Can anyone solve the Vikings stadium puzzle?
Original concept design by Ellerbe Becket
"[H]aving an NFL team in Minnesota requires a stadium solution. This solution must be finalized in the 2011 [legislative] Session."
—From a statement Tuesday by the Minnesota Vikings
It was a dark and stormy morning at the state Capitol two Wednesdays ago when a deftly timed bombshell dropped: the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on Gov. Tim Pawlenty's unallotments was released just as a Minnesota Vikings' stadium bill, already wobbling under the weight of widespread opposition and inadequate funding mechanisms, was being heard by a Senate committee.
If the Vikings effort wasn't already low on the governor and Legislature's list of end-of-session priorities, it plunked off the table like a squished purple grape and dribbled below the radar, never to be heard from again in the final days.
What now?
As the session's dust settles — and even as the state budget deficit is presumed to reach $5 billion heading into 2011 — what now? Where does the $800 million-and-increasing Vikings stadium effort stand after this session? In their corporate statement Tuesday, the Vikings declared this a "watershed moment for the future of the franchise in Minnesota."
But how, as the Vikings also declared, can a stadium deal be "finalized" in 2011?
REUTERS/Jim Bourg
Gov. Tim Pawlenty
Pawlenty, freed now from making a tough decision on the matter, told reporters on Monday, "We cannot and should not lose the Vikings … but the details of how you put that together are important." He argued, as he long has, that any Vikings stadium deal needs "a local partner," meaning a city or county to foot the bill. He declared the team is "not going to stay in the Metrodome." And he said the Vikings' matter would have to "wait until next year" because he wasn't about to call a special session for a stadium bill.
In that one passage, the governor was half-right.
Losing the Vikings wouldn't be a good thing for the culture of the state, and, depending on how you balance the taxes the team contributes and the subsidy that would be created, it probably would not be a good thing for state coffers, either.
As for a "local partner," exactly which city or county can afford to finance a stadium without state funds remains a financial and political mystery, even though Minneapolis city officials are eager to keep the franchise downtown on the current Metrodome site.
Yes, long term, the team is not going to stay in the Dome, but just because its lease expires after the 2011 season doesn't mean the team can't play there beyond that; the Twins did so on a year-to-year basis for six years after their Dome lease officially expired. And there is some case law — born from the Twin ballpark debate — that could provide hurdles for any Vikings' attempted exit after 2011.
Still, the leverage, it would seem, tips toward the team once the lease officially expires and the Vikings are relatively footloose.
Wait until next year? Yes, Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller told MinnPost Tuesday. He's figuring the matter could wind up as part of a larger infrastructure package in the Legislature. (Mayor R.T. Rybak thinks a Vikings plan must also be linked to other issues.) If it's not addressed in the 2011 session, the "franchise could be at risk," Pogemiller said.
Council President Barb Johnson
Minneapolis City Council President Barbara Johnson and City Chief Finance Officer Patrick Born met last week with Vikings' president Mark Wilf, brother to primary owner Zygi Wilf, and other team officials and laid out to them the real problems the city faces in funding any new sports facility by itself. Any existing citywide tax simply couldn't fund the debt for such a large project, Johnson and Born told the team. Plus, there is debt on — and improvements needed at — city-owned Target Center and anticipated financial demands long term for the Minneapolis Convention Center.
"I think they were sobered by that," Johnson said of Wilf and his aides.
Still, Johnson told MinnPost Tuesday that she is hoping that a "working group" of legislative and, perhaps, regional leaders will get together this summer to begin exploring ideas to resolve the Vikings stadium dilemma in time for the 2011 legislative session.
Any successful group will thoughtfully analyze the value in keeping the team, the cost of doing so and, on the other hand, the real risk of losing a franchise in the nation's most popular professional sport.
The Los Angeles threat
Without making threats, the Vikings' lobbyists — led by Lester Bagley — have done a nifty job in cementing a clear-cut message and perception: If a Vikings' deal isn't done in 2011, the team will play out the final year of its 30-year-lease and, presumably, pack up and move to, let's say, Los Angeles for the 2012 NFL season, just as surely as a free agent player might select his favorite venue to bring his talents.
As Bagley has said many times — again, without any threats — "It's now down to 20 games left at the Metrodome."
That may not be necessarily so. As one sports economist told me last week, "If L.A. were simple to move to, it would have been done by now."
No one doubts that the possibility is real that an NFL team could move to Los Angeles in, say, the next five years. After all, that glamorous market, with its vast TV territory and outrageous community of bling, has been without an NFL franchise since 1995. It's the only existing rational open market for an NFL franchise.
But there are daunting economics there. First, as here in Minnesota, a stadium needs to be built. Various plans are being kicked around, but the cost is a factor when a new edifice is discussed in Los Angeles. (The new Dallas Cowboys stadium cost $1.3 billion and the new New York Giants/Jets stadium is tagged at $1.6 billion. So, L.A. would want to be in that realm.)
Because of the size of the market, and the amount of private money that could be raised there — from potential owners, corporate backers, private seat licenses and luxury suites — a $1 billion-plus stadium could, eventually, be built without public dollars in Los Angeles. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said, "In California, we don't build stadiums with public money."
But, whenever and wherever that stadium is built, it still needs a team, and the Vikings aren't the only NFL franchise in play. Buffalo, Jacksonville and even the St. Louis Rams, which moved from L.A. 15 years ago, could be candidates. A more natural, potentially mobile franchise is the San Diego Chargers. The Charger ownership, too, has been in a lengthy battle for a new stadium. Wouldn't it make sense to simply have a team that's already geographically adjacent to the Los Angeles metro area slide into a new Los Angeles stadium?
Assuming any franchise will move to Los Angeles also assumes two whopping price tags in addition to the stadium costs. The private builders of the stadium will want to own the team or be partners in the team. Vikings lobbyists have said that the Wilf family would never move the team, but, more likely, sell the Vikings and that a new ownership group would move the team.
What would it cost to buy the Vikings to move them to Los Angeles? $800 million or $1 billion?
REUTERS/Eric Miller
Zygi Wilf
Beyond that, what will the NFL's other owners charge Zygi Wilf or any new owner to move to and gain control of that Los Angeles market? The number for such a transfer fee is uncertain. Could it be $500 million? More? If you are the owner of the New Orleans Saints, wouldn't you want to pocket as much dough as possible from the guy who will gain control of the L.A. franchise and all of its revenues?
