2 sides of casino proposals argued

Supporters and opponents of the Indian casino measures on the Feb. 5 ballot clashed Monday in Santa Rosa over the scale of gambling and the revenue it could provide for cash-strapped California.

With polls showing most voters undecided and more than $70 million in the combined campaign coffers, the televised debate gave each side an opportunity to make its case to Sonoma County voters.

Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 would allow four Southern California Indian tribes to add 17,000 slot machines to the 8,000 they already have, in return for sharing revenue with the state.

The agreements were negotiated with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ratified by the Legislature, but opponents -- including organized labor, horse racing tracks and other tribes -- gathered enough signatures to place them on the ballot.

At Monday's debate, opponents argued that the tribes obtained a "sweetheart deal" through shrewd political maneuvering and millions in campaign contributions.

Voter approval, they said, could lead to bigger casinos in other parts of the state.

Supporters said expanded tribal gaming could help bail California out of its budget crisis by pumping a share of slot machine revenue into state coffers.

"The state is going to have to cut vital services to the poor, to the elderly, to the disabled, to the whole community of education or raise taxes," said Cloey Hewlet, a pro-casino representative, pointing to the budget plan unveiled last week by Schwarzenegger.

"Gaming revenues help the state budget," she said. "We will not solve the deficit in total, but it is a fair deal for the state."

Opponents countered that the revenue estimates would be a drop in the bucket for the state, even though passing the propositions would mark the single largest expansion of gambling in U.S. history.

Ted Green, a spokesman for the campaign against the ballot measures, said the estimated state revenue would be one-half of 1 percent of the general fund.

Furthermore, he said, cloudy audit and financial language in the propositions would make it impossible to efficiently regulate -- or trust -- the tribes to provide the state its full share.

"The language in these compacts allows tribes themselves to determine what to pay the state," he said, adding it could be easy for casinos to "play games" with how they calculate slot earnings and state payments.

Supporters said the measures include mandatory audits.

California voters authorized tribal gaming through ballot measures in 1998 and 2000. But voters soundly rejected ballot measures in 2004 that would have allowed expansion of tribal casinos and potentially allowed race tracks to add slot machines.

A Field Poll published in late December said one in four voters had heard of the four measures on the Feb. 5 ballot and, after receiving information, 28 percent remained undecided.

About 35 voters attended the Santa Rosa debate, which was sponsored by the League of Women Voters and Santa Rosa Junior College. Many said their minds already were made up.

Opponents warned that passing the four propositions could set a precedent for tribes seeking to expand existing operations or build new ones.

Green said voters could expect other tribes, including those in Sonoma and neighboring counties, to demand additional slot machines and unlimited growth if the measures pass.

"The bottom line is it creates a template for the next round, and you can expect tribes here to be demanding more large casinos," he said.

Kimberly Cluff, an advocate of the propositions, noted that the opponents include a Placer County tribe that operates a rapidly growing casino and suggested that voters look for its motives.

"Talk about a bully," she said. "They don't want competition."

You can reach Staff Writer Laura Norton at 521-5220 or Laura.Norton@pressdemocrat.

com.