We say “Vote No” on Amendment No. 1 next Tuesday.
Jul 28, 2004 | Opinion |
First it was gaming on Missouri River waters only. Then we winked at buildings with foundations built to resemble riverboats along trenches. Secondly, it was gaming with limits to safeguard against gambling addiction. Then we winked at changes in the limits each individual was allowed to play. Thirdly, we were told how gambling revenue would benefit public education. Then we winked as legislators reallocated funding away from public education nearly as fast as the gambling revenues were put in. And now comes Amendment No. 1, and next Tuesday at the election booth we’re being asked to wink again.
Much of the ballot language on Amendment No. 1 reads like something worth supporting. It appears that by voting yes, we can dedicate a portion of all gaming revenue generated throughout Missouri to public schools. But look closely. Schools to reap benefits are “priority schools” — something that even our best politicians can’t fully explain, nor identify by name or location before we vote. Besides this flagrant omission, this amendment still does not address the deception of the legislative shell game where gaming revenue replaces public education appropriations now being spent elsewhere. And even putting this aside, there’s still the problem of sending money to help a school out of its accreditation struggles, then terminating the funds as the school’s reward for improved performance. Must our commitment to “supporting” public education include this?
Nowhere on the ballot will you specifically read about Rockaway Beach wanting a new casino on the White River. But this is precisely what prompts the ballot. Casino investors have spent $10 million on ads promoting their side of the issue across the state, trying to get us to wink again. But you should ask yourself why voters across the entire state must decide what appears to be a clash of local economic interests — nearby Branson vs upstart Rockaway Beach. There’s truth that the almighty dollar determines what and how viewpoints are stated about Amendment No. 1. Obviously, many people lump “family tourism” and “casino gambling” together as entertainment — both expensive and both affecting only the Missouri Ozarks. But there are differences, points which haven’t changed despite the growth of legalized gambling in Missouri.
Money spent in casinos stays there. Buses of gamblers don’t stop at local restaurants, theaters or souvenir stores. Crime rates will increase (arguments abound only about the rate of increased crime). Presently, shoplifting is the most prolific criminal activity in the Branson area; crime statistics are expected to change if the proposed casino attracts more people — dramatically, if we’re to believe the hype about new jobs dealing to more gamblers. But can we really believe the hype on the economic benefits?
Do you think that with 11 casinos already in Missouri, another 3 million new visitors will come just to gamble? More likely, most of these gamers will come from the existing tourism market. Do you really think that Amendment No. 1 means just one more gambling “boat” limited to just Rockaway Beach?
These are just some of the reasons why the citizens of Northwest Missouri are being asked to vote on something that mostly immediately affects those living in Southwest Missouri. Missourians are being asked to vote because the effects of gambling affects us all. Gambling interests are hoping you will wink once again at the realities and allow them even more ways to drain dollars out of Missouri. We say vote no on Amendment No. 1.
