Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Amendment 50 - More Gambling

by: DavidThi808

Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:59:49 AM MDT


The measure would allow the general assembly or voters in the cities that permit limited gaming to extend the hours of limited gaming operations; to add roulette, craps, or both to the allowed games; and to increase the maximum bet up to $100.

The extra tax revenue generated by the changes would be required to be distributed 22% to the cities where limited gaming exists for gaming impacts and 78% for student financial aid for higher education. Any increases in gaming taxes would have to be approved by a statewide vote. Only institutions of higher learning operating by July 1, 2008 could receive funds.

Further info at Colorado Ballot - The misnamed Limited Gaming
DavidThi808 :: Amendment 50 - More Gambling
Arguments Against
Amendment 50 could significantly expand gambling in Colorado. It could turn the three historic gaming communities into high-stakes, round-the-clock gambling destinations. Further, Indian casinos that currently operate under the state's gaming limits would likely increase their limits to the maximum allowed by this measure. This expansion could occur even if the voters in Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek do not choose to change their gaming limits.

Providing more opportunities to gamble may lead to an increase in the number of compulsive gamblers in the state. The effects of compulsive gambling are costly to families and society. Compulsive gambling can lead to bankruptcy, divorce, child neglect and abuse, domestic violence, suicide, and crime.

Arguments For
The measure gives voters in each gaming community the ability to decide what is best for them. For example, one community may decide to expand casino hours of operation to help manage traffic, while another may choose to attract new visitors by expanding both bet limits and games.

Amendment 50 makes Colorado more competitive with other gaming states. Colorado has the most restricted gaming in the country. The tourism industries in other gaming states benefit from less restricted gaming, and changing Colorado's gaming limits could result in more tourist spending in the state. Colorado's gaming limits have been in place for seventeen years, and the bet limit of $5 in 1991 equals about $3 today.

Vote NO! Vote No
Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math.

We presently have gambling in three mountain towns. The hope was that it would prove an economic boom for those towns. That hasn't happened. Doubling down on a bad bet is good money after bad. (See, even governments can hurt themselves gambling.)

We need to move very carefully on gambling as it can bring many more problems than benefits. Any initiative on this issue should come from the legislature, not for a couple of citizens working to force their individual proposal through.

Ballotpedia
If you want to make Ballotpedia a more evenhanded discussion of this initiative click here register, and you can then edit the page.
Poll
On Aendment 50 I am voting
Yes - increase gambling
No - keep it where it is
Not sure

Results

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Amendment 50 - More Gambling | 54 comments
Society won't collapse
if the stakes are raised.

Gambling in casinos isn't as risky as gambling on Wall Street.

No it won't collapse
But it will be a teeny weeny bit worse off.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Yes on 50
Local control and direct higher ed funding.

Can they bond the $s?

[ Parent ]
Keep Vegas Out
The question isn't if society will collapse, or if gambling is risky, it's just a question of what we want Colorado to look like. Do we want a state with high-stakes 24/7 Gambling?

I say, http://KeepVegasOut.com/!

[ Parent ]
The Price of Liberty
I don't get it. Yes, it is a "tax" on people who are bad at math, but it is a voluntary tax. Assuming we aren't to ban gambling (a pretty bold violation of our liberty, which should include freedom to waste our money), why not capitalize on the people's desire to blow their money by taking a portion of that for good things like community colleges. Your argument makes more sense as preferring to ban gambling than as an argument for the current level of gambling over a higher one.

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis
I do think gambling should be legal
And what we have works pretty well - it's more entertainment that you pay for by the minute than gambling due to the limited stakes.

But if we go the Vegas route then we get all the problems that come with it including people gambling (and therby losing) much larger amounts of money and that significantly increases the problems.

And what do we get? Higher profits for the casino owners - and that's it.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
So, are you saying...
...that the added revenue from "people gambling (and therby (sic) losing) much larger amounts of money" is wiped out by the social costs of increased gambling addiction?  

If so, are there any studies on this?  Personally, I don't think that would be the case.  

Also, since bets are limited to $100, I don't think the amendment is misnamed.  The limits are much higher, but still limited.  You can't walk in and put down $50,000 on a hand of blackjack.

[ Parent ]
I agree with divad! David is crying wolf.

[ Parent ]
No problems???
[ Parent ]
None of the linked "articles" addresses the issue you raised.
...which is whether to increase the betting limit to $100, with gambling remaining legal in any event.

The question on the ballot is NOT whether to legalize or outlaw gambling....which is the issue addressed by the sources you linked.

[ Parent ]
C'mon David...
...I never said anything about there not being problems with gaming.

You said that more people would be gambling (and losing) bigger amounts of money and that the casio operators would be the only ones making money.  

My point was/is that if profits to the casio operators increases, surely the State's cut is also bigger.  The only way the State wouldn't be seeing increased revenue is if the socialital costs (and yes, they do exist) off-set the increased revenue.  The question to you was if, in fact, this has been shown to be the case.  I don't think think to would.  

It's cost v. benefit question, not one of whether gambling should be abolished.  

[ Parent ]
Fair point
Both of you - legit point. I am assuming that since gambling is shown to be a negative, higher limits would be worse. But I can't find any studies that address that question. So we'll have to draw our own conclusions about if higher limits makes a bad problem worse.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Thank you for that.
From my point of view, I don't see the gaming towns turning into Atlantic City or Vegas.  

Of course, it all depends on how it is managed.  If the casios are open 24/7, do they get to serve liquor at all hours?  What restrictions would be put on house (casio) loans?  How will increased traffic be managed?  Would mega-casios be limited by local building codes (and terrain)?

Like anything, it can be done in an intellegent, responsible manner or without regard to anything but the $'s.  

[ Parent ]
I agree with you on that
If this had come from the legislature my view would probably be on the fence. But this is something we have to be very careful about as a wrong decision can hurt a lot of people. And I don't think we should have the casinos setting the policy - which is what they are trying to do with this initiative.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Have you seen Blackhawk/Central City/Cripple Creek lately??
The original amendment allowed gambling in those towns providing that the "historical qualities of the towns are maintained."

If you've been through any of them lately, you'll have to admit that there is absolutely no 'historical quality' left in any of them.

Therefore, from that example, and by your statement that... 'Like anything, it can be done in an intellegent, responsible manner or without regard to anything but the $'s.', we can only conlude that money and greed will win out over intelligence and responsibility.  Not something I want to see more of in Colorado.

[ Parent ]
Tax on Everyone
Look, most of the taxes will be paid by people who gamble, but read the blue book: Everyone pays for the new regulatory changes. Also, everyone will pay for the costs of increased bankruptcies, etc. Also, everyone will pay because the money will get shifted around at the legislature, so this is really a back-door way to bust through Tabor.

http://KeepVegasOut.com!

[ Parent ]
Gotta Disagree
We have a statewide lottery that probably has a greater overall negative impact on people who are "bad at math."  Adding craps and roulette will frankly make the casinos better, and for people with some skill will give them better opportunities to win money then currently exist.  Increasing the bets will also give some flexibility to (skilled) players to better manage their money and deal with the house's better odds.  Will it have some negative effect?  Probably.  But as Bondo rightly notes, it's a voluntary activity engaged in by adults.

I'm for allowing the limited gaming towns to decide whether to make the changes (of course, they will), then letting my fellow citizens decide whether, and to what extent, they will participate.

Raise the max bet
I hate going to Blackhawk and only being able to bet $5 on every hand of Blackjack.

If you can vary your bet, you can actually make some money.

And until you make gambling illegal in Colorado again, people are going to continue to pump their paychecks into the casinos. It's just a fact.

I haven't made up my mind on this one, but as a student, I have a hard time saying no to more financial aid for people who want to go to college.

