Editorials

Amid all the discussion of which casino should go where, who has which tribe backing their proposal, which proposal is best wired in Sacramento or Washington, and attendant topics, the central issue in the situation has been largely overlooked. Is gambling the right way to finance government, or to compensate Native Americans for past injustices? Legislators have been tip-toeing around that question, proposing partial solutions which might just end up favoring one player over another. Diane Feinstein, for example, has proposed revoking the special legislation sponsored by the usually estimable Rep. George Miller on behalf of the crowd running Casino San Pablo, which positioned them to cut a recent exclusive deal with Governor Schwartzenegger. Feinstein’s solution seems at first glance like a good one, but it won’t be if it simply clears the way for the politically connected Upstream project at Point Molate, which has undesirable environmental consequences and poses a major liability risk for the adjacent Chevron plant.  

Assemblymember Loni Hancock has made some forthright statements about the patent foolishness of trying to finance the state of California with gambling money. It seems at first glance to give the taxpayers a free ride—gambling money only comes out of the pockets of gamblers, who can afford it, right? Wrong. Most habitual gamblers are working stiffs who are spending money they (and their families) can ill afford to lose. When they go into debt or even bankruptcy, it’s the government who has to pick up the pieces in most cases. Hancock took a step in the right direction in August when she proposed a constitutional amendment requiring more public discussion before casinos are sited, especially in urban areas. She’s recently been quoted as saying that she doesn’t know of any families who have gambled their way to economic security, and she’s got that one right too. More lawmakers should be on record opposing the idea of funding government with ill-gotten gambling proceeds. 

Instead, we see the embarrassing spectacle of jurisdictions falling all over each other to collect the supposed gambling largesse. The City of Richmond is plagued with unemployment and crime, but it’s sad to see that many of its citizens appear to believe that casinos will bring good jobs and less crime. The dismal history of Atlantic City should tell them a different story. And Atlantic City enjoyed a monopoly for a long time. If San Francisco Bay is ringed with casinos, gambling interests will be taking a lot more money out of the state’s economy than they’ll be putting into it.  

It would be refreshing to see even more, yes, moral judgments from our political leaders on this issue. Gambling is an anti-social addictive activity, and it doesn’t belong in every shopping mall in California. Is there someone besides Hancock, in Sacramento or Washington, who’s prepared to say on the record that it’s no more desirable for Native Americans to have to support themselves by deals with sleazy gambling conglomerates than it would be for them to be given a monopoly on, say, selling crack cocaine on reservations? One would hope so, but don’t hold your breath. 

y