Comments on: CA: Prop 94-97 – Indian Gaming Compact.

By: jessica

jessica — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:18:30 +0000

I thank you very much for putting facts to what I already had a hunch would be, yet again, the big shaft for Native Americans.

Of course, how could I have thought anything different? That is all that the federal government has ever given to the original rightful citizens of this place.

I figured that it also had something to do with the 241 extension being completed, as the additional slots would bring additional folks, would mean additional vehicles, exponential smog (more so), thus creating the need for the new freeway. Nice try, @SSh01es.

I seriously hope that whomever is claiming to represent Native Americans is found out for who, or what, they truly are, a big sack of maneur!

Furthermore, the General Fund is the Dept. of Transportation, is it not? Or, the TCA directly?

In any case, thanks very much for your meaning in this life has truly given mine more kick for the cak

(Now, I only hope that they count my vote)

By: Another Surfer

Another Surfer — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:18:05 +0000

I am voting no on Props 94-97.

I don’t like the fact that Indian Gaming Casinos will be exempted from having to do environmental studies. This further reinforces a “special class” of citizen/business.

If I’m not mistaken, gaming casinos in California can only be owned by one class of citizen (Native Americans). This bothers me — it is a form of discrimination. (Two wrongs do not make a right.)

That this class/business is looking for additional special priviliges regarding the environmental act adds to this bothered feeling.

(And maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this request for exemption from environmental impact studies seem odd coming from Native Americans?)

I think your comments regarding the “neighboring non-tribal businesses” rendering the agreement to pay monies to the state null and void are excellent and certainly have added to my sense of conviction that this is a bad deal for California.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:31:46 +0000

Thank you for posting this synopsys of Prop 94-97.

I will be voting NO on Prop’s 94-97. Indian gaming casinos were established to provide jobs and money for Native American tribes in California. Not for all Californian’s.

To me a Yes vote basically says, all revenues earned by Indian gamin casinos no longer belong to the tribes, but belongs to the state.

Additionally the language that could negate the deal is too vague as it does not establish the rules clearly.

I would vote yes, if the money earned from the increase of slot machines was to be put into the Indian Tribal Fund.

This is an example of the rich become richer while the poor become poorer.