Plus it was Ron Tupa who originally proposed this IIRC, and he is one of the finest state legislators we have left.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

I'm torn.
I am no fan of gambling.  But none of us live in the Colorado I grew up in, we live in a crazy place called "Bruceworld" in which we feel free to deny our kids and grandkids a decent education.  The community college system is terribly underfunded but for thousands of kids it is the vital first step into the middle class.  I guess we'll have to encourage dad to gamble away the kids' college funds so we can offer them a decent start in life at the community college.  Crazy place, Bruceworld.   But I'm leaning to holding my nose and voting for higher gambling limits as the only practical way to get some money to higher ed this year.  It looks to me like 58 is headed down, though the sex, drugs and rockies ticket scandal doesn't make the oil industry look very credible.
[ Parent ]
Agreed
Remember when Central City was a quaint historic town with the Opera and history as the main attraction?  Why kid ourselves that a $5 bet limit somehow preserves that bygone era?  And if 58 goes down, it would be nice to get some extra dough in the coffers somewhere.  The indirect method (with the promise of riches) may be the best bet (pun intended).  I much prefer "Wayne's World" to "Bruceworld," which seems all too much like "Westworld," where nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong.
[ Parent ]
I believe that legal gambling reduces crime.
I liked old Central city and Tiny Town.
I also believe that gambling can be good.
Tax revenues and jobs rise.
Something like 21 states have unlimited gamlbing.

It wold reduce illegal gambling in Denver. It would cut the ability of the cartels and their distribution network (gangs) to launder money by having more oversight.  

I believe that legal gambling reduces crime.  

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.Paul Simon

[ Parent ]
Don't bet on Casino's keeping Community Colleges afloat
Look, Amendment 50 would forever tie the fortunes of Community Colleges to the fate of Casinos. What happens if a mega casino opens in Wyoming? What happens if Ben Affleck comes out against poker and the trend fades?

It's way too much of a gamble, so to speak, to risk the future of Community Colleges on the luck of the casinos.

http://KeepVegasOut.com/

[ Parent ]
Please
I am an avid poker player and the one thing that could have had the greatest negative impact on gambling, UIGEA, has done nothing to stop the popularity. The World Series of Poker had the largest turnout ever.

Your other hypothetical is just that. But I can tell you as a poker player who would go to our casino towns if they increased the limit, a one hour drive to a casino where I could actually win some money is a hell of a lot better than a 4 hr drive to some glitzy casino where my chances are the same. This is to gloss over many of other things I look for when choosing a poker room.

I will probably vote yes on this amendment, but there are things I do not like about the proposal.  

[ Parent ]
Another reason to oppose it
The decision on how to adjust this belongs in the legislature - that's why we have them - to figure out the trade-offs in something like this and then vote yes or no.

Having every interest group try an end run around the legislature is not representative democracy.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

isn't a constitutional amendment required ....
..in order to raise the betting limit?  Or is that wrong?
[ Parent ]
If so...
...I would prefer that the legislature debate it, and then present it to the voters on the ballot.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Given that your clarion call is to send this question to the leg...
...I think you should research the answer to the question before you keep calling.
[ Parent ]
The change must be constitutional
because the current $5 limit and the ban on roulette and craps are in the constitution.  
They are there , in turn, because the constitution formerly banned gambling.
David is right, however, that the lege can put a constitutional amendment on the ballot with a two-thirds vote of both chambers.  
[ Parent ]
but David is wrong in his initial assertion...
..that this whole thing could be handled by the legislature, which was a partial (erroneous) basis for his opposition to the current proposed amendment.
[ Parent ]
Yes, I was wrong on that one point
But we still come back to - should we vote for this. And I think my arguments still hold water.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
but your arguments are against all legalized gambling...
...as I and others have repeatedly noted, your arguments don't address why raising the limit is a bad idea....i.e., your arguments don't address the real issue.
[ Parent ]
I am making an assumption
That I think is a reasonable one, but it is an assumption. And that is that as gambling is clearly bad, then increasing the level of gambling is a bad thing.

At present with the low limits the gambling offered is like the old 3.2 beer, a lot less dangerous than unlimited amounts of harder stuff. Gambling here is more like entertainmnet where you pay by the minute, but the hourly cost is not that great.

This will lead to people losing a lot more money and more people's losses going from an expensive night out to a major hit on the family finances.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Why
do you feel the need to protect people from themselves?

We just made liquor sales legal on Sundays, were you railing against it because it created more opportunities for alcoholics to get their fix?

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
I don't understand why...
we have ANY rules (other than about honesty) about gambling.

If you are stupid enough to gamble, then OK by me.

For me, I never bet more than a roll of nickels on any single visit to a casino. I keep losing and they keep building larger casinos. Could they be benefiting from my stupidity?

Did you hear about the honest gambler?
He went to the Casino and it was closed.  So he shoved his money under the door anyway...
[ Parent ]
David, this does not go to financial aid for students.
The extra revenue generated goes to general fund needs for community colleges only.  The problem with the severance tax issue is that the money will go toward scholarships and financial aid for students.  Colleges (especially community colleges) need general fund $$ for buildings and maintenance and hardware.  This measure addresses those needs.  

Yes, the legislature should fund higher ed, not gambling, but the Tabor pie is pretty well spoken for between K-12, prisons, highways, medicare, etc.  This gets some much needed funding to the largest system of higher ed in the state.
Wel if funding Higher Ed excuses a bad law
What not have the State Patrol just go rob banks and drop the money they get off at C.U.?

I agree that funding in this state is a mess. But we need to address it responsibly, not by doing all kinds of weird things that hurt people.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
bad law? Come on David.
Please re-read redstateblues post above. This is an easy yes vote on Amendment 50. Let adults make up their own mind. Gov't shouldn't be allowed to tell us if we can wager $5 or $50.
"Liquor stores legal on Sundays...were you railing against liquor store sales on Sunday because it gave people one more day to get their "alcohol fix"?
redstateblues statement paraphrased
This is such an easy Yes vote that it amazes me that otherwise reasoneable people can make an arguement with a straight face.
[ Parent ]
Interesting point
I was in favor of liquor sales on Sunday.

I think marijuana should be legal.

I think social gambling should be legal.

But when you get into things like large scale gambling, there are problems it causes for others. More people gambling away their life savings means more people on welfare, more battered spouses, more children being ignored. If you want to fuck up your own life, go crazy. But when you hurt others, then I think the state should evaluate how it balances.

With all that said, if the legislature had worked through this and had put this on the ballot, then I would probably vote yes, and I definitely would not be strongly against it. My issue is I want the legislature to balance out the pros & cons of changes and come up with they thing is a good set of limits.

On the flip side, I am strongly opposed to the casinos essentially governing themsleves by setting the limits they want and running it directly via the ballot. I prefer to live in a representative democracy, not a direct ballot decided by the amount of money spent on each initiative.

In other words my problem is not with gambling or the specifics of this initiative, it's with the approach. Does that make sense?

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Does this make sense?
I am not advocating for Casinos to govern themselves. However, I do have aproblem with government when they place restrictionson individuals when these individuals are law abiding citizens able to make up their own minds on whether or not they eat a hamburger or a double stack (do you see my point?) I understand that hamburgers may not be as good for me as a chicken saladbut Ido not want a dictatorship(Bush like) telling me what to eat or how much to wager on  Blackjack. I haven't gone up to Central City for months. However, I would like the choice of either going up to Central City and spending $100 bucks or going out to eat and a movie. Let me make that choice. Often times we allow Republicans to label us because some of us condone extreme regulations. I agree that more regulation, like in the mortgage industry, banking would have been beneficial but lets not allow gov't to regulate things like what we eat, how much we wager, what choices we make with our own bodies ect.....

Don't vote no on Amendment 50 because you don't like the "approach" Vote yes on Amendment 50.

[ Parent ]
David makes a good point though
I haven't made up my mind on this yet, but David's argument that the Casinos are setting the agenda is an interesting one.

It seems like special interests are always doing that.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
Agreed
I'm pretty neutral on the whole gambling issue, but that's a pretty convincing argument.

Plus, if the money is directed toward higher education, I'd rather have it directed to actual operating budgets to keep tuition low, rather than scholarships to compensate for high tuition.

Think I'll vote "no" on this one.

"I am B.J. Wilson, and I am a troll."

[ Parent ]
But that is exactly what 50 does.
This dedicates money to operating, NOT scholarships.

I'm not saying this is the best way to fund higher ed, but it is one way to stop the bleeding.

[ Parent ]
That's not how I read it
From the text at the COSOS site:
distributing 78% of the remaining gaming tax revenue from this amendment for student financial aid and classroom instruction at community colleges according to the proportion of their respective student enrollments

Student financial aid = scholarships in my experience. Not clear what "classroom instruction" refers to, but clearly this amendment targets funding in a very particular manner. To me, that's precisely the problem, because it means only popular things get funded.

"I am B.J. Wilson, and I am a troll."

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't
classroom instruction remove some costs from things that tuition is used to pay for?

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)
[ Parent ]
you are both right...
classroom instruction includes faculty salaries - usually the largest single line item in a community college budget.  Taking some of this new money for faculty salaries, frees some other general fund money to address critical maintenance and equipment needs.

This Amendment does not direct that a certain percentage goes to scholarships - most, I would assume would go to faculty salaries, teaching equipment (computers, software, etc.)  

[ Parent ]
correct common sense.,

[ Parent ]
The language is vague enough
that I can't tell whether the precise proportional budgeting will be determined by the Legislature, by the community colleges, or by the courts. As such, I assume the option that's least palatable to me.

"I am B.J. Wilson, and I am a troll."
[ Parent ]
here's my problem with this amendment
The ballot issue came out of no where.  The casinos didn't sit down with the stakeholders and negotiate the deal so there wasn't any informed input on how to allocate the additional revenues that raising the bet limits, increasing the hours and adding games would generate.  Had those conversations occurred, we could have funded community colleges (which is good) and reopened the current allocation formula, which has resulted in tiny Black Hawk awash with cash and other impacted areas struggling.  

With 15 years of experience now with limited gaming, the time was ripe to reconsider the original funding allocations.  By having a go-it-alone mentality, the casinos foreclosed that conversation so now we have a take it or leave it proposal:  fund community colleges my way or the high way.

 In addition, saying the initiative is merely a vote to give the locals a vote is cynical.  Does anyone think Central City will risk saying no when Black Hawk will most assuredly say yes?  Since the spillover impacts in terms of law enforcement, social services, public safety, etc. are broader than the towns that host gaming, there isn't any rationale to limiting the ultimate vote to Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek.  They get all the gain and none of the pain.

Great comment
I hope that you, dem girl, and all the rest of you will go over to http://KeepVegasOut.com/ and comment, suggest posts, etc. It's set up as a regular blog as the cheapest/fastest way of countering the $6 Million that Big Gambling is using to try to jam this through in Colorado.
[ Parent ]
I'm voting NO on 50
The gambling industry is sucking us in by offering money to the community colleges.  Who wouldn't vote to increase funding for the terribly underfunded community college system?  This industry has contributed at least $6 million so far to convince us that its interest is primarily the community college system.  It'll make more money if the amendment passes.  That is not my gripe.
I am going to vote NO because the legislature might think that gambling will underwrite the community colleges and so will reduce or eliminate its responsibility to fund the community colleges.  It would have been nice if the wording of the amendment was abundantly clear that any funds derived from Amendment 50 would be in addition to legislative funding and legislative funding would not be reduced.  In my mind the wording of the amendment will allow the legislature to duck its responsibility to the community colleges.    
You have a point...
The language says that the revenue will "supplement" the budgets for the community colleges, rather than "supplant".  I guess it's hard to tell if the legislature would honor that language.
[ Parent ]
Ummm. Yeah.
You are exactly right that the legislature will go in and rob from Peter, the community colleges, to pay all the other Pauls out there.

And then when gambling revenues go down, it's the community colleges that take the worst hit.

[ Parent ]
YES!
Vote YES ON 50....... The lazy legislature wouldn't raise it, so we had to get the signatures and do it ourselves.

Colorado is a tourist destination and a good number of those tourists will gamble if we offer real casinos, like all the other states.

Amendment 50 - More Gambling | 54 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 30 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search

Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
  More >

















RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

Ultimate Politics

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat



 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox