QuoteSep 1, 4:16 AM (ET)
By JOHN HANNA
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - In Kansas, Carrie Nation battled booze by smashing up saloons, the state school board once approved science guidelines questioning evolution and anti-abortion leaders have made their stiffest stands - all burnishing the state's conservative credentials.
Now, Kansas is poised for an unlikely distinction: It's about to get into the casino business, not merely by blessing gambling and taxing the profits but by becoming the legal owner of the casinos themselves.
Kansas is believed to be the only state with such an arrangement. It already has four Indian casinos, but its first non-tribal one is set to open in December in Dodge City, the former cowtown and setting of television's "Gunsmoke."
It's all because the state, known for its conservative history and a vibrant right wing within its dominant Republican Party, needs the money.
Lawmakers in recent months have slashed money for schools and other state services, and the current state budget relies on $50 million in casino licensing fees to remain balanced.
"It's terribly ironic, and disappointingly so. I never dreamed that Kansas would be the first to try this experiment," said House Speaker Mike O'Neal, a Hutchinson Republican who fought unsuccessfully to block the 2007 law authorizing the new casinos and slot machines at racetracks.
Developers will build the casinos, install slot machines, set up tables and manage dealers, all under contract with the state lottery. They pay upfront privilege fees: $5.5 million for Dodge City and $25 million each for casinos planned in the Kansas City and Wichita areas.
The state will own the games and control software determining who wins and may overrule management decisions. Contracts spell out how revenues are divided.
"The whole ownership thing - it always struck me as a little bit squirrely," said Burdett Loomis, a University of Kansas political scientist. "You could imagine Louisiana owning the casinos, or New Jersey."
But Kansas?
Voters here imposed prohibition in 1880 and kept it for nearly 70 years, well after the federal government repealed it. Afterward, the state constitution continued to condemn the "open saloon."
The state school board went back and forth on evolution during the past decade, rewriting science standards four times and making Kansas the target of international ridicule.
The state has been at the center of the national debate over abortion, too. Dr. George Tiller's clinic in Wichita was among a few in the nation that performed late-term abortions, spurring protests and laws designed to restrict his practice until the doctor was shot to death May 31.
All of it would appear to make the turn toward gambling unlikely - save for the state's troubled finances.
The American Gaming Association says the U.S. already has 179 commercial and 420 tribal casinos outside Nevada, as well as 700 card rooms and 44 racetracks with slot machines.
So, industry officials and analysts say, why not more casinos in Kansas?
David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, notes other seemingly conservative states - Iowa is a frequent example - are awash in games of chance.
Also, as Loomis noted: "When revenue is a consideration, old-fashioned morality sometimes goes out the window."
Twelve other states have non-tribal casinos and a dozen have racetracks with slots. Several own machines at tracks, but the American Gaming Association says Kansas is the first with the arrangement for an entire casino.
Clark Stewart, chief executive officer of Butler National Corp., the Olathe company building the Dodge City casino, said the real issue is the 27 percent share of revenues for state and local governments.
"We're at the top end, percentage-wise, of what we can do," he said.
The Kansas Constitution once banned any lottery - a term courts interpreted broadly enough to cover slots and table games - but resistance to gambling eroded over time. Constitutional amendments in 1986 made exceptions to the ban for the state lottery and betting on dog and horse races. Federal law allowed the Indian casinos to open in the 1990s, whetting some legislators' appetite for commercial ones.
To get any constitutional change on the ballot for a vote, supporters need two-thirds majorities in the Legislature - something social conservatives have blocked when it comes to commercial casinos.
But state ownership through the lottery didn't require another constitutional change, only a new law approved with simple majorities in both chambers. In 2007, gambling supporters barely obtained the necessary margins.
The state hopes to choose developers for casinos for the Kansas City and Wichita areas before year's end. The Dodge City casino plans to open with 575 slots and 10 tables, then expand within two years.
"I guess it doesn't strike me as particularly odd," said Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, an Independence Republican who voted for the casino-and-slots law. "Every state has its own historical contours."
I don't see the big deal, states took over the numbers racket decades ago.
Another state that can not afford its government, has to turn to gambling, casinos, etc., for more revenue. <_<
:bleeding:
This is great--I can't wait to schedule my Kansas vacation!
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2009, 01:35:58 PM
This is great--I can't wait to schedule my Kansas vacation!
They don't have whores yet. We're still ahead on that one. :P
Quote from: KRonn on September 01, 2009, 01:15:39 PM
Another state that can not afford its government, has to turn to gambling, casinos, etc., for more revenue. <_<
I'd rather have them tax the stupid than the successful, to be honest.
Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2009, 05:06:47 PM
I'd rather have them tax the stupid than the successful, to be honest.
It's a very ineffiient tax, and its collection has a devastating effect on the surrounding area. The surest way to become a lifelong opponent of gambling is to visit Atlantic City, and walk a couple of blocks from the Boardwalk.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2009, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2009, 05:06:47 PM
I'd rather have them tax the stupid than the successful, to be honest.
It's a very ineffiient tax, and its collection has a devastating effect on the surrounding area. The surest way to become a lifelong opponent of gambling is to visit Atlantic City, and walk a couple of blocks from the Boardwalk.
Very true--if you start walking North it is a giant shithole until you get to Manhattan.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2009, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2009, 05:06:47 PM
I'd rather have them tax the stupid than the successful, to be honest.
It's a very ineffiient tax, and its collection has a devastating effect on the surrounding area. The surest way to become a lifelong opponent of gambling is to visit Atlantic City, and walk a couple of blocks from the Boardwalk.
Hasn't Christianity already devastated Kansas?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2009, 05:47:57 PM
Very true--if you start walking North it is a giant shithole until you get to Manhattan.
:face:
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2009, 05:13:30 PMIt's a very ineffiient tax, and its collection has a devastating effect on the surrounding area. The surest way to become a lifelong opponent of gambling is to visit Atlantic City, and walk a couple of blocks from the Boardwalk.
Oversimplification. Atlantic City isn't the way it is entirely due to gambling, but rather incredibly corrupt government and overdependence on gambling, which means when there are tourism downturns everyone is totally screwed.
A stunning hypocracy is revealed. Well, not stunning. But blatant. But I'd expect nothing else of Protestants.
Gambling isn't especially good for a community. I'm more interested in the ramifications of the state owning and running casinos. We have the Feds owning whole industries, now I guess the states are getting into the game.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 02, 2009, 07:17:10 AM
A stunning hypocracy is revealed. Well, not stunning. But blatant. But I'd expect nothing else of Protestants.
The word is hypocrisy, you Mariolater.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2009, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2009, 05:06:47 PM
I'd rather have them tax the stupid than the successful, to be honest.
It's a very ineffiient tax, and its collection has a devastating effect on the surrounding area. The surest way to become a lifelong opponent of gambling is to visit Atlantic City, and walk a couple of blocks from the Boardwalk.
What makes you think Atlantic City wouldn't be a shithole without the casinos?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 07:25:12 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 02, 2009, 07:17:10 AM
A stunning hypocracy is revealed. Well, not stunning. But blatant. But I'd expect nothing else of Protestants.
The word is hypocrisy, you Mariolater.
:(
My take is that states need to get spending under control. Government legislators and also citizens need to be realistic about what they want govt to be doing and spending. But since they fail at that and keep spending, too often inefficiently, states can not afford the govt spending and have to turn to new sources of revenue. Gambling just takes money that could be used elsewhere to help the economy, and people with better purchase than gambling, and funnels the cash to the govt's coffers instead.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 02, 2009, 07:17:10 AM
I'm more interested in the ramifications of the state owning and running casinos. We have the Feds owning whole industries, now I guess the states are getting into the game.
Well, the states already own their respective lotteries (and ban others from competing with them), so I suppose casinos are the next logical step.
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 08:06:32 AM
Well, the states already own their respective lotteries (and ban others from competing with them), so I suppose casinos are the next logical step.
It's a business that the government literally took over from the Mafia. :)
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 08:06:32 AM
own their respective lotteries (and ban others from competing with them), so I suppose casinos are the next logical step.
Anything Texas can do to get money without raising taxes she shall do.
I look forward to craps tables being installed in all government buildings.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 02, 2009, 07:44:53 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2009, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2009, 05:06:47 PM
I'd rather have them tax the stupid than the successful, to be honest.
It's a very ineffiient tax, and its collection has a devastating effect on the surrounding area. The surest way to become a lifelong opponent of gambling is to visit Atlantic City, and walk a couple of blocks from the Boardwalk.
What makes you think Atlantic City wouldn't be a shithole without the casinos?
Maybe (probably) it would be, but at least it wouldn't be so tacky.
They are trying to introduce slot machines to the race tracks here in Ohio to raise money. Thankfully, we have no Indians anymore to get in our way.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 09:46:05 AM
Thankfully, we have no Indians anymore to get in our way.
Yeah we got rid of those hippy fucks to. *high five*
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 10:10:38 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 09:46:05 AM
Thankfully, we have no Indians anymore to get in our way.
Yeah we got rid of those hippy fucks to. *high five*
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. :lol: :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 07:10:21 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2009, 05:13:30 PMIt's a very ineffiient tax, and its collection has a devastating effect on the surrounding area. The surest way to become a lifelong opponent of gambling is to visit Atlantic City, and walk a couple of blocks from the Boardwalk.
Oversimplification. Atlantic City isn't the way it is entirely due to gambling, but rather incredibly corrupt government and overdependence on gambling, which means when there are tourism downturns everyone is totally screwed.
But corruption and gambling themselves are connected. When you have huge corporations making huge money in the locale, it is almost inevitable that those who make that huge money would make sure that the local government is not in position to threaten their interests. Another reason for the quality of AC government is that the city itself has decayed so much that they're having the Detroit dynamic going on.
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2009, 10:21:14 AM
But corruption and gambling themselves are connected. When you have huge corporations making huge money in the locale, it is almost inevitable that those who make that huge money would make sure that the local government is not in position to threaten their interests.
Are you seriously saying that cities should discourage corporations from making money locally?
Quote from: Faeelin on September 02, 2009, 07:44:53 AM
What makes you think Atlantic City wouldn't be a shithole without the casinos?
Obviously it's all hypothetical guessing, but without gambling, there would be less demand for drugs and prostitution in the area. It would probably still be in perpetual decline, since decline was what invited gambling in the first place, but it would probably be a considerably less revolting kind of decline.
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 10:23:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2009, 10:21:14 AM
But corruption and gambling themselves are connected. When you have huge corporations making huge money in the locale, it is almost inevitable that those who make that huge money would make sure that the local government is not in position to threaten their interests.
Are you seriously saying that cities should discourage corporations from making money locally?
No? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 08:13:24 AM
I look forward to craps tables being installed in all government buildings.
This would be awesome. At the DMV, but don't feel like waiting in a line that long doing nothing but staring at the back of some guy's head? Roll some dice until their lunch breaks end and the poor schmucks all have to go back to work. I'm not a shitty degenerate gambler, I swear.
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2009, 10:27:21 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 10:23:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2009, 10:21:14 AM
But corruption and gambling themselves are connected. When you have huge corporations making huge money in the locale, it is almost inevitable that those who make that huge money would make sure that the local government is not in position to threaten their interests.
Are you seriously saying that cities should discourage corporations from making money locally?
No? :unsure:
How do you distinguish gambling from other sources of "huge corporations making huge money in the locale"?
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 10:55:43 AM
How do you distinguish gambling from other sources of "huge corporations making huge money in the locale"?
Gambling companies are associated with the locale. Harrah's can't pack up and move its AC operations to Cape May. They also collectively tend to monopolize the economy of the city they're involved in. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2009, 11:03:45 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 10:55:43 AM
How do you distinguish gambling from other sources of "huge corporations making huge money in the locale"?
Gambling companies are associated with the locale. Harrah's can't pack up and move its AC operations to Cape May. They also collectively tend to monopolize the economy of the city they're involved in. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
I just don't see anything you've said that would not lead you to condemn anywhere with a manufacturing plant? :unsure:
If the manufacturing plants have a record of co-opting their local government and making them do their bidding, then I'd condemn them too. Maybe that's what happens, I don't know, I never cared about manufacturing towns. I do care about Atlantic City, as I regularly visit it, so that's where my thoughts lie. In any case, given the money involved, the towns dominated by the gambling industry would be a lot more corrupt than towns dominated by the manufacturing industry.
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2009, 12:20:52 PM
If the manufacturing plants have a record of co-opting their local government and making them do their bidding, then I'd condemn them too. Maybe that's what happens, I don't know, I never cared about manufacturing towns. I do care about Atlantic City, as I regularly visit it, so that's where my thoughts lie. In any case, given the money involved, the towns dominated by the gambling industry would be a lot more corrupt than towns dominated by the manufacturing industry.
But you only visit Atlantic City because of gambling, right?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 02, 2009, 12:32:34 PM
But you only visit Atlantic City because of gambling, right?
Yes?
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2009, 12:36:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 02, 2009, 12:32:34 PM
But you only visit Atlantic City because of gambling, right?
Yes?
Your logic seems to be following along the lines of:
I care about towns I visit, others I do not care about--> I visit nearby towns that have gambling, therefore I care about them --> I see the effect that gambling has in the towns I visit, and think it is bad --> therefore I'm opposed to casino style gambling in the places I care about.
It seems following your logic you should be indifferent to gambling expanding, because you don't care about those towns without gambling. But at the same time want it repealed in the towns it does exist and that you visit (I assume that is only Atlantic City). Then once gambling is gone and you stop visiting, you will become indifferent to the town, and indifferent to seeing gambling return.
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2009, 12:20:52 PM
If the manufacturing plants have a record of co-opting their local government and making them do their bidding, then I'd condemn them too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_Town
Quote from: alfred russel on September 02, 2009, 12:46:21 PM
Your logic seems to be following along the lines of:
I care about towns I visit, others I do not care about--> I visit nearby towns that have gambling, therefore I care about them --> I see the effect that gambling has in the towns I visit, and think it is bad --> therefore I'm opposed to casino style gambling in the places I care about.
It seems following your logic you should be indifferent to gambling expanding, because you don't care about those towns without gambling. But at the same time want it repealed in the towns it does exist and that you visit (I assume that is only Atlantic City). Then once gambling is gone and you stop visiting, you will become indifferent to the town, and indifferent to seeing gambling return.
By care about I really meant "on my radar". Since Atlantic City is on my radar, the effect of legalized gambling is visible to me, so that's what I talk about.
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2009, 12:50:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 02, 2009, 12:46:21 PM
Your logic seems to be following along the lines of:
I care about towns I visit, others I do not care about--> I visit nearby towns that have gambling, therefore I care about them --> I see the effect that gambling has in the towns I visit, and think it is bad --> therefore I'm opposed to casino style gambling in the places I care about.
It seems following your logic you should be indifferent to gambling expanding, because you don't care about those towns without gambling. But at the same time want it repealed in the towns it does exist and that you visit (I assume that is only Atlantic City). Then once gambling is gone and you stop visiting, you will become indifferent to the town, and indifferent to seeing gambling return.
By care about I really meant "on my radar". Since Atlantic City is on my radar, the effect of legalized gambling is visible to me, so that's what I talk about.
Gotcha.