Questions
and Answers
PACT's response to questions we've received
PACT's response to questions we've received
The casino developers have given out information in bits and pieces about the casino complex they want to build, and have presented an ever-changing "plan" to government agencies, depending on the purpose. The following is what we've been able to glean from news reports, public meetings, and public information. As of March 2006, the following planned developments have been made public through various sources:
- 70,000 square foot casino
- 20,000 square foot administrative office
- 10,000 square foot (1,000 seat) conference center
- 5,000 square feet of commercial/retail space
- 1,000 video slot machines, 14 table games, 3 poker tables, 20-seat Keno lounge
- Two 60-room motels, or 100-room hotel
- 315 space parking lot
- Golf course
- Starbucks
- Valet parking
- Day use area for RV's, trucks, motor coaches
- 30-space RV park with complete water and electric hookups, garbage, and parking for spare vehicles
- fuel stop
- convenience market
In 2002, the tribes said they would not build a hotel in the first phase of the project, so as not to compete with local hotels. In March 2003, tribal representative said that they had plans for a 100-room hotel and 1,000-seat theater. (Comments by Frances Somday March 13, 2003 Florence City Council Work Session.) In April 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding for a liquor license was drafted by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, indicating that the casino would be allowed to sell liquor "in the same manner as other full-on premises licensees with hotel facilities." Link to: Draft MOU.
Plans for the casino: "50,000 sq.ft. facility will include a 13,000 sq.ft. Las Vegas style casino, themed restaurants, retail outlets, as well as multi-purpose bingo-entertainment/meeting space." (2003 - casino website - www.ctclusi.org/legislative.asp)
"One plan features a three‑tiered casino and 150‑room hotel on the crest of the dunes overlooking the confluence of the Siuslaw and North Fork rivers." (Oregonian, 6/20/04 )
Purchase price of Hatch Tract: $600,000 (bought by Tribe in 1998)
Purchase of "gateway" Duman property: $500,000+
Size of Hatch Tract: 88.91 acres
Cost to build casino: Reported at different times as $15 million, $25 million, and $26 million
Net Profits expected: $12 million per year
Casino will be visible from Highway 101. Access will be via North Fork Siuslaw Road and Hwy. 126 (as of 4/2/04, Map: Stephanie Barrow / The Register-Guard )
Primary target market: Eugene/Springfield
Secondary target market: "Florence local population of wealthier retirees as well as vast amount of tourists"
Hours of operation: 24 hours a day, seven days per week
No. of jobs: Reported at different times as 750 (in 2001) to 400, to 300, to 120 (in December 2003), to 250 (March 2007)
Casino complex, to be built in stages, would eventually include:
- Two entrances - North Fork Road and Hwy. 126
- 16,000 square foot tent to 50,000 square foot facility
- 41,600 to 60,000 square foot "Las Vegas style casino"
- 268 to 850 video slot machines, 14 table games, 3 poker tables, 20-seat Keno lounge
- Two 60-room motels
- 3 restaurants: 200-seat buffet; 100-seat steakhouse; 100-seat 24-hr cafe with bar
- Retail outlets
- Gift shop (400 sq. ft.)
- Golf course
- Condominiums
- 1,000 seat meeting/entertainment space
- Starbucks
- Valet parking
- Day use area for RV's, trucks, motor coaches
- 25-space RV park with complete water and electric hookups, garbage, and parking for spare vehicles
On January 20, 2004, the Florence City Council heard a report from staff that stated the casino intended to build an
"emergency access"
road to connect to Coastal Highlands Drive, a neighborhood
street. Additional details on the staged development were given
to Oregon Department of Transportation in January 2004. Preliminary
plans that were given to the City Council
also show that the highest part of the dune between North Fork Siuslaw
Road and the Coastal Highlands neighborhood would be excavated, and the
temporary tent that has been constructed is clearly
visible from
people's homes in that area.On March 20, 2004, a local newspaper reported that the primary entrance to the casino would be on Hwy. 126, not on North Fork Road as previously reported.
