Ray wrote on Jan 13, 2008 1:31 AM:Sorry but this time I am voting "no" on all the propositions. Over a decade ago, the citizens voted to allow gaming on the reservations with the understanding that they would do this on their own with no Vegas influences, what happened, Vegas pumped Billions of dollars into the indian casinos case in point Harrahs in Valley Center. The voters were mislead by the indian and Vegas interests and now we have an opportunity to say, once fooled but not twice. Send these casinos a message, vote no on all the propositions.

Randy wrote on Jan 13, 2008 4:40 AM:One of the four tribes is Pechanga. Pechanga tribal members were receiving $20,000 per month for doing nothing. But $20,000 per month was not enough for the majority of the Pechanga tribal members. They disenrolled the minority tribal members. Now Pechanga tribal members make $30,000 per month. But $30,000 per month was not enough for the majority of the Pechanga tribal members. Under the tribal compact with California, Pechanga tribal members will receive upwards of $100,000 per month for doing nothing. How will this be good for anyone?

JP wrote on Jan 13, 2008 1:57 PM:Really, Ted? They will "add a limited number of new slot machines"? Does doubling the number of slot machines really mean that? The only thing limited here is Ted's grasp on reality.

Taxpayer wrote on Jan 14, 2008 7:26 AM:Get educated on this issue! Who cares if the indians are making profits for doing nothing? That's how it works when you buy stocks and bonds. Who cares if they are adding a lot of slot machines? Here or in Vegas, who do you want to get the tax dollars, Nevada or California? The only good reason to vote against this wouold be to stop gambling all together since many many people are losing money they don't have and they will sooner opr later become a burden on the rest of us. I say, vote yes and take the money to the bank! Then vote out of office the big spenders who won't stop spending and balance our budget!

Kathy wrote on Jan 14, 2008 7:37 AM:I'd say vote "yes" because I have an in-law and her husband who spend at casinos in Nevada. The money they spend needs to stay in California. I lived in Northern CA 20 years and San Diego 20 years before moving to a God-foresaken location. If gamblers don't spend in CA it goes to another region's gambling industries, state, and local coffers. So you might as well vote to subsidize the CA economy, even if just at the level of state government spending. If you want to see how poor state revenues impact a region's ability to function, especially after civil and natural disasters, just study the South.

In the Know wrote on Jan 14, 2008 10:17 AM:Really JP! Perhaps you should educate yourself and know that Pala and United Auburn signed compacts with the governor about two years ago that allow them UNLIMITED SLOT MACHINES. Why isn't anyone concerned about that?

CR wrote on Jan 14, 2008 11:27 AM:All the benefits!!!--crime up, accidents up on all the roadways around the casinos, traffic jams worse. All the casinos do is depress the local economy because people have less money to spend on legitimate purchases. And what a joke Arnold has become--the best governator that Indian money could buy!

bill b. wrote on Jan 14, 2008 12:55 PM: I represent Residents Against Gaming Expansion, an organization of hundreds of residents which lives within 5 miles of the existing Sycuan casino. We are opposed to any further gambling expansion in East County.

Mr. Owen's letter has a fatal flaw. He lists all the advantages of the Indian casino gambling deals, but none of the negatives. Such a Pollyanish attitude is peculiar, and certainly not merited. I doubt any of his Chamber's members plan for their business in such a myopic manner.

For example, if a company proposed a huge toxic waste dump for Carlsbad, would Mr. Owens favor it? Would he favor it even in the dump resulted in higher taxes being paid to Carlsbad and the state? Would he be in favor of it if the company constructing the dump gave generously to local charities?

I doubt Mr. Owens answer to the above would be yes. He would be concerned with the negative effects of a toxic waste dump in his backyard, as he should be.

Similarly, Props 94, 95, 96 and 97 would ratify agreements with 4 Indian tribes which have enormous negatives- in fact, the negatives overwhelm the positives. I can barely begin to list them. I will try, briefly, below.

First, the gambling expansions proposed would be massive, not limited. The 17,000 additional slots would add about $2 billion per year to the coffers of the four tribes involved- while doing nothing to hlep the poor tribes throughout California. Isn't that what we voted for- to help Indians out of poverty, not to turn them into tycoons, at the expense of our communities?

Also, both auditing and environmental controls under these props is weak, not strong. Mr. Owne needs to read the fine print. The tribes themselves would determine their liability to the state. Is that a good deal for state residents? And why shouldn't Indian tribss be subject to CEQA, the same environmental law which all other California businesses are subject to? Under these propositions, they would be excluded from complying with CEQA.

There are also no provisions in these props for "mitigation" of the effects of expanded casinos on local communiities- to help with road expansion and repair, with traffic, with crime, with pollution. Is that a fair deal to the rest of us?

Mr. owen claims that no further expansion of casinos would occur. That is an outrageous statement. Prop 96, for example, would authorize the Sycuan band to build a 2nd casino on land they own (possibly Singing Hills Resort), but which is not part of their reservation. That would remove the land forever from the county's tax rolls.

The 4 Indian tribes spent millions to get these deals past the legislature, and are spending millions more to convince the public to approve them. These deals are great for the 4 wealthy tribes, but rotten deals for the rest of us. We urge all California to express their displeasure by voting "NO!" on Props 94,95,96 and 97.

For further information, please look up [Residents Against Gaming Expansion on the Web]

sickofgreed wrote on Jan 14, 2008 6:33 PM:P.T. Barnum was right when he said, "A sucker is born every minute." Gambling is for suckers, and those proclaiming it is beneficial are snake-oil salesmen-liars. Gambling doesn't produce anything and teaches our children that money is not to be worked for, but to be won with no effort involved. Billions of dollars of what Americans should be putting into their 401k retirement plans are being thrown away to Indian tribes who can't devise a productive way to become "self sufficient." When all of the gambling fools reach retirement age, they'll scream for a government bailout because they were tricked out of their retirment savings by the greedy tribes, just like subprime home owners are screaming now that they were tricked. Indian "gaming" is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the masses to a tiny minority in our state. This minority which proclaims to be a "soveregn nation" now has huge influence over our political processes. Their influence greatly exceeds what should be considered normal in a representative Democracy. Millions of dollars in gambling revenue are being used to buy political influence in Sacramento and Washington D.C. VOTE NO on 94-97!!

sickofgreed wrote on Jan 14, 2008 6:39 PM:Whats next? Legal prostitution? After all, that could help balance the budget too, and it would provide jobs at all of the brothels. We wouldn't be sending our money to Tijuana either. What about drugs? You could make the same argument there too. But the big question: what price for your society?

anotherview wrote on Jan 14, 2008 7:02 PM:Economic progress must include tribes, too. The amended gaming compacts between the 4 tribes and the state allow the tribal casinos to add more slot machines to meet customer demand. Other successful American businesses grow, and so should the tribal casinos. By the way, Mr. Owen left out of his opinion piece that the jobs in tribal casinos come with good benefits. Further, the thousands of tribal casino workers spend their paychecks in local communities, boosting the local economy. Mr. Owen also left out that the additional state revenue, as much as $9 billion, from these gaming compacts will come without new state taxes. Yet, special interests want to kill the 4 amended gaming compacts because they could not push the State Legislature to favor their position. The labor unions want easier organization of tribal casino workers. Two Indian reservations with tribal casinos want to stop the competition from nearby tribal casinos by preventing more slot machines there. Mr. Francer, a multi-millionaire, owns two horse race tracks and a big Las Vegas casino. He wants slot machines in his race tracks. These special interests believe that if the voters kill these amended gaming compacts, then the 4 tribes will surrender to the special-interest demands. Let us hope on February 5th the voters reject this special-interest power play, by voting Yes on Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97.

JP wrote on Jan 14, 2008 7:20 PM:Sorry, In The Know, I thought we were just talking about Prop's 94 thru 97, which the Pala Agreement has absolutely no bearing on. But since you brought it up, yes, I am aware of it, and yes, I oppose it as well, but the voters didn't have much say in that deal. You do raise a good point of the definition of "limited" being "fewer than unlimited". Fair enough argument. I could make the esoteric argument that "unlimited", like "infinity", is a theoretical concept and impossible to achieve given physical restraints. For example, a trillion slot machines is a "limited" number, but in reality it is "unlimited" because it can't realistically be achieved. Regardless, since Ted by definition is correct, I'll concede the point. I'm still voting no.

Gary in Murrieta wrote on Jan 14, 2008 8:11 PM: I am voting "no" on all the propositions.

Bill wrote on Jan 15, 2008 6:43 AM:Mr. Owen's piece is pure Pollyanna, touting the limited benefits of the props, and overlooking the dangers. In fact, his piece is riddled with errors. This would not be a "limited" expansion of gambling- it would be massive, the biggest in American history, adding $2 billion a year in revenues to tribes which are already wealthy. He is wrong too when he says no new casinos would be built; Prop 96 authorizes Sycuan to build a casino, and off-reservation, to boot! He minimizes the dangers of inadequate audit and environmental controls. He overplays the benefits to the staet budget- the amount of money involved is small compared to the state's spending. And when did the people of California say it is OK to depend on gambling revenues to finance state operations? That opens a Pandora's box. No help for poor tribes, either, which is what Indian casino gambling was all about. Vote No, No, No and No!

Wow wrote on Jan 15, 2008 8:46 AM:Anotherview is Pechanaga Propaganda! Your the biggest & richest SPECIAL INTREST in California. Once again another is the pot calling the kettle BLACK. No on 94!! Pechanga should not be rewarded for becoming the "Poster Child" for corruption & civil rights violations against their own people. With a track record like Pechanga's how can the public possibly trust them to play by the rules? People of California it is time to tell this Special Interest(Pechanga), NO , to corruption. By the way Pechanga has no concern for anyone outside the tribe & even some members. Don't beleive the B.S. T.V. spots begging for compassion. It is all about the money. Don't be fooled.

To Wow wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:49 PM:Maybe you should tell all the people Pechanga helped during the fires. this past year and four years ago.Whites, Black and Native Americans. Pala helped their people and was given credit for what little the tribe did. Pechanga cares and has more concern then any of the other gaming tribes in north San Diego county.

JT from Pala wrote on Jan 15, 2008 7:08 PM:ha all these white people think their from the US ha their from Europe and they still are trying to take away from the native americans typical white people

Tom wrote on Jan 15, 2008 7:25 PM:There will be a "no" vote from me.

No votes wrote on Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM:to balance the State budget on the backs of gamblers, for that matter on smokers and drinkers either. Cut the spending, stupid.

anotherview wrote on Jan 15, 2008 10:27 PM:In seeking to amend their tribal-state gaming compacts for more slot machines to meet customer demand, the tribal governments have followed all the rules under federal and state law. The controlling federal law (the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) codifies tribal gaming as a means for tribes to become strong and prosper, to gain self-sufficiency. In time, tribal gaming has succeeded beyond expectations. Now, tribal casinos also function as economic engines in their communities, benefiting thousands of other people and hundreds of businesses. Local governments see more sales tax revenue. By a side-agreement, the amended gaming compacts for the 4 tribes share the gaming wealth with have-not tribes. As well, the state will receive new revenue without new taxes -- a boon to the Golden State. Let us hope the voters see the positives on February 5th, and vote Yes on Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97.

Howiek wrote on Jan 16, 2008 7:05 AM:I really hate to remind some of you that this vote for or against the gaming compacts could be a wasted effort. Keep in mind that the tribes negotiated with the state and got legislative approval, then the Feds approved these compacts—legally, that is all the approval they need. This vote is a sham! Please recall that the tribes are quasi-sovereign entities, not necessarily subject to State laws, but they do come under Federal law.

No Anotherview wrote on Jan 16, 2008 2:22 PM:Anotherview is Pechanaga Propaganda! Your the biggest & richest SPECIAL INTREST in California. Once again another is the pot calling the kettle BLACK. No on 94!! Pechanga should not be rewarded for becoming the "Poster Child" for corruption & civil rights violations against their own people. With a track record like Pechanga's how can the public possibly trust them to play by the rules? People of California it is time to tell this Special Interest(Pechanga), NO , to corruption. By the way Pechanga has no concern for anyone outside the tribe & even some members. Don't beleive the B.S. T.V. spots begging for compassion. It is all about the money. Don't be fooled.

arnold wrote on Jan 16, 2008 3:00 PM:No on 94. Don't be fooled by all the promises of billions. The side agreements may not be enforceable. Let us hope the voters can see through all the Pechanga Propaganda that the only ones truly benefiting from a February 5th vote of Yes on Propositions 94, are Greedy Pechanga. Getting richer through a sweetheart deal made behind closed doors. NO ON 94 ! Let the other tribes have their compacts. Yes on 95,96,97!

Are you kidding me wrote on Jan 16, 2008 11:11 PM:JT from Pala - .... Get over your self and ..., Do you even know what century you are living in? I don't think any one alive today is responsible for any ethnic groups past issues.we are only responsable for keeping the hate alive on ALL sides.

El Jefe wrote on Jan 17, 2008 8:51 AM:Not this time buddy! I'm sorry but I feel I have to vote no on all 4 propositions: 94,95,96,& 97. No real numbers are presented its all about nebulous negotiations. These politicians are burying their heads in the sand & hoping against hope that just maybe the casino's will come to their financial rescue. Arnold should be recalled for his bumbling the states affairs. I regret voting for him & even re-electing him. These guys hide the numbers on till the last minute & then tell us we're even more in the hole than when he entered office. I'm also voting no on 93 as now Arnold says we the voters got it all wrong the last time and went to far on term limits. I say we knew exactly what we wanted & Fabian & his cronies can start packing their bags now! We are surrounded by ineptitude & mis-management & surrendering to the contributions of casinos to the exclusion of other business groups that should be allowed fair play in the gaming business. Why not install slots at Del Mar? Because the state sold out to one group to the exclusion of all others. Enough already!

Yes wrote on Jan 17, 2008 11:10 AM:El Jefe you nailed it!! Enough of the... politicians helping... Special Interest(Pechanga & the other greedy 3 tribes). NO on 93-97!! Lets make the politicians accountable for actions they are taking. For selling out CALIFORNIA to 4 Rich & Greedy Indian Tribes, just to accept political contributions & appease their BIGGEST special interest.

What a GREAT Idea! wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:25 AM:OK, I fell for it once before, but won't get sucked in this time around. Yes, this pact will mean more for revenue for the State of California, but so what. Our state government can't manage money, no matter how much they have. What more is that the tribes will have MUCH more money to buy government influence at the local, state, and federal level. Corruption is bad and I'm voting 'no' to help stop it.

Skip wrote on Jan 18, 2008 9:13 AM:If you really want to help the California Budget mess, then Vote No on Prop 93. This Prop has a loophole in it that will help keep over 40 incumbants stay in office even longer and they are the ones that got us in this mess. Of course this bill will help Don Perata and Fabian Nunez. This Prop is the biggest scam to come out of sacramento in a long time. I will vote no on most all propositions as I just do not trust our current elected officials anymore. Educate yourself ! http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

Gotta do it wrote on Jan 18, 2008 1:22 PM:This is definately a no vote for me!

NO NO NO NO wrote on Jan 19, 2008 3:55 PM:ON THESE RIP OFFS TO THE PUBLIC.

Danny wrote on Jan 19, 2008 4:42 PM:The biggest supporters for a NO vote are the Vegas casinos. Don't fall for that "no accountability" cock and bull story, California will have auditors checking the books. A YES vote would guarantee at least SOME amount of money to California. A NO vote would guarantee nothing.

Dont trust TV saturation wrote on Jan 22, 2008 1:13 AM:The TV is saturated with "YES" campaign. That made me suspicious. The 4 tribes have so much to spend on this and so much to gain. This is not a united effort by all the indian tribes like in prop 1A in 2000. This pact will mean more revenue for the State of California, but so what. Our state government can't manage money, no matter how much they have. I'm leaning towards NO.

SAYNOTOINDIANGREED! wrote on Jan 27, 2008 2:21 PM:Its funny until they got casinos and all the cash $$ they wanted these people they kicked out. Now greed has taken over and we need to stop it! Vote NO unless they clean house! And fix this issue!

John wrote on Jan 29, 2008 1:38 PM:I've received at least a dozen pro-94-97 mailings. I've even gotten more than one per day. They are wasting money and wasting trees to solicit my yes vote. It's pretty sad when the government is so corrupt that it has more money to waste pushing their propositions than the private citizens have to combat them.

California needs to go bankrupt before its government will become fiscally responsible, so I'm voting NO for any new revenue to the state.

jose wrote on Jan 30, 2008 1:00 AM:im voting yes on props 94-97 because the state of california get 9 billion dollars and serveral poor tribes with no casinos benefit from these rich casinos. its the white trying to take away from native americans again.

no JOSE wrote on Jan 30, 2008 7:56 PM:The 9 billion is a joke! Not gonna even come close. Yes the "Greedy 4" will get billions. Then they will laugh at us all. NO NO NO on 94 for sure!!No the compacts do not add any funds to the poor or non-gaming tribes. Pechanga the poster child for CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST THEIR OWN "ORIGINAL PECHANGA PEOPLE" should not be rewarded for their greed. Their leader on all the tv ads is the biggest joke ever. Go hide behind sovereignty AGAIN "Corncarro"!!!! Don't be fooled these greedy Indians are only doing this to line their pockets & they could care a less about the public. They will be laughing all the way to the bank. NO NO NO on 94-97!!

$top the GREED wrote on Feb 1, 2008 10:08 AM: I have been reading a lot about it lately and what I gathered was this.
According to what I read, the poor tribes currently receive $1.1 million dollars per year from the previous compacts. While this is great for them, this is a pittance compared to what the big tribes with casinos receive. These new compacts do not raise that amount. As Macarro would have us believe from the blitz campaign, if these new compacts do not pass they will not receive any money. "Help us help the poor tribes" is his tag line, but they already get that money. The state gives the money to the poor tribes without casinos and even to casinos with less than a certain amount of slots. I don't even want to get into to the expulsion of hundreds of tribal members that would dare to stand in the way of their greed because they wanted to question the ultimate authority of their e$teemed leader$. It i$ a $ad thing indeed.

matt sanders wrote on Feb 1, 2008 10:22 AM:These are silly and unnecessary propositions:

1.) there's no need/no good to expand gambling in CA.
2.) Don't let the big numbers sway you... if you make 100K a year and are $20 short of "balancing" YOUR budget, there are better ways to do it. This is comparable to what CA MIGHT get a year.
3.) the income level is not guaranteed
4.) we don't need to give more $ to the Gov. no matter whose it is.
5.) nearly a trillion $ budget for CA is out of line to begin with.
6.) it's no wonder the CA chamber of commerce is for it, they don't want businesses to be taxed.
7.) the republicans just want more $$$$ and want it to come not our of their rich and deep pockets.

North County man wrote on Feb 3, 2008 12:51 PM:I am voting No on 94 95 96 97, because I am not for sale- The Big Four could buy the Governor with their dirty money, I am a Californian and I am not for sale,
VOTE NO on 94 95 96 97

Jorge wrote on Feb 5, 2008 8:12 AM:The advertise on commercials that they share with other tribes but the fact is, with the existing compact, each tribe receives 1.1 million a year. Under this new compact, whether Yes or No, the stipends remains the same. Each tribal member share will be higher but still do not pay income tax on their "earnings".

Stating that there will be no new expansion is a lie. The 4 Casinos plans to add 3,000 to 5,500 slot machines. You need the "space" to install them. More slots, more parking spaces. More parking space more traffic. Plus, the compact disregards the environmental studies, still does not hold them accountable for improved employee relations, no pressure to allow employee organization for unionization (Arnold backed down on demanding employee rights). The casinos didn't want the voters to vote on this and now that its been petitioned, they spent over 44 million trying to get the voters to say yes. In fact, they are more anxious than other coalitions who are for. This does not benefit education. Taxes received does not go into general pool that funds Prop 98 that funds education. The "up to 9 billion over two decades" is overstated. Vote NO

Bad Days wrote on Feb 5, 2008 8:34 AM:To Danny: Do you realize that the unions, the teachers, many other tribes, taxpayers groups are all against these compacts? There are many reasons. The state already receives a percentage of money from the casinos. Why is it necessary to allow the tribes to expand their operations? Should we not care that with expansion will mean more people will ultimately lose their money that would have been spent for better purposes such as mortgages, clothing, food, etc? The casinos are there already. No need to add more to it. If Arnold and the rest of his cronies are salivating at more money, then why not allow non-tribal competition and open up a mega casino to compete with them. Fair is fair right?

californiaman wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:20 PM:Are some extra slot machines really going to hurt California? I am a firefighter and I was down south during the fire seige. For the first year ever we had four firefighters on our engine instead of three and it helped out tremendously. Now they want to cut us down even more. Just remember, it's your houses and family members the fire service is protecting. Do you not want these Indians to make a more money so you are more safe?