored, and if that means they get to put a casino on their land, so be it.

MadMind wrote:P.S. Roadkillbill, my gentlemans club idea is awesome and you know it!':D'


As far as business proposals go, I agree... the idea of a gentleman's club is way better than a casino...seems the casino market has to become saturated at some point?
Think they'd have a ladies night?':wink:'
Aphrodite
Senior Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:09 pm

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:23 am

Actually, the "loopholes" that allow Indian tribes to open casinos in Wisconsin are the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions.

If the Wisconsin Constitution was changed to eliminate gambling, the Indian casinos would have to close. Only two states (that I know of) forbid all gambling - Utah and Hawaii, thus they have no Indian casinos.

Think the state of Wisconsin wants to give up the money it gets from Powerball?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19892
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Postby statz » Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:18 pm

Remember that huge lottery tax credit we get? Yeah it really shows when you file your property taxes doesn't it!?
Even if we do get X amount of money from the perceived revenue this casino will make how much faith do you have in our city's spending habits? There have been some huge fiscal blunders, counting on money that isn't there i.e. State funding. These same jokers who came up with the Monona Terrace and the "One Time Property Tax Hike for Schools" are going to take this money and piss it away. You wait, if this goes through everything will be rosey the first year or two then it'll be a different story. What happens when the casino market becomes over saturated? What's the business case for this location long term? Do we get the money if the casino suddenly takes a hit and doesn't recover 3 or 5 years from now?
Jobs created, what kind of jobs? Ever talk to people who've worked for the casinos? There are plenty of horror stories out there from guys I know in IT who have been there. Ho-Chunk went through Novell guys like it was some kind of dating service a few years ago.

I'm seeing a lot of falsly led emotion and not a lot of business sense in this argument. Show me the gaurantees that first the money will be there no matter what and second that our city will spend it wisely. Then I'll consider voting for it.
statz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:20 pm
Location: West Side and damn glad to be here

Postby donges » Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:04 pm

statz wrote:Yes, for all you implants, there were dry areas and moonshine runs in southern WI. Well into the 80's.

I just knew there was an explanation for my family tree.....
donges
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:03 pm
Location: between the lines...

Postby Harbinger » Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:32 pm

Harbinger
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:07 pm

Postby ShaneDog » Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:51 pm


I take issue with some of their "facts".

"Q. What about problem gamblers?

According to the U.S. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, less than 1% of adults are problem gamblers. The overwhelming majority of people who choose to gamble do not have a gambling problem. Since Wisconsin allows various types of legal gambling ââ?¬â?? including the state lottery, racetrack gambling, charitable gaming, and Indian casinos ââ?¬â?? people in Dane County who choose to gamble can and will do so regardless of whether casino gaming is offered at DeJope. And, as specifically provided by the Agreements with the City and County, the Ho-Chunk Nation will maintain its program for banning problem gamblers from DeJope. The Tribe will also ask the State to use $10,000 per year from the Tribeââ?¬â?¢s annual state compact payment to help support the Wisconsin Council on Problem Gambling. "

1% of the adults are problem gamblers that doesn't seem very significant, but wait. What % of the adult population gambles? I don't have access to lexis-nexis at work so I'll have to post those statistics later but problem gamblers as a portion of total gamblers is probably way higher, maybe 10% I'm guessing.

Other studies I've seen (and quoted in the other thread) have put the problem gambler figure between 2 and 3%.

Going with their 1% figure, thats 4,200 potential problem gamblers in Dane county.

From the study I was talking about in the other thread on this subject:

"Focusing only on social costs that can be measured-primarily apprehension, adjudication, incarceration, direct regulatory costs, and lost productivity costs-leads to annual costs per pathological gambler between $ 15,000 and $ 33,500 in current dollars. Combining this information with prevalent studies implies that the social costs are between $ 214 and $ 778 per adult each year when spread over the adult population. However, Americans have had access to casinos in Nevada and Atlantic City for many years, and these areas experienced social costs due to pathological gambling prior to 1990. Thus, the increase in social costs as compared to a pre-1990 situation due to the introduction in a state like Iowa or Illinois would be smaller, between $ 112 and $ 338."

4,200 problem gamblers * $15,000 = annual social cost of $63,000,000 and thats using their (the defenders) 1% figure and the low end figure of $15,000 for social costs. Using the figures from the study, we can expect between $47 million and $143 million annually in social costs.
ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash

Postby cattyr » Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:03 pm

I'm confused by the numbers in your post, ShaneDog. First we're talking 15000/person/year and then in the hundreds/person/year? What am I missing?
cattyr
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 2:12 pm
Location: DPF dumdum!

Postby ShaneDog » Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:23 pm

cattyr wrote:I'm confused by the numbers in your post, ShaneDog. First we're talking 15000/person/year and then in the hundreds/person/year? What am I missing?


Sorry, it is confusing and I didn't explain it too well. The $15,000 figure social cost per problem gambler per year. The other, smaller figures are social cost per capita per year. So, something like (15,000 * number of problem gamblers) / population.
ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash

Postby gnarly buttons » Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:23 pm

ShaneDog wrote:Sorry, it is confusing and I didn't explain it too well. The $15,000 figure social cost per problem gambler per year. The other, smaller figures are social cost per capita per year. So, something like (15,000 * number of problem gamblers) / population.


So, in order to preserve the logical consistency of your argument, I assume you also have per capita social costs for alcohol and tobacco consumption?

Or are you perfectly willing to ignore the vast social costs of those other legal vices, and just be very selective in the one vice you wish to persecute?

If not, is your next crusade going to be for closing down all bars and liquor stores?
Outlawing all tobacco products?
Just wondering
gnarly buttons
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 1:52 pm
Location: Frolicking in the Ellysian Fields

Postby Harbinger » Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:29 pm

gnarly buttons wrote:
ShaneDog wrote: The $15,000 figure social cost per problem gambler per year. The other, smaller figures are social cost per capita per year. So, something like (15,000 * number of problem gamblers) / population.


So, in order to preserve the logical consistency of your argument, I assume you also have per capita social costs for alcohol and tobacco consumption?


Right. A lot of people gamble: people who play the scrach offs sometimes, people with bridge or poker nights, bets on sports, bingo and the many who go to a casino once in a while and maybe see James Brown or the Beach Boys of someone. Still, gambling problems are bizzarly miniscule, by any measure, compared to alcohol's social and financial costs to Dane County (oh, lets see ... fights, alcoholism, police salaries, binge drinking, loss of productivity, alcohol poisoning, police time, date rape, drinking away the family savings, deformed babies, drunk driving deaths, etc..) all related to allowing liqour sales and bars.

Hmm. White people (mainly WASPS picking on the Irish and Italian Catholics) debated that one but had to reverse prohibition, except for a few counties that are still as dry on booze as Dane County is dry on casinos -- absolutely. And of course, Madison has more than one bar, but no casinos. But I guess we're more strict on the social costs the natives profit from. Heaven knows they don't deseve it.

That's why I think its especially funny to see libertines like Ech Vedder using the same "shut it down if its a nuisance or statistical problems or there are social costs" arguments that he fought against on everything from, oh, let's see ... loitering, marijuana, ecstacy, concrete park gatherings, grafitti, skateboarding, hip hop, mifflin party, concerts, holloween party, all-campus party, low-income housing, panhandling, raves, drug & booze filled co-op parties, bars, drink specials at bars, etc, etc, .... Not that theres any inconsistancy or anything.

Clearly, there's an UNDENIABLE difference when it comes to problems caused by an Indian-owned casino.

I mean, bar owners aren't just rich profiteers like those Indians. Unlike the casinos, bars must provide a service ... they makes people happy ... but really happy, not that fake happy like casinos. Or maybe they are sweet ma and pa operations, yah, that we simply can't stomach to close. That would be wrong and sad. Or maybe the white Madison majority just likes its destructive booze so much that it makes up for it by picking on other less-destructive vices. What matters, I think, is we had our vices here first, and there's just no room for one more. If the Indians had got their shit together before the last few bars were approved, well then, maybe, but not know. We're at our wits end, I tell you.

Regardless, its clear that bars deserve to make money off of a service that causes "class A social problems", while the Indians have such bad motivations, bad attitudes, and are just so rich and snotty already that their service simply MUST be shut down -- for we could never bear casinos and their accompanying "class D social problems". It must be kept out. It simply must. No casinos! Not one. Ever. I don't think there's any other way to see it.
.
Last edited by Harbinger on Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Harbinger
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:07 pm

Postby ShaneDog » Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:36 pm

gnarly buttons wrote:
ShaneDog wrote:Sorry, it is confusing and I didn't explain it too well. The $15,000 figure social cost per problem gambler per year. The other, smaller figures are social cost per capita per year. So, something like (15,000 * number of problem gamblers) / population.


So, in order to preserve the logical consistency of your argument, I assume you also have per capita social costs for alcohol and tobacco consumption?

Or are you perfectly willing to ignore the vast social costs of those other legal vices, and just be very selective in the one vice you wish to persecute?

If not, is your next crusade going to be for closing down all bars and liquor stores?
Outlawing all tobacco products?
Just wondering

As far as tobacco and alcohol go, we should be taxing the companies that sell the product to cover the social costs. People who smoke should be offered free treatment (to help them quit) at any time, to be paid for by the tobacco companies. People who continue to smoke should be required to get some sort of supplemental health insurance so that they bear the true costs of their habit. Therefore, I am being consistent. I'm not morally opposed to casino gambling, prostitution, tobacco use, alcohol, as long as the people responsible for vending and using the product are paying for the social costs of their use. What's inconsistent about that?
Last edited by ShaneDog on Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash

Postby ShaneDog » Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:41 pm

ShaneDog wrote: The $15,000 figure social cost per problem gambler per year. The other, smaller figures are social cost per capita per year. So, something like (15,000 * number of problem gamblers) / population.


Right. First, your estimate of the % of problem gamblers is way off. Including people who play the lottery, people with bridge or poker nights, bets on sports, bingo and the many who go to a casino once in a while, a whole lot of people gamble


Even if you go with the low end estimate - given by the casino supporters of 1% of the population being problem gamblers (even though peer-reviewed research has shown that this number is too low and I have yet to see peer reviewed research cited by supporters), that is still over 4,000 problem gamblers in Dane county. 4,000 * $15,000 = $60 million a year in social costs - not an insignificant amount and not near as much as we are going to be getting from the casino.

As far as the rest of your arguments, is it so unreasonable to expect people who benefit from activities with huge social costs, be responsible for the burden of the social costs and not the population in general? I have no problem with the Ho-Chunk having their casino here as long as they agree to pay the whole social cost of their operation. It's not my fault that bar owners get away with making money off activities that cost society a lot of money. I would be the first one to support legislation changing things and making it equitable.
ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash

Postby Harbinger » Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:56 pm

ShaneDog wrote:
ShaneDog wrote:
I have no problem with the Ho-Chunk having their casino here as long as they agree to pay the whole social cost of their operation. It's not my fault that bar owners get away with making money off activities that cost society a lot of money. I would be the first one to support legislation changing things and making it equitable.


Here here! Capital idea, man! So, all for letting the Indians have their casino just as soon as Hell freezes over .... ah, I think we have majority! Good job fellow! You came through. (Psst. I especially like how you can hardly tell that we're changing the rules of business regulation and government financing just as soon as the oppressed minority starts making a little money. Ha Ha!) So, ahem, now that that's all settled. You Indians there, you go ... go get a new project or something like that. And lets move on. Next on Dane County's agenda ...
Harbinger
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:07 pm

Postby ShaneDog » Wed Jan 21, 2004 7:28 pm

Harbinger wrote:
ShaneDog wrote:
ShaneDog wrote:
I have no problem with the Ho-Chunk having their casino here as long as they agree to pay the whole social cost of their operation. It's not my fault that bar owners get away with making money off activities that cost society a lot of money. I would be the first one to support legislation changing things and making it equitable.


Here here! Capital idea, man! So, all for letting the Indians have their casino just as soon as Hell freezes over .... ah, I think we have majority! Good job fellow! You came through. (Psst. I especially like how you can hardly tell that we're changing the rules of business regulation and government financing just as soon as the oppressed minority starts making a little money. Ha Ha!) So, ahem, now that that's all settled. You Indians there, you go ... go get a new project or something like that. And lets move on. Next on Dane County's agenda ...

Care to dispute my argument that casinos, bars, liquor stores, distillers, tobacco companies, etc should be responsible for the social costs of their products?

Maybe this example will help. I'm 100% for paying monetary reparations to African-Americans and my reasoning is similar to views expressed by Randall Robinson on the subject. We as a society benefited economically from over 200 years of slavery and therefore we deserve to pay the social costs. I'm for paying reparations to Native peoples too, in fact I would much rather give them $60 million a year to not build that Casino because that would save society money overall because it would prevent all social costs.
ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash

Postby Harbinger » Wed Jan 21, 2004 8:28 pm

ShaneDog wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
ShaneDog wrote:
ShaneDog wrote:
I have no problem with the Ho-Chunk having their casino here as long as they agree to pay the whole social cost of their operation. It's not my fault that bar owners get away with making money off activities that cost society a lot of money. I would be the first one to support legislation changing things and making it equitable.

I'm 100% for paying monetary reparations to African-Americans and my reasoning is similar to views expressed by Randall Robinson on the subject. We as a society benefited economically from over 200 years of slavery and therefore we deserve to pay the social costs. I'm for paying reparations to Native peoples too, in fact I would much rather give them $60 million a year to not build that Casino because that would save society money overall because it would prevent all social costs.


I'm afraid you didn't get my "when Hell freezes over" joke. I think you mean well. I am also a 100% supporter of Mr. Robinson's reparation proposals. However, seeing as it might not pass within the next couple weeks, I would not vote against our equal opportunities ordinance or shut down affirmative action tommorrow on the basis that fair reparations are about to be given out to take up the slack.

Your argument is like: "Wouldn't it be neat if there were statewide fees equal to the harm suddenly imposed on all bars, porn shops, liqour stores, fast food restaurants, cigarette sellers and all other potentially harmful vendors in the state?" And: "Wouldn't it be dandy if the governor and legislature got really high tommorrow and voted to give a hundred billion dollars to the tribes?"

In either case, I agree, your logic would be impeccable ... should either such unlikely scenarios somehow occur. But here we are where no reparations vote and no 'suddenly raise bar fees 10,000%' vote is on the schedule. Not even close. And what is actually on the table is a casino to provide income to the tribe in this decade.

So, here and now, your assurance that you really do care about equalizing oppressive inequalities and your pie-in-the-sky "some day" theorizing is merely unconvincing justification for telling the tribe, sure, you can have casino income ... just as soon as Hell freezes over. And then scratching your head 'What? What?' as to why that top-down and completley illusory alternative could not possibly satisfy impoverished tribal members who have a workable plan of their own.
Harbinger
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:07 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 5 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar