All Four Referendums Qualify For Feb Ballot

Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced yesterday that all four referendums seeking to rescind the amended compacts approved by the state legislature this year have qualified for the Feb. 5 ballot.

The four tribes, who have put up $20 million to fight the referendums, are the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.

The tribes argue that their bid to each add between 3,000 and 5,500 new slot machines will generate $9 billion in revenue-sharing payments for the state of California over the next 20 years.

A coalition of horse-racing interests, the UNITE HERE hospitality workers union and two other tribes – the United Auburn Indian Community near Sacramento and the Pala Band of Mission Indians in San Diego County – raised more than $4.6 million to qualify the referendums.

"We're officially there," said Al Lundeen, spokesman for the opponents' coalition, the No on the Unfair Gambling Deals campaign. "We need to work to get the message out to folks on why these deals are unfair and why they need to be rejected."

The referendum backers, who are asking voters to vote "no" on the compacts, charge that the gambling expansion goes far beyond what California voters envisioned when they approved casino gambling for Indian tribes in 1998 and 2000 ballot measures.

"I think it's unfortunate for our state that these wealthy gaming interests who don't want competition are delaying implementation of these new Indian gaming agreements," said Roger Salazar, spokesman for the four tribes' Coalition to Protect California's Budget & Economy.

"We look forward to informing the voters of the state of the wide benefits of these (gambling) agreements and we are confident they will approve them because the are good for California and good for taxpayers."

In a related story and somewhat ironical, Dean Florez, a Democrat from Central California who chairs the Senate's Governmental Organization Committee, says he expects to see tribal casinos develop an ownership stake in racetracks, leading to the potential for wagering devices such as Instant Racing or slot machines at racing facilities.

"That's a big 10 years out, but yes, I can see that occurring if there is more cooperation between the tribes and the racetracks," says Florez.

Florez, who has been involved in talks between racing industry leaders and tribal representatives, was interviewed Nov. 13 on his perspectives toward racing. He says he's been encouraged by the direction of discussions. Several race sponsorships and advertising swaps have resulted, but the senator thinks that is just the beginning.

"I think there's a positive relationship now that probably couldn't have existed a year ago, two years ago for sure," he said. "The question is how do we build on that as something positive to build on the future."

One way, he suggests, is for the casinos to have an ownership stake in the tracks, which have struggled economically. He notes that racetracks can provide two objectives the tribes need most: diversification of their interests and urban locales.

"Locational issues are big for Indian tribes," Florez said. "If, indeed the tracks are partners with Indians in terms of ownership, the question is at what point do the Indians get to push open the door more and more if they are equity partners. I think there has to be a willingness by the racing industry to allow that and I think that's a possibility, I do.

"If a tribe had a 34 percent stake in one of the larger tracks, Santa Anita, say, why would it forgo putting various types of (wagering) devices, like Instant Racing and others, in those facilities if they were going to make more in the long run in a better locational situation?

"At least it's a better argument (for tracks) than in trying to beat the tribes at the ballot by in essence saying 'we're going to have slots whether you like it or not.' That is a tremendous waste of resources and time. I can see a break of light just starting to happen right now, just slightly. It isn't like the tribes are all trusting the horse racing industry all of a sudden, but the thing is they are realizing there are a few players in racing they can work with, and that's a big start."

Florez says he thinks it unfortunate that Bay Meadows Land Company, which owns Bay Meadows and Hollywood Park, has chosen to help lead the fight against four Indian gaming deals recently signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Opponents of the compacts, which greatly expand the number of slot machines the casinos can operate while also increasing the state's percentage of the revenue, have qualified ballot referenda to overturn the agreements.

At the same time, the 9,000-member Thoroughbred Owners of California has endorsed the compacts.

"In the old days, they used to say that the racing industry was hostile to Indian gaming," Florez said. "I think now people say there a few in the horse racing industry that are hostile. What I hear from the tribes is they don't see it as the entire industry anymore. They see it as a few players within the industry. So I think that lends itself to more sponsorships, more discussions, more cooperation between tribes and tracks. And I think in the long run there could really be some synergies in terms of sharing that might help sustain tracks with more monetary dollars over the long term."

Slot revenue, were it to materialize, could help the tracks financially and fatten purses, but it doesn't answer the industry's viability issues, Florez warns.

"It's a huge attraction for purses and in terms of making money, but I've been out at Gulfstream Park," he notes. "You look at what they've got and you go, 'There's a lot of slots here, but is it successful for horse racing?' Maybe to sustain it from a purse point of view but I'm not sure it makes the sport any more attractive to the masses."

Full Articles:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/504820.html
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=42118