On April 2, 2004, a local newspaper reported the casino would have two entrances, one on Hwy. 126 and one on North Fork Road. It was also reported that the casino no longer intended access through the Coastal Highlands neighborhood, but see: Traffic
On April 21, 2004, an application for a liquor license (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) stated the casino planned:
- outdoor area, seating for 32 people, enclosed with a fence/trellis, open noon to midnight on weekends, noon to 10 pm Sunday - Thursday.
- live music and recorded music until 1:00 am
- bar open 7:00 am to 2:30 am
- full service, fine dining restaurant, open 24 hours a day, seating in 54 people
- seating in lounge for 20 people
Casino Plans as of February 21, 2006
On February 20, 2006, Cascade Design Professionals, Inc. delivered a report to the casino, indicating the casino's "expansion scenario" for submission to the City of Florence (report). Casino representative, Bob Garcia, acknowledged some of the expansion plans before the Florence City Council on February 21, 2006 (testimony). City staff presented information to the City Council on February 21, 2006 about the casino's expansion plans (staff). All together, these information sources indicated the casino plans, at least as of February 2006 included:
- Expand casino to 625 slot machines (with room for 1,000
total) (report)
- 100 room hotel (report)
- 5,000 square feet of commercial/retail space (report)
- 10,000 square foot conference center (report)
- 3 restaurants: 200-seat buffet; 100-seat steakhouse;
100-seat 24-hr cafe with bar (report)
- 20,000 square foot administrative building (testimony)
- Expected wastewater (sewage) disposal of 120,000 gallons per day for development within 20 years (report)
- Existing developments: (staff)
- 16,000 square foot building with 5,000 foot office space
- trailer park with 30 RV spaces
- 315 space parking lot
Casino Plans March 20, 2006
A letter from casino representative Bob Garcia to the City of Florence states the casino expansion plans include:
- 70,000 square foot casino
- 20,000 square foot administrative office
- 55,000 square foot hotel
- Estimated sewage volume 70,000 gallons per day and eventually reach 120,000 gallons per day (not including a "larger resort and/or conference center")
- fuel stop and convenience market
Casino Plans July 2007
An article in a local newspaper quoted Michael Rose, casino representative, as saying there would be "a huge new casino and 93-room hotel are under construction" and "currently 230 people work at the facility and they are gearing up to increase that number to about 510."
We're not certain of the true cost.
Most existing "impact studies" have been paid for by casinos, so it's difficult to say with certainty what real impact a casino will have on a community - until it's too late and the harm has been done.
If we assume that taxes which are imposed on a non-casino business are representative of that business' fair share of taxes (in the form of use of public resources and public services), then the true cost of a casino on a community can be estimated. Agreements between cities and casino tribes, (City of North Bend and Lincoln City) give an indication of what two Oregon communities considered was the cost of a casino in their town. Even these seemingly generous agreements have resulted in considerable costs to the 'host' community (See Lincoln City - casino putting property into trust and eroding tax base, 4/21/06)
Some preliminary estimates we have come up with do not include the loss from the State's lottery revenues on video poker machines in local non-casino businesses. Included is our best guess about the loss of State revenue from the sale of alcohol, which the casino purchases at about half the price that other businesses must pay, reducing Oregon's annual revenues by millions of dollars.
The building of two government subsidized housing projects in Canyonville, Oregon coincided with the casino (Seven Feathers Casino) development in that town. A Douglas County Planning Commissioner stated that the tax-subsidized housing projects were built in large part to accommodate casino workers who qualified for such financial assistance. In 2004, a community health clinic in Canyonville was closed down because of “cuts in state funding, and the hospital's increasing debt and free-care costs”. Reports by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget also indicate that casino tribes continue to receive millions of dollars in federal funding, even ten years after their casinos have opened.
Note:
| Estimates of Taxes Lost PER YEAR |
Cost Per Year |
| Lane County Gambling and Prevention - Annual Social Costs: | $ 996,577 |
| Lost property taxes on
similar commercial development (Lane County Assessor's estimate on market value of $24,600,000) |
$ 222,189 |
| Lost Lane County Room Tax
on similar 100 room motel (7% x 120 rooms x $50 per room x 200 days per year) |
$ 84,000 |
| Lost business income taxes
- Federal taxes on $12 million
annual net profit (casino developer estimates $12 million net profit per year) (Federal Corporate Tax = $3,400,000 + 35% of amount over $10,000,000) |
$
4,100,000 |
| Lost business income taxes
- State of Oregon taxes
on $12 million annual net profit (casino developer estimates $12 million net profit per year) (Oregon Excise Tax = 6.6% of net income) |
$
792,000 |
| Lost OLCC revenues
(Average 2004-2006 liquor purchases at OLCC) |
$33,022 |
| Lost
Cigarette Tax |
Unknown |
| Total
Annual Costs of Casino in Florence |
$
6,227,788 |
It's true, there are many similarities. The differences are:
- Transparency
- Gambling operations of the State are publicly audited, closely monitored, and reported. Casinos are not required to open their 'books' to scrutiny, and oversight by regulatory agencies is hamstrung by complex regulations protecting tribal 'sovereignty'.
- Casinos across the nation often fail to report crimes on
casino property. Many agreements between casinos and local
law
enforcement prohibit public disclosure of criminal investigations on
casino property.
- Government regulators have very little oversight of casino operations because they are under-funded and under-motivated to provide adequate supervision.
- Casinos Pay No Taxes
- Not property taxes, not state excise tax, not federal business tax. As illustrated above, the state and federal governments would claim $4.8 million PER YEAR in taxes if the casino were taxed as any other business.
- One "successful" Oregon casino (Spirit Mountain) is
reported to make a net profit of $65 million a year. Their
'contribution' to local charities (of their choice) is about $4 million
per year, or 6% per year.
(Associated Press, 5/2004) If the casino paid
taxes like any other business, the 'contribution' to social services
would amount to over $26 million per
year.
- Unfair Advantage
- Any business, including casinos, in Oregon can install, and profit from, state-run gambling. NO business in Oregon can open a casino.
- Casinos customarily offer casino-subsidized 'comps' of free food, free motel room, free gifts, free RV parking, etc. Local businesses cannot compete with "free".
- Casinos purchase
liquor from the State at about half the
price other businesses must pay.
- Casinos are Illegal
- Casinos are not legal in Oregon. State gambling is
legal.
The voters of the State of Oregon approved the lottery and State-run
video poker machines - and specifically prohibited
casinos.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about a Russian casino or a Martian casino. This is about casinos, and the harm they cause. Period.
Yes, a casino complex would bring jobs. But at what price?
- The number of jobs "promised" has ranged anywhere from 750
in 1991, to 120 in 2003
- The majority of jobs that will be offered to locals are what the industry refers to as dead-end "McJobs"
- Most casino jobs are part-time (less than 40 hours), pay $8 to $13 per hour - which often places a family wage earner in the federal 'poverty' level. A 2004 article described one casino worker as ".... worked a dead-end job dealing cards at the Chinook Winds casino on the Oregon Coast, earning minimum wage and not much in fringe benefits." (5/29/04, Some Indians choosing their tribal identity based on their wallets, Associated Press, AP West Wire Digest
- Results of the 2005 Indian Gaming Compensation Survey
reveal that wages in Indian casinos are 7% below average wages for the
same group of hourly paid jobs for full service hotels. Average
starting rates were even lower, at 10% below. (3/22/06 - Hourly wages in Indian casinos lag
behind hospitality industry)
- Claims of high ‘average’ wages are skewed by the top-heavy
management compensation received by the casino
developers. A Disclosure Statement filed in 2003 in a Colorado
casino bankruptcy plan showed that one manager (now working in the
Florence casino) was paid an annual salary in excess of $230,000 cash a
year while the bankruptcy was pending. - Non-native job applicants are
given a lower priority for
job openings.
- The reality is that creation of casino jobs only results in a redistribution of jobs and employees - the actual number of jobs doesn't change when a casino of this size moves in - just the number of employers.
- A review
of three other similar towns in Oregon that have
casinos shows that, even after more than 10 years, there has been no
change in overall per-capita income for the 'host' communities.
Documents from the casino developers clearly indicate they eventually intend to build a "destination resort". That means tourists will come to gamble, they'll stay in a casino-subsidized tax-free motel or RV park, eat at the casino-subsidized tax-free restaurants, drink casino-subsidized tax-free alcohol, and shop at the casino-subsidized tax-free gift shops. Then they'll go home. They won't stop at local restaurants, motels or businesses because non-casino subsidized businesses which must pay taxes cannot offer the same low (or free) goods and services. One business owner near a large casino said something like, "Sure, we get more foot traffic since the casino came. They come in the door, ask where the casino is, and then go back out the door." That's the definition of a "destination resort" - you go there, you stay there, and you don't go anywhere else.
If it were any other comparable commercial development, the answer would probably be yes. But casinos in Oregon are not like other businesses. They don't pay taxes, they don't have to obey the same laws and regulations that other businesses do, etc. We compared three similar Oregon casino towns with Florence. In categories associated with economic growth - population, poverty levels, unemployment, and per capita income, Florence - with NO casino - out-performed all three casino towns. (See: Oregon Casino Towns - Economic Comparison)
A 2005 study on the relationship between casinos and bankruptcy filings found: "Counties that legalized casinos ... suffered individual bankruptcy rates more than 100% higher than counties that remained 'casinoless.'" (The Impact of Casino Gambling on Individual Bankruptcy Rates from 1900 to 2002 .)
Studies suggest that, four years to six years after casinos open, surrounding communities experience increases in rape, murder and other violent crimes, as well as property crimes such as burglary and auto theft. In California, the estimated annual societal cost of problem and pathological gamblers is just under $1 billion ($998.1 million). That figure includes costs associated with welfare benefits, arrest and incarceration, bankruptcy, and physical and mental health treatment. (6/2/06 - Casino Report released by California Attorney General)
As predicted by numerous national studies, it took less than two years of casino operation for gambling addiction to raise its ugly head in the small, coastal town of Florence, Oregon. Notice in local newspaper: "Gamblers Anonymous is coming to Florence. The first meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 12th from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be located at Emergence, ... here in Florence. For more information contact Don at 902-..." (Siuslaw News, Florence, Oregon 8/30/06, "Gamblers Anonymous coming to Florence")
Wrong.
The compact that the State signed with the Florence casino Tribe has no prohibition on kids going into the casino complex. The compact only says kids under 18 can't go on the gaming floor (and, we assume, where alcohol is being served). Children can go anywhere else in the 'complex'.
If that sounds ok to you, consider this: Casinos in other states have adopted their own version of the tobacco industry's Joe Camel - they call it Kiddie Bingo - and all perfectly legal. We call it a training ground - where kids are taught how to gamble for plush animals and shiny new toys. (See Kiddie Bingo web page and Casinos Cash in With Child Care) Lincoln City's Chinook Winds (casino), which often hosts high-school activities and allows 18-year-olds to play poker, says it doesn't promote the game to teens, but "we understand that poker is extremely popular with all adults and therefore encourage responsible gaming to all our guests," said Chinook's general manager, Jim Kikumoto "There's been more and more research looking at brain development, and some of what the research is finding is that teens, including 18-year-olds, don't have the same type of mental facilities when it comes to decision-making," Marotta said. "A lot of their behaviors tend to be more impulsive." (Barring 18 year olds simpler for casinos, 6/11/06)
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Native American groups, like virtually every ethnic group on the planet at one time or another in history, have suffered physical, economic or cultural subjugation at the hands of a more powerful group. We don't agree with others that believe that the descendants of those who wronged Native Americans in past generations must pay reparations for those past deeds. All Americans deserve equal protection under the law. (See Florence Concerns Left Out of Reparations Debate)
State lotteries and the Indian casino games are both economic evils guaranteed to produce a negative rate of return to the player. The difference is that the lottery is a voter-approved form of taxation whose stacked-deck profits fund education and other public programs. The voters of Oregon specifically mandated that casinos were not allowed in our state. The profits generated by casino games, for the most part, go into the pockets of non-Indian promoters and Las Vegas managers. (See Time Magazine Article)
- Since there's no government oversight of what happens
with casino profits, it is impossible to tell exactly who gets
what. However, according to a public discussion of the issue by
one tribal spokesperson in May of 2005, after almost one year of
operation, the tent casino in Florence still had not distributed any
casino profits to tribal members.
- During testimony before a congressional committee in
Illinois, John W. Kindt, Illinois professor of business and legal
policy "... cited statistics that the 1988 Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act – which gave tribes the right to own and run casinos –
has done nothing to increase job prospects for most native
Americans. Since 1988, poverty rates have changed little for
Native Americans, Kindt reported. At the Fort Mojave Indian
Reservation, the unemployment rate climbed from 27 percent in 1991 to
74 percent in 1997, despite the establishment of two casinos. "The 55
tribes with casinos before 1992 had their 1991 unemployment rate
of 54 percent increase somewhat to 54.4 percent by 1997," Kindt
testified. " (June 6, 2005,
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/05/0606gamble.html)
- There are many questions about the real cost to the public
of benefits
funded by state gaming. There is no question that the money Indian
casinos suck from the local economy fund little but the casino
investors and
operators. As seen in Douglas County, Oregon, the untaxed profits that
are left after the non-Indian investors and Las Vegas managers take
their substantial cut buys real estate. The land comes off the local
tax rolls and gives casino-related enterprises conducted on it an
untaxed, unregulated advantage over local businesses. There is
only minimal oversight by federal regulatory agencies about exactly how
much of the 'profits' ever make it to individual tribal members.
Whatever tribal "self-sufficiency" trickles down to members comes at
the expense of local enterprises being competitively
disadvantaged. Again, two wrongs don't make a right. (See Time Magazine Article)
- A review of
casino tribes
in Oregon indicates that even after a decade of running their
own casinos, the casino tribes continue to receive millions in federal
funding.
Lies, Lies, Lies
The casino developers lied when they first put the casino property into trust. They lied to the U.S. Government, they lied to the Lane County Commissioners, they lied to the Florence City Council, and they lied to the people of Florence. They told everyone they wanted the land for "cultural and historical" purposes - and would not put in a casino. This is how many casinos have been created in other states - reservation shopping based on a pack of lies and legal loopholes. (See Florence Concerns Left Out of Reparations Debate , Hatch Tract Acquisition , Formula for a Casino)
Wrong.
Despite claims to the contrary, casino land is not a sovereign nation like Mexico or France. Sovereign nations can sit at the table at the United Nations. Casino land is not a sovereign nation. It is settled law that the federal government has the ability to take away the sovereignty of a tribe - it has done so many times.
Federal laws also mandate that casino tribes must obey state laws regarding sales of alcohol.
The most recent case came from the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling that generally, Indian tribal courts cannot hear disputes between tribal members and nonmembers. One exception enables regulating nonmembers who enter agreements with tribes or their members. (6/25/08 - U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Plains Commerce Bank v. Long)
In 2007, the Washington, D.C., federal appeals court, which ruled in February (2007) that the National Labor Relations Board had power over union organizing efforts at an Indian casino in California. While the court recognized that tribal governments are sovereign, it said that operating a casino "is not a traditional attribute of self-government. Rather, the casino at issue here is virtually identical to scores of purely commercial casinos across the country." Other appeals courts around the country have ruled that some federal labor laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Occupational Health and Safety Administration regulations, apply to Indian tribes. (Casino workers forfeit civil rights, 4/30/07)
"Although no longer possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty, they remain a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations. ... As the Court ... [has] recognized, however, Congress has plenary authority to limit, modify or eliminate the powers of local self-government which the tribes otherwise possess. First, operation of a casino is not a traditional attribute of self-government. Rather, the casino at issue here is virtually identical to scores of purely commercial casinos across the country. Second, the vast majority of the Casino's employees and customers are not members of the Tribe, and they live off the reservation. For these reasons, the Tribe is not simply engaged in internal governance of its territory and members, and its sovereignty over such matters is not called into question."
(2/9/07 - US Court of Appeals, San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino v. National Labor Relations Board, Case No. 05-1392)
New Mexico courts have jurisdiction over personal injury lawsuits that allege negligent acts at tribal casinos, the state Supreme Court ruled. "It's really the first time the tribes in New Mexico will be subjected to state jurisdiction," Kennedy said. "They have been trying to avoid this all along, yet still retain the right to gamble, to run their casinos." The Supreme Court said gambling compacts between New Mexico and the pueblos created concurrent jurisdiction in state courts over personal injury actions against tribal-owned casinos, and were valid and enforceable under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. (03/02/07 - NM courts have jurisdiction over personal injury lawsuits)
In May 2005, the U.S. Department of Interior reversed previous recognition of two tribes because they couldn't show they had maintained a working government for decades. The federal government cannot take away the sovereignty of a state like Oregon. Recently, a New York Supreme Court Judge stated that tribes retain some attributes of sovereignty, but they are not sovereign nations. (Saratoga Chamber of Commerce v. Governor Pataki) Here in Oregon, for example, when part of the Florence casino property was "restored", the tribal government was specifically denied criminal or civil jurisdiction, or hunting, fishing or trapping rights on reservation lands. (25 U.S.Code 714a and 25 U.S. Code 714e) (Note, however, tribe adopted civil "code" in 2006 which purports to apply to all reservation and other land owned by tribe.)
In 2004, another court ruled that casinos must obey federal labor laws. In its May 2004 order, the National Labor Relations Board said that previous labor board decisions, which had generally exempted tribes from its jurisdiction, had been inadequate. Noting that the explosion of Indian gambling had transformed once-poor tribes into major employers of non-Indians, the order said that tribes were now acting more like traditional businesses than like sovereign governments, and should be treated as such. "Running a commercial business is not an expression of sovereignty in the same way that running a tribal court system is," the order said, adding that it proposed to treat tribes "just as it treats any other private sector employer." (Casino tribes ask for exemption from labor laws, 7/20/06) The National Labor Relations Board "explicitly rejected the contention that Indian-owned enterprises are 'government' operations and therefore exempt." (San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, Richard G. McCracken, 2005) That ruling was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on February 10, 2007, wherein the court stated: "Tribal sovereignty is not absolute autonomy, permitting a tribe to operate in a commercial capacity without legal constraint"
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a casino tribe could not regain sovereignty over land through "open-market purchases from current titleholders." (U.S. Supreme Court Sides with City of Sherrill, 3/29/05)
A presentation before the American Bar Association in March 2005 outlined the legal cases which refute the inflated claims of "sovereignty" used by many casino tribes when trying to gain competitive advantages over other local businesses. "As Indian enterprises like casinos grow and enter interstate commerce in ways indistinguishable from non-Indian competitors, Federal laws, including labor and employment laws, will be asserted." "Indian tribes have some attributes of sovereignty, but these are frequently misunderstood and overstated." "These cases manifest the recognition that as Indian tribes increasingly engage in business activities in commerce with people and business organizations from outside their reservations, there is no sound reason to treat them differently than non-Indian businesses."