So, $1 billion for the stadium, and, let's say, $800 million for the franchise. Add on a substantial transfer fee, and this looks like a $2 billion deal to get an NFL franchise — to get the Vikings — to L.A.
Can it happen? Sure. Will it happen? Not this week. Not this month. Not this year. Why?
Labor unrest and other things
The collective bargaining agreement, or CBA, between the NFL Players Association and the league's owners expires after this season. Already, the 2010 season is affected by the removal of the players' salary cap. Whether revenue-sharing among owners will continue and just what the economics of the league will look like as the new union deal is struck remain murky.
No one is going to buy an NFL team while the CBA is open and the future financial structure of the very prosperous league is subject to tinkering. This gives Minnesota some time to ponder its stadium move. It also means that local officials need to closely monitor the labor talks; the terms of any new collective bargaining agreement could affect the economics of any stadium deal here.
There are also league rules about relocation that must be followed, six pages worth (PDF).
Among them: Any franchise relocation requires a three-fourths vote of approval from other owners, and NFL "traditions disfavor relocations if a club has been well-supported and financially successful and is expected to remain so."
But a key threshold for a franchise to walk through in advance of relocation is the stepped-up involvement of the league itself in attempting to resolve any stadium stalemate. While the NFL has been closely monitoring the Vikings' situation, the team has not yet declared that it "cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs." Tuesday's statement crept into that zone, but the NFL has not arrived on the scene … yet.
Indeed, for now, no local political leader has developed a strong relationship with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. It may be time to begin developing one.
There is one other Machiavellian matter to consider. In sports league economics, there is an advantage to the NFL to keep the Los Angeles market open. Keeping L.A. available to move a team — but never used — allows owners in Minnesota or Buffalo or Jacksonville with a hammer to threaten their communities with a place to go.
On the other hand, moving San Diego to Los Angeles wouldn't allow for the revival of an aggrieved market. That is, should the Vikings move one day, you could be certain that Minneapolis-St. Paul would be viewed as a perfect site for another NFL team to move, if and when it wanted to and if and when Minnesota built a new stadium. (This is how the NHL got St. Paul and the state to build a new arena after the North Stars left for Dallas.)
If San Diego's team simply moved to L.A., that wouldn't really "open up" another option market for NFL owners to point to. It would be relocating a team within that greater Southern California sprawl.
Another exercise for any "working group" to perform is to begin thinking like an NFL owner: What are the benefits and drawbacks to losing the Minnesota market?
Back to Minnesota
However many hoops there are to navigate, it is crunch time here for a Vikings stadium. With the march toward the Dome's lease expiration and the noisemaking by the Wilfs intensifying, it's clear that various political forces in Minnesota will try to develop a rational, understandable Vikings' stadium plan. (Rational to some people, that is.)
The team itself needs to come to the table with some ideas, too, and, undoubtedly, more private money than the Wilfs have mentioned so far. In the halls of the Capitol, an owners' contribution of $250 million isn't nearly enough for an $800 million stadium that will increase the value of the franchise substantially.
Rep. Tom Emmer
The gubernatorial election will be extremely pivotal. As one DFL lawmaker told me last week, "Tom Emmer is the Vikings' worst nightmare."
If the Republican candidate for governor wins, his no-new-taxes, reduce-government penchant — like that of Gov. Pawlenty — could stall any effort to finance a stadium with any sort of public participation.
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the DFL-endorsed candidate, has been more open to a Vikings' discussion. She is based in Minneapolis. She voted to approve the Twins ballpark and Gophers football stadium in 2006. And imagine the optics: the state's first woman governor "saving" the football team for all those purple-and-gold face-painted yahoos. It would be Nixon-going-to-China, Minnesota style. (But then, if Mark Dayton were to beat Kelliher in the DFL primary, the Vikings could also be in a world of hurt.)
Meanwhile, Independence Party candidate Tom Horner has said he's willing to use state funds to help build a Vikings stadium. (Horner's public affairs firm, Himle Horner, is currently consulting on strategy with the Vikings.)
What could be in any governor's tool box?
A collection of user fees, such as hotel taxes, rental car taxes and sports apparel taxes that were shot down by Pawlenty, but could be revived.
Dick Day
There's always former Sen. Dick Day's racino plan, which never gets any traction from the DFL or some anti-gambling foes but seems to have citizen support. Whether the NFL or bond counsel would rely on gambling money exclusively for stadium debt is worth exploring.
Talk of using a Minneapolis Convention Center tax seems, for now, to be dead; As city officials did at the Capitol earlier this month, Rybak, Pogemiller and Johnson all rejected it in interviews Tuesday.
There could be a regional approach with state involvement. Johnson hinted at that, with some idea to bring all of the public assembly facilities — such as Target Center, Xcel Energy Center and the St. Paul and Minneapolis convention centers — under one umbrella with a new Vikings stadium. How to fund that? Could there be an economy of scale in such a plan?
The sale of private seat licenses to Vikings fans and corporate sponsors was the core of the final bill passed by a committee this month. How much can the team and community raise privately to minimize any public subsidies?
Mayor Rybak has talked of the public capturing the increased value of real estate adjacent to any new stadium. How would that work?
And, then, of course, there is some sort of naked state funding for a statewide asset that pours about $20 million annually into the state treasury via income and sales taxes.
Other ideas will have to flow as the 2010 legislative session fades away, the 2011 session approaches and the Vikings are set to begin their 29th season of a 30-year-lease.
Jay Weiner has reported on Minnesota's stadium debates since their earliest days.
More like this
- Racinos: another plan, this one with a twist and lots of questions to ask and answer
- Will Canterbury -- and racinos -- be in the winners' circle after the gubernatorial horse race?
- Racino plan sputters as gambling issues pile up
- With the scramble for new revenue, will Minnesota expand gambling this time around? All bets are on
- When the dust settles, racinos will be the best choice for Minnesota
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
34 comments
-
21 comments
-
17 comments
-
11 comments
-
10 comments
Comments (79)
Claire,
You clearly have some kind of stadium plan in mind beyond a racino. You seem to be talking about some kind of publicly owned stadium. You also seem to be talking about a domed stadium or a retractable roof, which pushes the cost well over a billion.
The fact that Canterbury has never gotten state money is relevant how?
The numbers racino proponents are using appear to be pulled out of thin air. On the Racino Now! website: http://racinonow.com/index.php It's impossible to figure out where these numbers are coming from. They talk about 18 other racinos in the country but the link that's supposed show us some numbers just leads back to another page devoid of any data. In some places it looks like the state is supposed to collect 42% of revenues after operating expenses, but they claim they'll make a billion dollars a year. There's no breakdown of estimated expenses so I don't know how they end up with $100 million. In some places they estimate $125 million instead of $100 million.
Several things raise flags for me here. One, if these racinos have been such great deals in 18 other states, why don't they show us the data on these other racinos? Two, how are these slot machines are one location going to generate almost half the revenue that all the other slot in the state generate? Why will they outperform the other casinos? four, any comparison of this racino to any other racino requires a thorough analysis of the other states, gambling competition, i.e. how many casinos does a given racino compete with etc. I see no evidence of any such analysis, just claims that may well be made up.
Here's the real problem though with the idea that your going to pay for a stadium with this racino- according to the legislation, here's how the states racino money gets spend:
1.17(1) Twenty percent of the fund is dedicated and may be appropriated for agricultural...(snip)
1.20(2) Twenty percent of the fund is dedicated and may be appropriated for early
1.21childhood development and family education.
1.22(3) Twenty percent of the fund is dedicated and may be appropriated for research
1.23and development of bioscience and medical technology businesses and employment
... (snip)
2.1(4) Twenty percent of the fund is dedicated and may be appropriated for athletic,
2.2recreational, and extracurricular facilities and programs and to stimulate capital
2.3improvements and employment.
2.4(5) Twenty percent of the fund is dedicated and may be appropriated for general
2.5fund expenditures.
Now, 2.1 (4) is the clause that applies to stadiums. That means 20% of the revenue can go to the stadium. Well, assuming the $100 million a year is accurate, that means you get $20 million for the stadium- and that's not enough.
In some places on the website they claim or refer to press reports that the racino will raise $40 million a year, but that's contrary to the numbers they provide elsewhere.
The other funny thing about all this is Dick Day's participation. He claims that this racino revenue will create thousands of jobs due the state spending it will enable. Well, why is state revenue such a great thing for the economy when it comes from a racino but an downright assault on our basic way of life when it comes from taxes? This would be after all, essentially a tax on the racino.
You're right! The information on the Racino website is confusing. The reason is since those numbers allocating the money from Racino were published a second bill was presented that changed the percentages to allocate 40% to the Vikings Stadium. Unfortunately, the keeper of the Racino website failed in his job to update and clarify the changes.
The new bill would add another 1000 slots to the already requested 1500 and eliminate Running Aces from the bill. The split would go 4 ways with the stadium getting 40% or $40,000,000. The $100,000,000 is the conservative guess made by the Minnesota Lottery as to how much money would be available as the state's percentage of the takeout. It is not a number pulled out of the air.
If a casino was not lucrative, the indians would not be fighting so hard to keep their monopoly. And that location is prime in Shakopee because of its proximity to the cities and the airport and all those nice roads built by the state to carry people to the area. The reason there aren't any more casinos is because the state has not granted any licenses. If they had, I can assure you that Zygy would be the first in line for a license to finance his business.
Parimutuel betting came to Minnesota before Mystic Lake and when the tribes opened their casinos it was very hard on horseracing. No protections were written into the compacts to protect the businesses from what was then a Bingo Parlor just down the road. That was very shortsighted of the legislature. But the compact does not grant the indians exclusive rights. The legislature is free at any time to grant slots to Canterbury. The reason it makes sense to stay with Canterbury is because adding slots would not be a wholesale expansion of gambling. Canterbury already has Parimutuel and a card club. The location stays the same. And the gambling is state regulated, unlike tribal casinos.
There is really no need to compare casinos state by state. They are not in competition state by state. The states that have casinos make money and those that don't have them don't make that money. Minnesota is the only state with casinos that does not get a part of the profits. In fact, the state required that the indian smoke shops charge a sales tax on their cigarettes and gasoline so that they wouldn't wipe out the local private businesses with unfair competition. They collected $19,000,000 and the state then returned $17,000,000 to them.
I brought up the fact that Canterbury has never received public money or special aid because it is important to note that they have only contributed to the state's economy and that should it fail, the state would not have to bail them out. Canterbury is not asking for a handout. It is asking for the right to conduct business on a level playing field with the other racing states. A racino would enable the track to raise its purses to the same level as neighboring states. For example, we ran a horse in a maiden race last night in Oklahoma for a purse of over $20,000. At Canterbury that same race will only be run for about $7,000. IF the horse wins, the winner gets %60 of the purse, 20% to second, and so forth. Take 10% of first place for the trainer and 10% for the jockey, etc. and it is nibbled away pretty quickly. To support the horse he has to win pretty often to pay upkeep. If the purses in another state are higher, it only makes sense to run your horses in that other state. The best horses are going to go down the road to follow the bigger purses. And the economy will be adversely affected by the loss of literally thousands of jobs when the industry fails.
What does all this have to do with a stadium? Well the beauty of the projected money to the state is that it is (again you are right)a tax but really it is a voluntary tax because if you don't play you don't pay. It is not imposed on anyone that isn't willing to participate. The state can use the money as they see fit. But it becomes a way to build the stadium without imposing a lot of fees, taxes, and charges on the people who don't want to pay. If the VIking fans want to support the stadium they can gamble all they want and have fun doing it. It's sure more fun than buying a license plate. And if you play the horses you have a real chance to win at 10 to 1. It's already set up and the MRC is an actual commission. There will be no additionl cost to the state.
There is no mystery to Racino. It's a win win for everyone and 80% of the prople want it.
Clair,
Obviously casinos are lucrative, the question is lucrative for whom? It's not clear that this is a lucrative for the state revenue stream as it would be for the racino owners, or the racers like yourself.
You do need to do detailed financial analysis. And you do need to compare states. A single racino in a state competing against three casino will look very different than a racino competing against 18 casinos, depending on the population, geography, so on. I'm sorry but I'm not going take your word for it, you're going to have to give me some data. The fact that your not offering me any data, makes me suspicious.
The diversion of 40% instead of 20% towards a stadium actually detracts from the deal in mind. Why divert more money from education and health care? We're looking at a $5-$10 billion dollar deficit, why put any of this money into a stadium? Giving more money to the stadium actually hurts your case in my mind.
About the casinos and the compacts by the way. You have to remember that whole context of the compacts is about treaty rights and sovereignty. The reason the states have entered into these compacts is because the tribes are sovereign nations. This isn't about giving Indians special rights, it's about recognizing sovereignty. This is the legacy your government created when it colonized the land and wiped out the people that were already living there.
