Since I get to sit here, just across the river from Detroit and see all of the political commercials on the American stations, I find myself thoroughly confused about Proposal 1. I tried googling it, but couldn’t find a layman’s translation of what it’s all about.
I’ve seen the Yes side commercials and the No side commercials and find myself with some other questions:
Who supports the Yes side?
Who supports the No side?
Who’s leading in the polls and is likely to win?
Kid_A, a confused Canadian dope, trying to understand Michigan politics.
I live in Michigan. Haven’t seen any pre-election poll results on this. Basically, this is a proposal to limit the expansion of gambling in the state, Indian reservations excepted. People against gambling, and those with a vested interest in the current gambling allowed (Indian reservations and the few current legal casinos in Detroit), are on the Yes side. The no side is financed by racetracks and others that stand to benefit from allowing more gambling.
The gist of the proposal is that if someone wants to open a casino, they must get approval from the state legislature and the people who live in the community where the casino would open. Currently, only approval from the legislature is required. This wouldn’t affect Indian casinos or the three casinoes in Detroit.
Both (D)Gov Jenny and (R)Speaker Johnson are against it. Various illuminaries from both parties are for it. Not really a party-line issue.
(R)Brutus is against it, FWIW. I’m willing to give Granholm the benefit of the doubt, since I don’t gamble or really care either way, and she has been a pretty good governor thusfar. Heck, we always have Casino Windsor if the Michigan casino industry goes tits-up.
Is there any truth to claims that Proposal 1 will threaten the Michigan Lottery (and thus the money it contributes to education)? That’s what the commercials I’ve seen on TV (and some of the sites linked to above) seem to be saying.
I don’t care about gambling, but I sure do care about education.
I see no threat to the lottery. It could cause problems with extending the lottery to add “electronic instant games or self-serve ticket terminals at licensed clubs and restaurants, says Michigan Lottery Commissioner Gary C. Peters.”, according to the main “no” site. However, as the existing lottery doesn’t have these, a yes vote wouldn’t change the status quo.
And the lottery doesn’t really contribute money to education. The state just has reduced spending from the general fund that otherwise would have gone to education as the lottery dollars have rolled in. And I consider it immoral for the state to actually encourage gambling.
Exactly. Much as I’m opposed to stupidity, I also think a stupidity tax is going a little too far; I’d much rather see schools funded by taxes (though I’m treading into GD territory here.) At any rate, it sounds like the theoretical threat to the lottery is fantasy.
I don’t mean to start a GD, but I’m curious why you feel this way. My experience with Michigan casinos has been nothing but positive - older people (like my parents) go there to have some fun and possibly win a little money, Native American tribes are using some of their profits to help students with higher education, and you can argue that Detroit has been somewhat revitalized in the last few years due to the casinos and the tourism dollars they bring.
If someone has a gambling addiction and will waste their family’s money on it, they’ll find a way to do it, casino or no casino, because their brains are wired differently and they get their fix on whatever they can gamble with - sports betting, dice games, cards, whatever. Saying that casinos encourage compulsive gambling doesn’t quite fly.
I’m voting no on Proposal 1 because I don’t have a “moral problem” with gambling, and I think competition should be encouraged in the gaming industry, as in any other.
The detroit casinos and indian casinos are the primary drivers behind this proposal. The adds for it make it seem like its a way to keep gambling out of you backyard. If you want to install some video poker machines somewhere in say Newberry, Michigan and you aren’t an Indian then the whole state would have to vote to approve it.
It’s hard to address this in GQ, but the problem is that gambling brings about certain social problems. Some people become addicted to it, and will sit there at the card tables or slot machines and gamble away their rent money, grocery money, car payments, and everything else. I may not be able to stop that person from ruining his life, but it stands to reason that I shouldn’t make it easier for him to do so. Again, this is not GD, but you asked why people feel that way.
And there is no threat to the lottery. The text of the proposal clearly states that only new games would be affected.
I always thought that the “threat” came from competition. More games (of all types) means less money spent by citizens on those scratch-off tickets, and so on. Not sure that is their rationale, and I’m not sure the concern is valid, but that’s how I’ve taken those ads.
As for the state encouraging gambling…My read on that was also different. I think what people mean is that they object to the state-run lottery games. Passing laws which enable casinos is one thing. It’s making gambling easier, more accessible. That concerns some people, not others. But with the state games, the state is actually in the business of producing gambling opportunities. Furthermore, the state markets those games with promotions and advertising. They encourage people to play their numbers, to buy scratch-off tickets. And for some people, this direct encouragement of gambling is objectionable for a state to do.
I understand that some folks simply enjoy casinos, and while I couldn’t possibly understand that, I don’t have a problem with it per se. However, Indian casino money has been less than a boon to Indians everywhere - it tends to be very unevenly distributed, it only benefits a small number of them, and there’s no evidence that it’s done anything to improve the lot of Indians as a whole.
And while you could make that argument about Detroit, I’d challenge you to provide citations for it, since it’s certainly contrary to anything I’ve read about the situation. I’m a student studying urban planning, and gambling has been far short of the promises made about it. It’s done nothing to help the city as a whole, though it has certainly helped some enterprising businessmen get richer.
Not true. Statistics show (when I get home from work, I’ll try to dig up an exact cite) that proximity to a casino is correllated to a greater tendency towards compulsive gambling; that people do develop gambling problems as a direct result of casinos moving in; and that gambling addiction has increased in the US as casinos have become more readily accessible.
Anything to limit “gaming” as it’s so euphemistically called strikes me as positive, and it particularly pisses me off that states run lotteries, which are state-sponsored gambling - after all, while people are permitted their vices (and I have my share), I wouldn’t like to see my state start selling cigarettes or distilling booze in order to shore up tax revenues.
This dosen’t limit gaming. It just limits the competition. Thats why the michigan gambling establishment is for it. The detroit casinos can still expand, and it dosen’t effect indian casinos.
Still, limiting competition means limiting gambling. State law can’t affect what happens on Indian reservations anyway, and the Detroit casinos were approved by voter referendum (and I think by the voters in Detroit), so they’d be OK even if they weren’t exempted. The problem is that some lawmakers want to add several new casinos around the state without a referendum.
I think I’ve read the studies that Excalibre mentioned. There is evidence that having easy access to gambling increases the number of compulsive gamblers.
Registrant
Andrea Huth
Martin Waymire Advocacy Communications ahuth@mwadvocacy.com
426 West Ottawa
Lansing, MI 48933 US
+1.5174856600
If you google Martin Waymire Advocacy Communications you can see they are a casino organization. David Waymire is mentioned as a casino tribe spokesman here.
Dosen’t it give you somehow give you pause, if you are aganist gambling, that you would vote in favor of proposal backed by the casinos themselves?
I like the Canadian casinos, I actually prefer them to the Detroit casinos when the backup at the border isn’t too bad. The Michigan horsetracks are funding it too.
If the ballot didn’t include the statewide voter approval ( regional only ), or an specific exception for the detroit casinos I probably wouldn’t have as big a problem with it.
I just read that Posthumus was in favor of prop 1. And I kinda liked him, so you’re probably not off your rocker either.
Actually the more I read, I see big stakeholders on both sides trying to protect their interests.
