Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Gaming measure flawed, but not fatally

Rocky Mountain News

Published September 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Nancy McCallin, President of the Colorado Community College System, speaks in support of Amendment 50.

Video Video: Nancy McCallin, President of the Colorado Community College System, speaks in support of Amendment 50. Watch »

Jonathan Anderson speaks against Amendment 50.

Video Video: Jonathan Anderson speaks against Amendment 50. Watch »

Related Links

More Editorials

More stories »

There's a widely held political consensus in Colorado, one we essentially share, that new state revenues should largely flow to one of three priorities: higher education, transportation or health care.

Amendment 50 would direct new funding into a segment of higher ed that typically gets short shrift - community colleges. While the amendment is flawed and had us going back and forth in weighing its merits, on balance it deserves the voters' support. It would bring more money to community colleges without hiking taxes.

Under Amendment 50, residents of Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek could raise betting limits in their casinos from $5 to $100; they could increase the hours casinos are open (now, they must close between 2 a.m. and 8 a.m.); and they could add roulette and/or craps to the range of games (slots, blackjack and poker) now available.

Community colleges would get 78 percent of the tax revenue from the new activity, with funding to each campus based on enrollment; the host cities would get 10 percent; and the host counties would get 12 percent.

Community colleges were hit particularly hard during the state budget's downturn of a few years ago. When funding from the legislature lags, these schools lack the endowments or research grants that four-year institutions can tap.

Enter Amendment 50. If the three cities embrace the $100 limit, 24-hour gambling and add craps and roulette, state analysts predict community colleges would get an extra $29 million the first year after adoption and $62 million by the fifth year.

That's a significant boost in funding. In the current fiscal year, community colleges received $144 million from the general fund.

So what's not to like about Amendment 50? Coloradans adopted limited gaming in 1990 as an avenue to prevent the economic collapse of the three mountain towns - not as a way for Vegas-style casinos to gain a foothold in the state. A $5 bet limit was also locked into the constitution, with no adjustment for inflation, so some increase is justified. Even with an inflation escalator, however, the maximum bet today would be less than $10. Amendment 50 instead seeks a twentyfold rise in the limit. A lower maximum, say $25, would have been an easier sell.

Higher betting limits will also boost the incentive for Indian tribes to bring off-reservation casinos to Colorado. So long as the $5 limit is in play, there's little reason for tribes to swap reservation holdings for private land near population centers as they have in other states and then build massive gambling resorts on their newly acquired property. With a limit of $100, however, all bets are off.

We're also concerned about oversight of the windfall to gambling towns. Denver's 7 reported this year that officials in Black Hawk spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars refurbishing their homes and taking lavish vacations. A new gusher of revenue will provide even more temptation for these abuses.

Look, we're never comfortable setting funding formulas for specific public programs in the state constitution. In this case, however, the gaming industry is already in the constitution. When raising betting stakes, voters have to direct the money somewhere.

Fortunately, the lion's share of new funds will support a public need that's often neglected in difficult economic times. Vote yes on Amendment 50.

Comments

  • September 20, 2008

    9:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    scodtt writes:

    So, you don't like the amount that the bets are going up, you don't like the way the funds are doled out, and you don't like opening the door for Indian casinos run by Big Gambling popping up anywhere in the state, but you still think this is a yes vote?!?!?!

    Big Gambling is spending $7 million to cram this into the Colorado Constitution, and the Rocky is buying what Big Gambling is selling.

    Keep Vegas Out! Vote no on Amendment 50. http://KeepVegasOut.com

  • September 20, 2008

    11:41 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    AmericanPatriot writes:

    I have only been up to the mountain casinos three times since Colorado first legalized gambling. The $5 limit puts the player at a big disadvantage, because it eliminates any type of money management being combined with betting strategies. The house always has the edge in any game, but the $5 limit exacerbates that edge.

    Raising the limit, and adding the new games will not only be good for our Community Colleges, but it also will bring in new players. Both of which will be good for Colorado.

    So, I agree . . . Yes on 50.

  • September 20, 2008

    1:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    "...it also will bring in new players."

    "Honey let's go to Vegas for a little gambling and some shows". "No dear, let's go to Colorado instead, they have increased the gaming limits to $100." "Wow, ok honey, who needs the shows and entertainment anyway".

  • September 20, 2008

    4:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    We don't need this for two reasons:

    1. We don't need more gambling anywhere.
    2. We don't need more education. (We need more integrity.)

  • September 20, 2008

    5:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    You better read it again, he said 5 buck limit won't attract the indians. a hundred might. he isn't against it. people will gamble, may as well use it right, but if those town officials start doing the same thing, slap them around. Stay away from roulette though, one of the best money makers they have.

  • September 20, 2008

    7:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sweetpickle writes:

    The only potential good that RMN could find was that this increase might help some junior colleges.
    It will also bring more crime, more debt, more hungry children, more government corruption , an invitation to organized crime, more fake indians OH and a few advertising dollars for RMN.

  • September 20, 2008

    8:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    you have all that anytime you have more people in any business that attracts people. been watching too many movies. The crimes committed by the blackhawk bunch were politicians, they always do that ya know? stay away from any Indian casino, their machines are tight and they have the games that will take your money faster.

  • September 22, 2008

    4:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ksells writes:

    Amendment 50 doesn't say that the community college system will get more money on top of what is budgeted now. It says the money will got to the community college system. So the money from gambling will just be used to replace money that the state will transfer to other areas.

    A typical RMN distortion of fact. Me, I'm a gambler and I like the idea of raising the stakes. Makes the game worth playing. But really, this is all about helping out the gambling houses.

    I'd be willing to bet that the RMN wouldn't be willing to bet the house the the community college system would have more money if Amendment 50 passes.

  • September 23, 2008

    10:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    PokerMunkee writes:

    Just like everything else in life, you have to weigh the pros and cons. IMO, the pros outweigh the cons in this case. Increasing the limits will have a HUGE effect on poker and the tournaments that will come to this state.

    It's embarrassing to have $5 limits. The government does not need to tell me how I spend my money. They are already telling me I can't smoke in private businesses. What's next?

    http://www.sayyeson50.com

  • October 28, 2008

    9:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ck98ac4 writes:

    People, we have got to resist the urge to promote gambling in Colorado. Anything that might attract a larger gambling situation would be a huge mistake. I am originally from SW Missouri and I am truly sad to see how gambling has affected my home town of Joplin and surrounding areas. Huge casinos have set up shop just across the border in Oklahoma and now all the entertainment money runs out of town and into the casinos. Local art, theatre, music, culinary and other entertainment have been hit hard as everyone defaults to those cheesy, towering casinos. It is a terrible situation and this has occurred even though Joplin itself does not allow serious gambling.

    I realize this amendment will not allow the kind of gambling taking place in Oklahoma, but I am truly worried about how it could affect us down the road, once the more powerful casinos become interested. One thing is for sure: gambling is depressing and ugly. It is a negative, cancerous presence in whatever community it infects. Who of you has been to states and cities which allow moderate or serious gambling? How does it look to you? How do the people sitting at the slots look? Not good.

    This is a slipperly slope and Colorado must retain its integrity and raise education funds through legitimate, honorable means and not by taking advantage of natural human weakness. I know a LOT of people who would consider moving from here if gambling became a major presence.

  • November 4, 2008

    11:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    GodzillaSr writes:

    i have answer for those who oppose.....alot (scodtt)

    MOVE..... wyoming is north, nebraska east, utah west. and new mexico south and take some of those whiners with ya