- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 82,769
'Source - GamingAmerica
California city representatives voice their contention with the pro-tribal gambling bill.
Californian establishments, including mayoral offices, animal rights organizations, political rights committees and businesses have
jointly announced their opposition to Prop 26. This piece of legislation was put forward to California’s government by tribal casino representatives.
It proposes to amend the state constitution to guarantee tribal casinos exclusivity over roulette, craps, and Sports Betting, adding
to their current perceived monopoly on slot machines. There has already been vicarious opposition to the bill and today’s new
opposition only adds to a growing chorus of anti-Prop 26 sentiment.
Among newly announced detractors of the bill are: the City of Bellflower; Luis Roa, Mayor, City of Hawaiian Gardens; the Central
Oregon Wild Horse Coalition; the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center; San Joaquin County Democratic Central Committee and the
San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce.
These add to a list of already strong opposition, with perhaps the most powerful being the California Contract Cities Association (CCCA),
which represents over 70 cities. The CCCA also represents organizations including the Gateway Cities Council of Governments,
Disabled American Veterans and the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
These anti-Prop 26 establishments are not just concerned with the bill's perceived attempt to monopolize craps, roulette and Sports Betting.
The legislation also includes a change to the State Constitution which would allow tribes to hire private trial lawyers and replace the role of
the Attorney General to sue non-tribal competition. Prop-26 opposition has labeled this amendment as a ‘weaponization’ of the Private Attorney General Act.
Finally, on the financial side of things, the anti-Prop 26 coalition has said it could result in a $500m loss in tax revenue for California
communities, jeopardizing more than 32,000 jobs, $1.6bn in wages and risking $5.5bn in total economic impact.
California city representatives voice their contention with the pro-tribal gambling bill.
Californian establishments, including mayoral offices, animal rights organizations, political rights committees and businesses have
jointly announced their opposition to Prop 26. This piece of legislation was put forward to California’s government by tribal casino representatives.
It proposes to amend the state constitution to guarantee tribal casinos exclusivity over roulette, craps, and Sports Betting, adding
to their current perceived monopoly on slot machines. There has already been vicarious opposition to the bill and today’s new
opposition only adds to a growing chorus of anti-Prop 26 sentiment.
Among newly announced detractors of the bill are: the City of Bellflower; Luis Roa, Mayor, City of Hawaiian Gardens; the Central
Oregon Wild Horse Coalition; the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center; San Joaquin County Democratic Central Committee and the
San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce.
These add to a list of already strong opposition, with perhaps the most powerful being the California Contract Cities Association (CCCA),
which represents over 70 cities. The CCCA also represents organizations including the Gateway Cities Council of Governments,
Disabled American Veterans and the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
These anti-Prop 26 establishments are not just concerned with the bill's perceived attempt to monopolize craps, roulette and Sports Betting.
The legislation also includes a change to the State Constitution which would allow tribes to hire private trial lawyers and replace the role of
the Attorney General to sue non-tribal competition. Prop-26 opposition has labeled this amendment as a ‘weaponization’ of the Private Attorney General Act.
Finally, on the financial side of things, the anti-Prop 26 coalition has said it could result in a $500m loss in tax revenue for California
communities, jeopardizing more than 32,000 jobs, $1.6bn in wages and risking $5.5bn in total economic impact.
