Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Two-thirds of voters back gambling issue

Amendment 50 would let towns raise bet limits, add hours

By James Paton, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 28, 2008 at 9:12 p.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More Elections

More stories »

Nearly two-thirds of Colorado voters support Amendment 50, the measure aimed at expanding gambling in three former mining towns, a new poll shows.

In the Rocky Mountain News/CBS4 poll, 64 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the measure allowing voters of Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek to decide whether to raise maximum bets to $100, add craps and roulette and extend casinos' hours.

Voters apparently like that the proposal would give three-quarters of the additional gambling tax revenue to the state's community colleges and would allow residents of those three communities to "have their say," said pollster Lori Weigel.

If Amendment 50 is successful, the casino towns then would hold their own elections.

"Voters are willing to up the ante," she said.

Opponents, including a former chief counsel to former Gov. Bill Owens, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and the lobbying arm of nonprofit Focus on the Family, raised concerns about the potential impact. Critic Scott Yates started KeepVegas Out.com.

Some worry that the move would give casino companies an incentive to try to expand gambling further and would lead to a rise in foreclosures, bankruptcies, crime and other problems.

They say polls can be wrong.

But with more than $7 million in contributions, mostly from Las Vegas-based casino companies, backers rolled out an ad campaign that seems to have worked.

Opponents didn't have a "single dollar," said Jon Anderson, former counsel to Gov. Owens.

"This shows how politically savvy the proponents are with their high-priced lobbyists and political operatives," said Anderson, now a lawyer with Holland & Hart. "Polls can be wrong and there are still a lot of votes to be cast. My only hope is that people will read Amendment 50 and understand exactly what it does."

While colleges stand to benefit, casinos would reel in much more, and the cash would come out of Coloradans' pockets, he said.

Still, exactly half of the voters in the survey said that they would "definitely" vote for the proposal while 27 percent said they definitely would not.

"I hope this is accurate," said Katy Atkinson, of the Yes group. "I think Coloradans will respond positively" to a funding increase without a tax hike.

The poll is based on statewide phone interviews with 500 registered voters and conducted last week by Public Opinion Strategies, a firm that generally polls for Republicans. Rick Ridder, a Democratic strategist, consulted on the questionnaire and analysis.

patonj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2544

Comments

  • October 28, 2008

    10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    EZBakeOven writes:

    Heck yeah. It's a voluntary tax, so why not?

  • October 29, 2008

    3:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    tchoupitoulas writes:

    As a product of the community college system, I can attest to the good that comes form these educational institutions. To say that my life changed while attending my local community college would be an understatement.

    I got my C.N.A. license from the Community College of Denver, then went on to CU to get a Bachelors, then further still to get my nursing degree. I'm now at the University of Denver studying law. It took a lot of hard work and many years of working 2-3 crappy jobs to make ends meet, but I can look back at it now and say that it was worth it.

    Times are tough, and the last thing folks want is for their money to be wasted. I can totally understand that. However, the best way to "recession proof" your life is to invest in your continuing education, and I believe that additional funding for these schools will allow so many people to do just that. Couple this with the potential benefit these towns may see (increased revenue, sales tax, etc.), and this amendment takes on the added bonus of assisting not only the community colleges but these three historic districts as well.

  • October 29, 2008

    6:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    scodtt writes:

    Community colleges are important. I think they are so important that I don't think we should risk their future by linking their fate to the fate of Big Gambling.

    The casinos were smart in figuring out how to get this thing passed in this zany year with all the different amendments on the ballot. Very few voters can take the time to study all of them. If this was all alone on the ballot people would see that this is just a plot to help casinos make more money, nothing more and nothing less.

    At least the journalists have figured it out. This was one of a number of very fair stories from the Rocky.

    See more links and more information at http://KeepVegasOut.com.

  • October 29, 2008

    7:41 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dick_Tater writes:

    Beware, taking the responsibility of regulating the casinos from the state and giving it to cities will result in a war. Casino towns will compete against each other. They will fight to see who can be the seediest and cater to the whims of gamblers.

  • October 29, 2008

    9:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    PokerMunkee writes:

    A50 is a no brainer!

    The current $5 max bet is a joke. For Colorado to attract out of state gamblers (tourists), we need to stay competitive with the other 47 states that allow gambling. Right now the $5 max bet is the LOWEST in the country! This will create more jobs, more tax revenue for the state AND community colleges, and more tourists.

    VOTE YES ON A50!

  • October 29, 2008

    2 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Vegas baby

  • October 29, 2008

    2:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brunowolfe writes:

    Scott Yates and Jon Anderson have been critical of this Amendment strictly based on ideoligal reasons. What they want to do is regulate morality for all, based on their version of morality. Because they don't believe we are adult enough to do it for ourselves. Anderson's statement "This shows how politically savvy the proponents are with their high-priced lobbyists and political operatives," is an extension of that philosophy, in that we aren't able to make a decision on the amendment based on our own individual analysis, and that we'll be taken astray by their ads. But if we listen to him, we'll be OK. Boulderdash! Yate's website is as biased and one sided as is possible on the subject.

    I have yet to see from either of them any model that shows exactly how much extra money the casinos will be making on this. Why shouldn't the casino's make additional monies if they are adding additional services wanted and additional hours? All of their fear assertions based on the increased costs due to the increase in limits, games, and hours are based upon seriously old data (Jon Anderson on CPR), that isn't applicable to the Colorado's mountain casino environment.

    If Coloradans want to change the antiquated gambling laws, they will. Saying "polls can be wrong", is as rediculous as it sounds when it's almost 2 to 1 in favor of the amendment passing. And insinuating that Coloradans don't take the amendments seriously enough to read them is an insult to our intelligence! If you haven't read the Amendment, take the time to read it. You'll find that all of their fear-mongering is just that: The amendment has very clear language, with 22% of whatever extra tax money is produced going to all three cities and both counties to provide for additional "local gaming impacts", and the remaining 78% going to the local community colleges for financial-aid and classroom instruction.

    It's a win-win for the gamblers and non-gamblers alike.

  • October 30, 2008

    4:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ginger writes:

    Dick_Tater needs to read Amendment 50 before posting incorrect analyses. Amendment 50 does NOT take regulation of gambling away from the state and hand it to the cities. All it does is allow cities to hold local elections to decide if they want to update any of the regulations to allow craps, roulette, bets up to $100, and expand operating hours. If any of the cities make these changes, the CO Division of Gaming, under the state Dept. of Revenue, will still regulate limited gaming, and limited gaming is one of the most heavily-regulated industries in the state.

  • November 1, 2008

    9:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    colorado21 writes:

    Voluntary tax, rather than an outright tax increase, to help pay for community colleges!! YES on 50 for sure.