This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
February 24, 2010
Slot machine cash for Vikings proposed (again)
There's yet another Minnesota Vikings stadium funding bill afoot, this one slot machines at race tracks. Licensing "racinos" could raise $125 million a year for the state, say the sponsors of the "Jobs, Family and Economic Development Fund," who say the proceeds could be used for "rural development, early childhood development research and development of bioscience and medical technology, athletic and recreational facilities, and the general fund." (But surely family athletic and recreational facilities.)
Those with long memories will recall that this plan was already floated once last October, and those with even longer memories will remember when a similar plan was proposed for the Twins way back in 1997. That went nowhere at the time amid major opposition to expansion of gambling, but apparently some legislators think the state might just be desperate enough for revenue this time around to rethink the matter.
Most observers, though, think not. The bill's chances: "Not good," says MinnPost. "An expansion of gambling would face a tough road," says Minneapolis Public Radio. "Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller have expressed doubt" that it could pass this year, says the Star Tribune. "Ground breaking," says ... um, CasinoGamblingWeb.com. And even they call it "a tough sell."
Minnesotans continue to overwhelmingly support the racino--however the new revenues are used. If racino legislation fails to pass again, it's for the same reason as in the past. The tribes will spend whatever it takes to stop it. Afterall, they have a tax-free monopoly on casino gaming. There's already over 20,000 slot machines in Minnesota and racetracks are already highly regulated gambing operations. This is no expansion.
Posted by Gibson Carothers on February 24, 2010 01:42 PM
Neil, aren't proposals such as these a matter of gaming saturation more than anything else?
Where I live, tax dollars are already being directed at the horse racing industry because public interest has declined and racing seems unable to survive on the revenue it can generate directly. I'm not sure if that's the case in Minn, but surely adding more options for people to gamble in a theatre already heavily devoted to gambling just splits the pot? Since a significant amount of that money will go to government (but I bet not schools or public parks), it actually reduces the take at the track, doesn't it?
There are plenty of people who believe that there is no such thing as "new" taxes, only redistribution of the old ones. Even "tourist" taxes - which on the surface seem to be free revenues for a given district - only raise new revenue if the residents of that district don't travel anywhere else (and thus get taxed themselves).
TNSTAAFL
Short answer: Yes.
Slightly less short answer: Lots of people still find legalized gambling icky.
Medium-length answer: If the revenues are being siphoned off from a competitor — in this case, Indian gaming, as Gibson says — then it wouldn't matter if it's a zero-sum game overall.
Caveat: The last time I really studied the ins and outs of MN slot machine legislation was 1997, so I can't exactly tell you who would gain or lose how much from this bill. But the above are the general principles involved. If it gains any traction, I'll dig further.
Posted by Neil on February 24, 2010 02:14 PM
Los Angeles Vikings sounds great...
Posted by Epic Fail on February 24, 2010 07:12 PM