Commentary; Posted: 3/5/03

Slots a good bet for state's budget

Berk Brown
Staff Writer

Perhaps the most fundamentally frustrating things to me about politics is the failure to accomplish logical things because of bureaucratic bull.

Politicians have a way of taking a simple solution to a major problem and fouling it up. In most cases, itís because they are concerned about getting re-elected or they try to piggy-back too many items onto a bill that itís destined for failure.

So let me come right out and say that I am ñÝand always have been ñ in favor of putting slot machines and black jack tables at Canterbury to help the state of Minnesota get back to a stronger financial footing.

Sen. Minority Leader Dick Day, R-Owatonna, is co-author of a bill which would turn Canterbury into a ìracino.î It is estimated that allowing this gambling to be under the direction of Minnesota Lottery would make $75 million a year from the operation for the state.

With the state staring a massive deficit in the face and Gov. Tim Pawlenty pledging no new taxes, it seems any new revenue source with so much potential should be explored.

But letís face it, a politician admitting to being in favor of gambling is kind of like a day care center hiring Michael Jackson as its spokesman. Itís not a great public relations move.

Yet, the idea of the state profiting from Canterbury adding to its gambling services is a great idea.

Opponents of the idea argue one of two major points. It would hurt the Indian Gaming Commission and expanding gambling simply is not a good idea.

On the surface, they are legitimate concerns. As far as substance goes, there is none.
The notion of Indian-run casinos suffering because of added gambling at Canterbury is legitimate. It would be foolish to think otherwise, especially when it comes to Mystic Lake. Yes, Iím sure there are those who would stop at Canterbury instead of driving the extra 15 minutes to Prior Lake.

Without question, Indian-run casinos would lose some of their business. Of course, I donít cry for Sam Walton when a new Target is built to compete with Wal-Mart.

I donít know how much profit the Indian-run casinos generate per year, but I quiver at the thought of how many commas are in that number. And Iíve always thought competition is a good thing.

And letís face it, casinos arenít in the gambling business, theyíre in the entertainment business. A vast majority of people go to casinos for the entertainment. The thrill of opportunity to win money, the sound of coins falling from a slot machine, the excitement of having an ace placed on top of your 10 of clubs.

Casinos have to make you leave feeling like you had a good time, even if you go home with less than we came with. Thatís how they stay in business.

The added competition would be a good thing. And as in any business, those who provide a good product and good service will always thrive. So, I donít buy for a minute that adding slots and blackjack at Canterbury will put anybody out of business or make much of a financial dent in anotherís profits.

The argument of not wanting to expand gambling in the state is about as sturdy as a giraffe on ice.

No more expansion? Exactly how many state lottery tickets are available for purchase? How many lotteries where people spend thousands of dollars hoping for the right numbers to come up?

How many keno and bingo parlors do we have? How many casinos are there with how many slot machines, black jack tables, electronic games and the like? How many times have the Indian-run casinos added to their number of machines and tables?

The desire to not want to expand gambling is as phony as half the politicians are. If you donít want to expand gambling, then donít allow current casinos to expand. Donít allow for more lottery games, including scratch offs and pull tabs.

Perhaps politicians need to be reminded that there is gambling going on at Canterbury as we speak. Thereís betting on horses, both live and simulcast. They gamble on card games.
Itís not a matter of if there should be gambling at Canterbury, itís a matter of if there should be more.

If slots and black jack tables arenít allowed at Canterbury, you can beat your sweet poker chips that within the next two years, just as many if not more of those slots and tables will be put in at Indian-run casinos in this state. Itís just a matter of who is going to profit from them.

Should it be the ones who are already lining their pockets with millions and millions of dollars from them or the state of Minnesota?

Gov. Pawlenty and the rest of the suits in St. Paul need to come to their senses and realize an additional $75 million in revenue per year in these tough times will greatly help save much needed programs now facing the budget axe.

And when the state is back on its feet financially, the extra gambling revenue can help the state maintain that status and prevent more taxation.

Allowing slot machines and black jack tables at Canterbury is a simple solution to a major problem facing all Minnesotans. I wouldnít bet on it happening though. After all, it would require politicians to make a logical decision.

Top of Page