This is history. I know you white people like to ignore treaties when they're inconvenient but them injuns got lawyers now and it's not as easy as it used to be. The existence of casinos on reservations is the product of negotiation. States like MN that outlawed the form of gambling the tribes wanted to offer had to make a deal. Neither the states nor the federal government could prohibit gambling within the sovereign nations, as a matter of law. You problem here isn't that the indians have casinos, you're problem is that you outlawed them in the first place. The whole point of the compacts was to allow gambling on the reservations, and keep it illegal elsewhere. That was your idea, not the Indian's. Those are your vice laws, not theirs.
Now we have a contract, and yes, like anyone the tribes will enforce the contract, that's the whole point of having a contract. And I'll say this as well, there are some very significant differences between the tribal casinos and the ones Donald trump owns or the one at Canturbarry. While the tribes aren't perfectly transparent, or free of corruption, the tribal casinos are nevertheless a community asset. The proceeds are distributed throughout the Indian community regardless of participation in the casino.
When the tribes fight to protect their monopoly, their fighting to protect their community revenue, not just the "owners". The tribes use that money for infrastructure, schools, tuition, housing, health care, etc. That money also goes out to surrounding communities and the state as a whole: http://www.mnindiangamingassoc.com/jobs_and_impact.htm It's not just a business.
At the end of the day Claire, you really want a racino so you can make more money racing your horses. That's fine, this is America and I wish you well. But you have your infrastructure, and schools, etc. and a tax base to support them. A small number of tribes have managed to reverse over a century of crushing poverty with casinos, and their still not out of the woods. So yeah, they're gonna fight to enforce the compacts. When you describe this as a "win-win" for everyone, I'm sure you realize the tribes are not being considered part of "everyone". And by the way, the only reason their lobbying against your racino, is because your proposing it. If you weren't that money would be going elsewhere.
Paul,
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than to defend the current casino cartel that we have in Minnesota.
Here's a few facts about gaming in Minnesota:
(1) The tribes do not have a monopoly guaranteed in the compacts. The compacts merely grant the tribes the right to have gaming on their reservations and prescribe the kinds of gaming the tribes can operate. The compact also says that the tribes get to keep the gaming profits tax free. It does not state there will be no competition with tribal gaming.
(2) Minnesota is the only state that does not receive tax revenue from the gaming profits at the tribal casinos in our state. All of the other states that have tribal gaming collect taxes from gaming profits. Moreover, in 2008 the tribes collected over $19 million in sales, gasoline, liquor and excise taxes and the State of Minnesota refunded some $17.5 million back to the tribes. If you think Minnesota benefits from your purchases at tribal casinos, think again.
(3) The tribes have 42 lobbyists at the Capitol and have spent some $16 million in lobbying and campaign contributions (most of which have gone to DFLers). You mentioned sovereign nations and you're right -- the tribes don't even have to disclose where the money comes from when they bundle it together for the contributions.
(4) Study after study, including one done last year by the Minnesota Lottery, has shown Racinos would generate over $100 million in gaming taxes for Minnesota under the tax rates found in the past racino bills. You can try to diminish the numbers, but everyone knows casino gaming is extremely lucrative. Recent news articles have disclosed that members of the Shakopee Mdewaknaton Sioux Community receive $38,000 every two weeks from Mystic Lake profits.
(5) Racinos in the U.S. generated over $2.5 billion for the 12 states with racino gaming in 2008. They also employed over 29,000 people.
(6) Last, let me mention that nobody is proposing to re-negotiate the compacts or take anything away from the tribes. The tribes negotiated the best compacts in the nation fair and square. All racino supporters are saying is let's compete. Mystic Lake would have no trouble competing with Canterbury Park when you consider they start off without paying any taxes. The money could benefit all Minnesotans instead of only a few. In a state with some 60,000 Native Americans less than 10% actually receive money from casino profits. And, yes, the money could build a stadium for the Minnesota Vikings as discussed in this article.
Paul,
I remain dedicated to saving the horse racing industry in Minnesota. Without slots at Canterbury the industry is going to fail. When it fails( as when it shut down in 1993) thousands of jobs will be lost. I am more concerned about that part of the business. I have been working with legislation concerning racing since 1983. I was there when it all shut down and when the horsemen resurrected it. And it was by horsemen and for horsemen. We are not looking for a handout, we are looking for a way to stay in the black in an industry that is driven by purses. We already have gambling at that site so this is not an expansion as such. An expansion, which no one really wants, would be slots run amuck all over the place in bars, gas stations, restaurants, etc. that won't happen because our deal is that to gamble we are tied to racing. The track has to run a certain number of days of live racing to operate the card room. I doubt very much if anyone else is going to put in a track in order to gamble. Running Aces is not owned by horsemen and is not part of our push. IT also does not have the equine industry behind it.
The type of gambler that would be at a track would be someone who likes to use some intelligence handicapping. You're not going to find big shows and a golf course, tennis courts and what have you. And the track is family oriented on the weekends where families can not take their kids to a casino. If you look at Prairie Meadows, it has not developed like a Vegas Style destination. The same goes for Remington Park. It's a different style that I believe can co-exist with Mystic Lake and I think would enhance both places.
The Oklahoma Racino designates its money as going to education. There is an indian casino at nearly every exit along the freeways and they all seem to do quite well. Remington Park alone just gave $40,000,000 to the state for education and raised its purses so they are very attractive. The racing industry there was in trouble before they got slots and now it thrives so well that it is difficult to even draw into a race. It does a lot of good and the best horses run there.
The Sovereign nations around here definitely benefit from the infrastructure of the State of Minnesota. And if they weren't near the metro area with all its drawing power, I doubt the success would be so resounding. Yet all these benefits are enjoyed without paying the price. It's a pretty choice situation. And don't give me any of that argument about the early tribes being taken advantage of. Your people are not prohibited from moving into society and being educated and productive. They enjoy the same rights that the average Americans enjoy plus they have a few more thrown into the pot. The northern tribes are impoverished but so are the other residents of the north. Indians don't have a monopoly on poverty. And the inner city has its poor also. That's life.
I sympathize with the indians who do not live on the reservations and, with my tax dollars, help to support those that are on welfare and not supported by their indian nations. I also recall when we wanted to have a Racino and send a share of the money to the northern tribes who are not as successful as the metro area tribes. The idea was rejected then also. I don't think anyone with Racino wants to put Mystic Lake out of business and I don't think we ever could. We want to create a little competition which might benefit both casinos by creating a "destination".
The Vikings Stadium was listed as a recipient because it was a way to take care of keeping the Vikings without Taxing the general population. Simple as that. The rest of the money could be put anywhere the state needed it- which just happens to make health care and education, plus much needed research come to mind. When that financing is paid off, the 40% would be directed elsewhere. I could care less how it would be used but the point is that there would be some money going to the state without additional imposed taxes. And with this economy, we need it.
//Yet all these benefits are enjoyed without paying the price.
I'm sorry but 500 years of genocide is a considerable price to pay for some success with casinos in the last quarter of the 20th century.
//It's a pretty choice situation. And don't give me any of that argument about the early tribes being taken advantage of.
It's got nothing to do with "early" tribes, the exploitation and oppression continues to this day.
//Your people are not prohibited from moving into society and being educated and productive.
First of all, I'm not an Indian. Second, native rights are about sovereignty, not participation. Yes, they're are free to abandon their culture and traditions- they choose not to. clearly they have a different economic model and priorities. Your economic model concentrates wealth in the hands of the owners and winners. Theirs distributes it throughout the tribe.
//They enjoy the same rights that the average Americans enjoy plus they have a few more thrown into the pot.
I know it's hard to be member of an oppressed majority, but hey, sometimes that's "life" eh. Of course one of those rights is the right to hire lobbyists.
Again, the Indian casinos generate something like 2.5 billion dollars of statewide economic activity every year. So while Minnesotan's may not all get bi-weekly checks, you can't say casino spending doesn't help Minnesota.
We're way off topic here but I think the main point that has arisen is that you're trying to save your industry. That's fine. But don't tell me that somehow your doing all a favor. You're economics remain sketchy. One would think that with all these lengthy posts of yours, and since you've been doing this since 1983, you'd be able to point to one study, one link, one set of data somewhere to support your argument that a racino would be a reliable boon to our government revenue stream. You keep talking about studies, but then you got no damn studies.
Instead you're telling me that as recently as 1993 they actually had to shut down. You might want to consider the possibility that the reason the casino lobbyists are so effective, is that maybe they actually show up with verifiable information of some kind. All you've really got here is borderline racists resentment about some small pockets of Indian prosperity and you're inability to tap into it.
Consider this, seriously- your argument might actually much stronger if you left the anti tribal stuff out. Why are you complaining about casinos and Indian lobbyists? Don't flirt with racism. Just tell us what you want and why you want it. Be direct and conduct yourself with integrity. You want to save horse racing fine, make your case for horse racing.
Paul,
I believe Mr. Johnson gave you the information you requested. If you can't believe the truth than I apologise for not being trustworthy and being a realist. I'm sure you'll argue that. I am not anti Indian Casino and I am not racist by any stretch. I am upset by your averaging all casinos together when it works for you. The indians are not fair to their own people. If they were then the income from the metro area casinos would be averaged out and spread equally among all the gaming tribes. There is a gross imbalance among the tribes and I am tired of the argument that a Racino at Canterbury will hurt the tribes. It will only affect one tribe if we are honest. And the added income to the state would provide health and education to those indians that are not part of the Shakopee tribe. I can hardly be sympathetic to them as they have closed their ranks to their former members who are now on welfare in south Minneapolis. I am tired of Minnesota footing the bill for the infrastructure that leads to Mystic Lake. When they choose to expand, the roads must be upgraded and the cost of law enforcement goes up. What they have given to the community has been a fraction of the actual costs. Let them have their casinos but I don't understand why the state taxpayers must underwrite them.
It is hard to leave Mystic Lake out of the argument that we need parity with the other racino driven racing states in order to survive. Mystic Lake, and their casino income, are the only real obstacle to the state granting a Racino at Canterbury.
I have no problem with them having what they negotiated. That was a fortunate deal for them and it shouldn't be taken away. I do have a problem with the money they spend on trying to prevent the taxpayers from creating a level playing field. It amounts to bribery and I don't think that can be argued. The voters are 80% in favor ( I and all my cohorts just grabbed that number out of the air) but they are denied the vote because our elected officials accept the indian money for their campaigns. After November I believe the story will be a little changed. The people are ready for a change from a legislature that has accomplished nothing and points their fingers at each other saying not me, it wasn't me. You just can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Clair,
Please forgive me, I mixed you and Fran Johnson up, I failed to notice that they were separate comments, I thought you had posted twice. Some of my comments consequently are misdirected at you.
However, neither you or Fran have provided the information I've asked for. Fran simply refers to "studies" but doesn't point to any.
I can understand your frustration with lobbyists but your own argument leaves a lot to be desired. You don't even have an up to date website. You can't just pull numbers out the air and make claims about studies. Nor does complaining about the way the tribes distribute their winnings or spend their money help your case.
Paul,
Once again, you are correct that the Racino website is hopeless. But it is not my website.
Mr Johnson refers to "study after study" and refers to one of the most recent which was done by the Minnesota Lottery before the Racino bills were written. Their estimate of the amount of money that wuld be available is conservative by their own admission so as not to be overly optimistic. Those are the figures the Racino bill uses. One of the earliest studies was done by the University of Minnesota in 1992 or 93. That was a study on the economic impact of the racing industry in Minnesota. At that time it stated that the industry had contributed over $235,000,000 in fees to the state annually and the closing of the track eliminated over 7000 jobs. I'm sorry I'm not computer research savvy so I can't tell you where to look. I'm an old designer and not very technically inclined. My grandchildren might be able to locate these studies. I've just been around the place long enough to be familiar with the results.
I've paid enough taxes to know that the current system is not working. The state HAS TO come up with a creative way to gain income that does not involve taxes. We are already overtaxed and there aren't enough "rich " people to try to stick it to. I know that a lot of people don't pay any taxes and recieve an awful lot of benefits. And I'm not referring to the indians. If we could eliminate the professional welfare people we would probably have a lot more money in the budget. If we could eliminate fraud in the healthcare system we would have more money. And if we could regulate attorneys we would eliminate a lot of waste in the judicial system. Being a really radical person, I have always thought that people that don't pay taxes should not be able to vote. Sort of like not biting the hand that feeds you. I am also in favor of sterilizing people that have more than 3 children and collect child support. I could never afford more than two and so that is all I have. I think if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have more and make someone else support them. I know that circumstances make it difficult for some but if you go on welfare with 3 kids then you already have enough.
Now you think I am an extremist prone to tirades. Maybe that's true and I'm sorry for whining about my frustrations.
I will continue to work to save the industry because I believe it is good for the state. And I will continue to believe that a Racino would be good for the state and the people. I know that you believe that the Racino is mostly to benefit a few owners and race people. The fact is, the industry has to make improvements and put money back into the business. It wouldn't be much of a business if it didn't keep trying to improve itself. It is a public corporation on the stock exchange. There is no one waiting to grab the money. There just isn't enough to grab.
Paul,
I'm not against tribal gaming and my comments are not anti-tribal. All I'm asking for is the chance to compete.
You say that tribal gaming shares the wealth among tribal members and that may be true. A few tribes have some much wealth from their casinos that they share the wealth among their tribes. But as I pointed out, in a state with some 60,000 Native Americans, less than 10 percent of them actually receive money from casinos. Many of the rest, like those who live on the Red Lake and White Earth reservations are in poverty like they were 50 years ago. If sharing the wealth is so culturally ingrained, why aren't the other tribes sharing the wealth?
You say that gaming is an unreliable income stream for the state. Yet you point out that tribal gaming generates over $2.5 billion in economic activity about half of which is profit. Which is it? A cash cow or unreliable? I think you're smart enough to know that gaming in Minnesota generates a ton of money.
//I've paid enough taxes to know that the current system is not working. The state HAS TO come up with a creative way to gain income that does not involve taxes.
OK, my last response. Clair, thousands of years of human experience led to the discovery of taxes as the most reliable and stable means of paying for government. This is why the founding fathers gave the government the right to levy taxes instead of opening casinos. This experiment with ponzi scheme funding of government has gone far enough. Over the last 40 years we've cut our effective tax rates in half, that's why we're running deficits. We're not going to make up the difference with racinos. by the way, everyone pays taxes in one way or another, and the biggest welfare recipient I can think of is the Pohlad family who are getting $20 million a year free money from the people of Henn. Co.
Fran, I know white folks like to cram Indians into one common stereo type that looks kinda like a sports mascot of some kind, but the reality is that there are several different tribes. Tribes have their own languages, traditions, creation stories, and geographical roots. This is why casino money isn't distributed evenly amongst all "Indians". You know, it's kinda like MN not sharing it's income tax revenue with North Dakota. The existence of revenue doesn't make it stable. It's simply a statical fact casinos bring in $2.5 billion. That's not a guarantee they always will. Nationwide gambling revenues are down. Again, Nevada is really hurting right now because their whole revenue stream is dependent on gambling revenue which is way down. I'm simply not willing to gamble for government revenue.
One last comment about the data thing. You can whine about Indian lobbyists if want, but you hired Dick Day. What are you getting for money? The Indian's have a website, I've provided the link to that. On that website you'll find a economic study conducted by an independent professional accounting firm with all the data. Look at your website? I hear there's a study out there somewhere done by the U of M and the lottery board but apparently I'm supposed to go find them for myself. I'm just saying, quit complaining about the Indians and get your own act together. Make Day earn his money for a change. And I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that the race track employs more people than the Ford Plant in St. Paul. 7,000 jobs? I'm gonna have to see that data for myself.
Paul,
I did not say that 7000 jobs were lost at the track. I said 7000 jobs were lost when the industry shut down. The beauty of the equine industry is that the jobs are located statewide and not concentrated at the track. It is an agricultural industry so many of the jobs are scattered on farms all over the state. When the industry fails all those farms fail and all those jobs disappear. That number comes from the U's study (sorry there's that word again) done when the track closed in 1993. If I knew how to look up the studies I would but I don't know how. The jobs include ferriers, vet clinics, feed sales, manure concessions, hay haulers and producers, etc. AT the track there are probably only about 1,500 or so. The racing industry affects a lot more people in a broader base than the casinos on a long term basis.
As for you having to gamble for government revenue, the money going to the goverment would not be a gamble. It would be a no risk increase in revenue to the state and no individual tax would be involved. I would call it a voluntary tax. The state would not have to invest anything as the facility is there, the participants would be there of their own free will, the regulatory commission is already in place, and gambling is already happening at the site. All the state has to do is issue the license for slots, collect the fees associated with the license, and sit back and wait for the revenue. The gamble would be taken by Canterbury in building a bigger business and doing what they need to do to stay in business. That is a gamble that is taken by all businesses and the government would lose only their share of the additional revenue if the business fails. The state is not going to be taking a gamble.
You are the one who chose to lump all the indian casinos in the state together and average their income. We have said all along that we only need to compete with one that is lucrative and can stand the competition. Make up your mind what you want to say. Do yopu want to discuss businesses or cultures? I also stated that a Racino can not be compared to Las Vegas style casinos. It is a different clientelle. Racinos are not entertainment vacation destinations, unless it is someone who likes to play the horses. Las Vegas and all the vacation destinations are in trouble because the economy has affected the travel industry. Your comparison is weak.
Also, the Indian society you describe seems to also be one way and then another depending on your argument at the time. If you cannot lump all the tribes together then neither can you lump casino businesses because they all have different circumstances.
I have already acknowledged the weaknesses of the Racino Now website. Dick Day is a face that has brought recognition to our cause. But the Racino struggle has been going on for several years, before Dick Day signed on. It is entirely funded by the horsemen so most of the work done is on a volunteer basis. This is really a grass roots effort on the part of people who are struggling for a way to survive on an imbalanced and hostile playing field.
Paul,
You say that gambling revenue isn't stable. Well our current deficit shows that income tax revenue isn't stable either. I'm tired of hearing that we shouldn't have tax revenue coming off of gambling because it's not stable. All of our tax revenues are down: corporate income taxes, individual income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. When the economy goes south, it hits across the board.
My comment about the tribes not sharing the money with poorer Native Americans was a response to your comment that at least the money goes to all tribal members and not just the owners of the casino. That's bunk. The tribal members are the owners of the casinos, just as shareholders are owners of stock at corporations like Canterbury Park. The difference is that you have to be a tribal member to have ownership in Mystic Lake where anyone can buy stock in Canterbury Park which is traded on the Nasdaq.
As for the data, you're right that casino gaming is a $2.5 billion tax-free industry in Minnesota. I don't know how anyone can say that adding a venue won't amount to a ton of new revenue for Minnesota. It will. It's just that the current legislative leadership receives the lion's share of their campaign contributions from the casino cartel. They're not going to upset the apple cart. You have the right to your opinion, but 80% of Minnesotans don't agree with you. They want a racino and they want it now.
//The difference is that you have to be a tribal member to have ownership in Mystic Lake where anyone can buy stock in Canterbury Park which is traded on the Nasdaq.
Tribal members do not own stock in the casinos, they simply belong to the tribe. Imagine the Pohlads sending a check out to everyone in in Henn. Co. every two weeks. Again, it's obviously an economic model you don't understand or can't relate to.
The problem isn't that taxes don't work. Thousands of years of taxes prove that they do. The problem is we're not using tax revenue. Yes tax revenue is down- BECAUSE WE CUT TAXES and tried to make up the difference with ponzi schemes. The recession only made it worse. Now you want to expand gambling and tax the track in order to raise additional tax revenue. It's a convoluted plan. Why not just raise taxes?
Ya know I was trying find Claire's U of M study and I came across CP's financial statement for 2009:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Canterbury-Park-Holding-bw-1487785416.html...
They had really bad year last year and expect the same this year. You want to gamble that slots would save the race track. If they don't, we out that revenue.
OK you want save the racing industry, fine. But if you want us to change the laws you need to explain why we should care. You're strongest argument is that we might get some tax revenue out of the deal and the Tribes have casino? I'm sorry but it's just lame. You're problem is your own argument.
OK, this really is my last comment about gambling.
Claire,
There is no single Indian culture. There are many tribes, they don't all have casinos. I'm sorry but don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that.
That was a comment about Indians, not gambling:) I was my last comment about either really. No really. I mean it this time.
Paul,
It's been stimulating to say the least. Two different points of view. Your idealistic views on society and my pragmatic views of business.
You do understand that the citizens and visitors of Hennipen county are not members by birth nor are they shareholders, don't you? They can not be compared to the shareholders of a publicly held corporation. This a business venture that is entered into by choice on the part of an individual. Tribal members are born into their status. All do business but there is no comparison between the two sets of benificiaries. One side is capitalist and the other is socialist. This country is based on capitalism and the sovereign nations are socialists. The problem is when the socialists want it both ways and try to take over the capitalists by using their monetary advantages if they have them and political advantages if they can buy them. Sort of like the next big threat to the US- China!
Paul,
No you don't understand it. There is no difference between Mystic Lake, which is owned and operated by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and a corporation like Canterbury Park which is owned and operated by its shareholders. Your example of the Pohlads sending money to everyone in Hennepin County is frankly absurd. Let's stick to the reality here: the tribal casinos have made a few folks very very rich while the vast majority of Native Americans are in the same poverty they've experienced for decades.
As for taxes, I'd like to know which taxes were cut. Jesse Ventura cut the license tabs and rebated some money back to Minnesotans. I don't recall massive tax cuts during the Pawlenty years. What I do know, however, is that tax revenues are down across the board. As I said, the sales taxes, corporate taxes, individual taxes, and property taxes -- meaning revenues not rates -- are down. If you want to say that we shouldn't have a racino because the revenues are unstable then we shouldn't have sales, individual income and corporate income taxes either because those revenues sure aren't stable either. You mentioned Las Vegas and you're right that Las Vegas is down. Of course it doesn't help matters that the President of the United States is telling people not to go to Las Vegas. But what's also happening is that people are staying home to gamble and they're going to local casinos instead of Vegas.
You say that people should be given a reason to care about Canterbury Park and horse racing. If you don't care about Canterbury Park and horse racing, then fine. But I can tell you that 80% of Minnesotans support Racino according to the March 1-2 Survey USA/KSTP poll. I don't know whether they care about horse racing as well, but I do know that Minnesotans are sick and tired of the status quo. The reason we don't have a Racino now is because the tribes have 42 lobbyists and spend millions at the Capitol greasing the wheel to prevent a Racino from happening. And unlike Canterbury Park or any other corporation they can take money from the till and put it into the campaigns.
//Tribal members are born into their status. All do business but there is no comparison between the two sets of benificiaries.
Claire,you must direct your comments to Fran, he's the one saying tribal members and shareholders are the same thing. I'm sorry but both of you seem to be getting more and more confused. I don't know how make this any clearer.
Fran, I've posted a pdf chart of tax cuts here:
http://pudstrand.fatcow.com/Documents/HistoryofIncomeTaxes.pdf
This data is from the MN Dept. of Revenue. As you can see, we have been cutting taxes for decades, most recently in 2000. On top of that, despite the obvious and legal need to raise tax revenue we have refused to do so. Yes, you may now be paying more in property taxes than you used to in income taxes, but you have no one but yourself to blame for that. These tax cuts were your idea and you didn't bother to do the math before hand. Now you're asking to take your fiscal advice and use racinos to balance the state budget. I remain skeptical.
Let me clarify, depending on where you are your property tax increases may now have erased or reversed you income tax cuts. Again, this was a simple matter of arithmetic, and perfectly predictable. If you live in a city of 50,000 people that is getting a million dollars a year in state aid, in a state with 4 million people that million dollars is costing you twenty five cents. If you cut that aid in order to accommodate state wide tax cuts, you're going to have raise a million dollars locally. Now your million dollars is costing you twenty dollars instead of twenty five cents. This is how your $600 tax cut ended up costing you a couple thousands bucks. And since no one bothered to ask what services exactly we were going to cut, or how inefficient the government really is, it turned out that those million dollar state aid checks were actually necessary. I call it the "magic plagn", cut taxes and wait for the magic to happen.. or the right ponzi scheme. If only magic were a real thing.
Paul,
I'm not sure where to begin. You failed to address any of the substantive arguments I made. Based on your own chart, I am correct when I said that there have been no tax cuts during the last eight years. The last time taxes in Minnesota were cut was in 2000 -- a decade ago. The budget situation we're in have nothing to do with the tax cuts from ten years ago and everything to do with the bad economy. We could help the budget situation in Minnesota by passing Racino, which would generate hundreds of millions in new revenue for the state every budget cycle.
I'm not sure what LGA has to do with Racinos or the Vikings, but I know it doesn't have anything to do with tax cuts from a decade ago. If you don't like how much your county and city are charging you for property taxes, you should elect different local leaders. And your math sucks, because the largest beneficiaries of LGA are Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth. Most outer ring suburbs don't receive LGA, but their residents are paying income taxes which are transferred to other cities. The legislature could put the new Racino dollars into LGA if you'd like.
Finally, tribal members are the shareholders of the casinos they own and operate. Mystic Lake Casino is owned and operated by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. Its members receive $38,000 every two weeks from casino profits.
Fran,
We've been running deficits for 8 years. The deficits predate the recession. We've also been trying to cope with the deficit without raising additional revenue, an unprecedented and obviously failed experiment. The effects of tax cuts are not limited to 8 or 10 years. Decades of revenue cuts are cumulative. The economy doesn't conform to election dates much to the dismay of politicians. Pawlenty's mistake isn't that he's cut taxes as governor, it's that he failed to restore the tax revenue he cut before he became governor.
I don't know if your being obtuse or if I've just failed to explain things properly. One last time; tribal members do not own stock in the casinos, they are NOT shareholders. Tribal members to not have to buy stock in order to receive their proceeds, instead they have to demonstrate that they belong to the tribe. Once they're enrolled in the tribe, they are eligible for gaming disbursements, THEY ARE NOT SHAREHOLDERS. This is a very different model than any privately owned publicly traded corporation. One reason the tribal casinos are organized this way is it was intended to limit or eliminate the involvement of organized crime in the casinos. By guaranteeing that the proceeds go to tribal members, in theory, it limits any reserve organized crime may want to capture.
Paul,
It seems as though you're the one being obtuse. You want more revenue for Minnesota and Racinos are offering hundreds of millions of dollars every budget cycle only to have people like you turn the money down. If you want more taxes, you should be pumped up for Racino. As for the budget, you're wrong when you say that we've ran deficits for the last eight years. We have a balanced budget requirement. You act as though spending hasn't gone up -- it has.
http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/budget/report-spend/nov08.pdf
I'm not sure what your point is about the tribes. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community owns and operates Mystic Lake. If that's not like being a shareholder in a corporation, I don't know what is. Although you're right if you're saying that nobody else can be shareholders in the case of Mystic Lake where anyone can buy stock in Canterbury Park. The SMSC has had a history of keeping out new members of the tribe even when those people have more tribal heritage than some of the current members.
Yes Fran, when spending goes up and revenue goes down you get deficits. Who'da thunk? Pawlenty's never acutally balanced the budget in terms of revenue and spending. He's used accounting tricks to delay payments and move expenses, he's stolen money from education and other pots. He's depleted our reserves. This is why our deficit is now so huge, the largest in MN history in fact. There aren't any tricks left. All the temporary accounting tricks just kicked the can down the road under the assumption that some day the magic would happen. Ooops, no such thing as magic. Who knew?
Paul,
You rail against Pawlenty as if there wasn't a legislature. The DFL has a firm lock on both the House and the Senate and you know what, they cut programs and borrowed from education too. And, more importantly, they turned down a $100 million upfront licensing fee for a Racino at Canterbury Park. And by the way, as you can see from the chart I provided, spending increased during the Pawlenty years it did not go down. The spending didn't increase as much as the DFL wanted to spend, however.
So which is it, Paul, do you want more revenue or don't you? A Racino would provide the state's coffers hundreds of millions every budget cycle. You can't be for more spending and against Racino. You can't have it both ways.
I repeat: The government needs a reliable and relatively stable source of revenue. CD is currently losing money according to it's own financial statements, and Claire says horse racing in MN is currently a failing industry in danger of collapsing. CD has already shut down once. You want to gamble that adding slots will save the race track. This is a gamble, with Mystic lake only a few miles away there's no guarantee that the slots will save the race track. You want to tie state revenue to a race track that may go out of business anyways, it's that simple. Whether you get your slots or not, the state can not count on this revenue. You say you have revenue estimates, but predicting revenue under these circumstances is a very dicey proposition, gambling revenue is down nation wide. You say gambling revenue nation wide is irrelevant because horse racing is a different clientele, yeah, a smaller clientele apparently with less money since the track losing money and has shut down once already. Enough with the gambling and the ponzi schemes, our deficits belie that as a failed economic policy. I understand you want to save the race track, but your argument that you'll also save the state budget is weak. My advice, you need to be selling horse racing, not budget schemes and animosity towards Indians. You act like saving the race track is incidental to fixing the budget and breaking the tribal monopoly on gambling. Tell me why I should care about the race track? And if we use slots to save the race track, why not put them in gas stations to raise highway revenue? Why not put them in bus stations to lower fairs? Why not put them in bars to offset the effect of no smoking laws? And guess what, if you do put slots at the race track, and then someone else wants slots to save THEIR industry- you'll be standing right next to the Indians lobbying against it.
The brunt of the responsibility for these deficits rests on Pawlenty's shoulders because he's vetoed all but one attempt to raise revenue. I know republicans like to rewrite history but I was there. What was that one tax increase? The welfare program the Pohlads that built the Twins stadium- which brings us back to stadiums!
Paul, I was at the track Sunday and it was packed with fans and families. It's great entertainment and Canterbury has done a great job attracting new fans. The reason the track is in trouble is because the racino states are able to offer larger purses and attract better horses. Without the parity I have discussed many times, the track will not be able to get enough horses to fill the races. There needs to be something like 1800 horses on the grounds to have a successful meet. When there is a racino added to Canterbury the purses will be on a par with the other 12 states and racing will be a guaranteed success. Canterbury is one of the nicest and best tracks in the country at which to stable horses and race them. Minnesota has an ideal climate in the summer compared to the more southern tracks, and we have a large number of horse fanciers in the state. There is absolutely no reason the track would fail with a Racino. The sport's popularity is growing, it's the lack of a level playing ground that is hurting it.
With a Racino, the state would be guaranteed a large influx of cash without imposing higher taxes on anyone. I guess you are stuck in the welfare mode that thinks the only way to make money is to raise taxes on the rich. The lower income people don't pay as much and in some cases get refunds without paying anything in. If taxes keep going up on the businesses and the wealthier taxpayers, those people will just leave and then there won't be anyone to support the rest. A creative new way to raise money does not mean to raise taxes. What's creative about that?
//With a Racino, the state would be guaranteed a large influx of cash...
Again with the guarantees.
Lets see you come up with something better that will give the state hundreds of millions in new income that doesn't involve taxing something! As for guarantees, nothing in life is guaranteed except death and taxes. We already have enough taxes. Think of something else. And it can't cost the state anythjing either!
While the Racino will cost nothing to the state and the state won't have to guarantee it, it's about the best bet we can make- a safe gamble, if there ever was one. Why turn down all those jobs and income when the state is in so much trouble?