Tribes Draw A Bad Card In Casinos
It wasn’t a major news headline, but it could be a glimpse of the future. “Casino cuts 80 jobs, more likely.”
The Jamestown S’Klallam’s new 7 Cedars Casino near Sequim isn’t drawing as many gamblers as it had hoped. The 18 percent staff cut was blamed mostly on competition from other casinos closer to the state’s population centers.
Tribal leaders hope traffic will increase once they add attractions - especially those that might appeal to families. But there is a chance the recent layoffs are a trend, not a blip. If so, it’s the first indication that the tribe’s hopes of salvation through gambling could be a house of cards.
If the Jamestown S’Klallam’s can’t fill their casino now, what will happen when Auburn’s Muckleshoot Tribe opens its permanent casino in the fall? By then, there will be three major casinos on the I-5 corridor between Marysville and Rochester. Worse yet, the 7 Cedars is just the first of perhaps four tribal casinos on the Olympic Peninsula.
Which invites some questions: How many tribal casinos are enough? And is opening a tribal casino really the equivalent of minting money, regardless of the location?
The half-empty parking lot at the 7 Cedars is only one indication the tribes are feeling competition from each other. Initiative 651 seeks to grant its three sponsors - the Spokanes, Colvilles and Puyallups - an advantage over the others. It legalizes slot machines, but only those tribes that have not yet signed gambling agreements with the state can install them immediately. The others must wait until their compacts expire.
Still, slot machines are considered the hole card for all of the casinos. If the finances are shaky now, the tribes and their corporate partners think their investment can be recovered once slot machines are added. Even if some have to wait a little longer.
On the surface, the numbers bear the optimists out. The state Gambling Commission estimates $500 million a year is now wagered at tribal casinos and bingo halls. Most estimates claim slots will attract another $1.5 billion annually.
But if there’s that much money to be had from slot machines and their high-tech cousin, video poker, can the tribes hope to keep their monopoly? Here’s a more likely scenario:
Legislative opposition to legalized slot machines is based on the fear they are the final step toward wide-open casino gambling. While Washington has sprinted down the path toward more gambling, the difference between a state that allows slots and a state that doesn’t is still significant.
But if the courts agree with the tribes that slots are simply a mechanical variation of pull tabs or punch boards, then the state loses the battle.
Passage of I-651 would have the same effect. And once slot machines are in casinos on 21 Indian reservations in every major population center, the arguments against their legalization statewide become moot.
If legislators are already under pressure from tavern owners and non-profit organizations to legalize video poker, imagine how hot it will get if the tribes get slot machines. And political leaders already are eyeing the estimated $150 million a year a 10 percent tax would bring in.
If I-651 passes in November, the 1996 session of the Legislature will legalize video poker for taverns and cocktail lounges. Bet on it. Even a gambling foe (and Indian fighter) like U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton says once the tribes have slots, there’s no reason for the state to stay out.
The tribal sponsors of I-651 think they’ve inoculated themselves against statewide legalization of slots. The initiative requires the tribes to distribute their profits with all registered voters in annual shares ranging from $43 to $100 per voter.
The checks, however, would be canceled if the state legalizes slots for non-Indians. The sponsors of the initiative think politicians would be loath to take money from voters. But all it really does is force the Legislature to act before the checks start flowing.
What motivation would the state have to give the tribes a slot machine monopoly? None. The animosity built up over gambling and the battles over treaty rights will give politicians more than enough political cover to act in a way that benefits the state and harms the tribes financially.
Once video poker terminals are in every tavern and bar, why wouldn’t the state allow some type of casinos? The financial rewards would be awfully tempting. What then for the tribes? Only the welllocated casinos on the I-5 corridor or in Spokane and Yakima would even have a chance to compete.
As of now, the tribes - all tribes - have a monopoly on a $500 million plus-industry. If they succeed with their attempts to get slot machines, they will likely end up with a small - and decreasing - fraction of a $2-billion industry.
But who among tribal leadership realizes they’re all better off with the status quo?
xxxx
The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Peter Callaghan McClatchy News Service