Poll – Two Thirds Oppose Compacts

In a survey conducted for The Press-Enterprise results showed that residents in Southern California when asked whether the number of slot machines should increase, stay the same or go down, 66 percent want them to stay the same or go down. Only 33 percent supported an increase. Told of the poll, some Inland lawmakers said they remain committed to the deals. Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, R-Cathedral City, said tribes are sovereign nations that have the right to expand. "I think your poll is a small segment of the community that may have an opinion," she said. Assemblyman John J. Benoit, R-Bermuda Dunes, said some people focus on drawbacks. "It's my job to look at the thing in a much more comprehensive way than simply responding to a poll," he said.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said Tuesday, "Voters approved Indian gaming and it is the governor's responsibility to negotiate compacts that benefit the state and tribes." In an interview last month, Schwarzenegger said he knows that some residents are worried about bigger casinos. "Think about the amount of money that people take from California to Vegas. I think that I, as governor, feel a little bit more responsible about keeping that money here," he said.

Representatives of the four Inland tribes said Tuesday they stand by their proposals and consider themselves good members of the community. Morongo tribal members "will absolutely continue to pursue ratification of the compact, but, as in all projects they undertake, should they move to expansion, they would seek community input," said Waltona Manion, a public-relations executive for the Morongo tribe.

The San Manuel tribe said it has worked to mitigate the effects of its casino on its neighbors, many of whom were critical of the tribe's casino expansion a few years ago. "The impact to the local community and the local economy has been, and continues to be, very strong, including employment," said Jerry J. Paresa, the tribe's executive director of government relations.

The Agua Caliente tribe sent a statement saying they believe people will support their compact once they understand its benefits. The statement mentioned "good paying jobs, boosting our local economy, millions of dollars for schools and expanded healthcare, increased cooperation with local governments and increased environmental protections."

While those arguments may have once resonated with voters, the poll results suggest Inland attitudes are shifting. In the 1998 and 2000 elections, more than two-thirds of voters in Riverside and San Bernardino counties supported Indian gambling ballot measures, some of the largest margins in the state.

The new poll, though, finds that most Inland residents oppose raising slot-machine limits or are unsure. The split exists even when the additional state revenue is taken into account. Residents say they believe the area's tribal casinos help the economy and treat their customers and workers well, but the poll indicates significant concern that the gambling has led to an increase in criminal activity in surrounding communities. And some respondents say the casinos wreak havoc on some families.

Respondents' opinions broke down along gender and party lines, however, with support for tribal gambling and the amended compacts highest among men, Democrats and independent voters, and people who have gambled in the past. Skepticism is greatest among women, Republicans, and those who have never gambled.

The poll by SurveyUSA questioned 603 adults at households in Riverside and San Bernardino counties with phone numbers selected at random last week. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent. (Click on questions below to view graphical representation of results.)

1. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
State gambling agreements with California Indian tribes currently limit the number of slot machines that Indian tribes may operate. Should the number of slot machines Indian tribes are allowed to operate ... go down? Stay the same? Or go up?

28% Go Down
38% Stay The Same
33% Go Up
2% Not Sure

2. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
A proposal before the California legislature would let the Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Springs increase the number of slot machines it operates from 2,000 to 5,000. The proposal would also allow 3 other tribes - the Morongo band of Mission Indians near Cabazon, the Pechanga Band of Luise?o Indians near Temecula, and the San Manuel band near San Bernardino - increase the number of slot machines they operate from 2,000 each to 7,500 each. Do you support? Or do you oppose ... allowing area tribes to operate more slot machines?

41% Support
54% Oppose
5% Not Sure

3. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
If ratified, the new state-tribal agreements would require Indian tribes to share a portion of their slot machine revenue with the state. The state might collect an additional 200 million dollars to 300 million dollars a year. Do you now support? Or oppose? Changing the state-tribal agreements to allow more slot machines?

46% Support
47% Oppose
7% Not Sure

4. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
Now I am going to read some statements about casino gambling. For each, tell me whether you strongly agree ? somewhat agree ? somewhat disagree ? or strongly disagree. First: Casinos on tribal land will produce large amounts of revenue for the state.

32% Strongly Agree
35% Somewhat Agree
15% Somewhat Disagree
13% Strongly Disagree
5% Not Sure

5. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
Next: Tribal casinos cause criminal activity in the surrounding communities.

22% Strongly Agree
26% Somewhat Agree
31% Somewhat Disagree
17% Strongly Disagree
4% Not Sure

6. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
Next: Tribal casinos help the local economy.

37% Strongly Agree
34% Somewhat Agree
15% Somewhat Disagree
12% Strongly Disagree
2% Not Sure

7. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
Tribal casinos treat their workers well.

26% Strongly Agree
35% Somewhat Agree
13% Somewhat Disagree
9% Strongly Disagree
17% Not Sure

8. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
Tribal casinos treat their customers well.

31% Strongly Agree
37% Somewhat Agree
11% Somewhat Disagree
9% Strongly Disagree
12% Not Sure

9. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
Has gambling on tribal land in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties been ... Good for BOTH the casinos and the residents? BAD for BOTH the casinos and the residents? GOOD for the casinos, but BAD for the residents? Or ... BAD for the casinos but GOOD for the residents?

45% Good For Both
6% Bad For Both
40% Good For The Casinos
1% Good For The Residents
8% Not Sure

10. Asked of 603 registered voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1 percentage points
In the past year, have you yourself gambled on tribal land within the state of California?

46% Yes
54% No
1% Not Sure

Full Article Here:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/sbcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_D_poll06.3d57a67.html