CONCURRENCE WITH LWV-BELOIT POSITION ON PROPOSED CASINO
1999; REVISED 2001
The League of Women Voters of Beloit opposes a casino for the Beloit area. (In coming to this position, the Beloit LWV examined the following research: National Gambling Impact Study Commission, National Opinion Research Center at the Univ. of Chicago, National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Reports: Apr. '95, July '96, Nov. '96, Sept. '97; GVA Marquette Advisors, Crowe Chizek LLP, and William N. Thompson)
The League of Women Voters of Beloit supports planned development of the I-90 Wisconsin Stateline area.
(The Beloit LWV recommends that each development proposal be evaluated for and meet specific criteria related to factors such as economic viability, zoning concerns, infrastructure costs, and economic, social and environmental impacts.)
Should a casino negotiation process begin in the Beloit area, the League of Women Voters of Beloit recommends incorporating the following points into the agreement process and compact with the tribe and developer:
1. establish the willingness of all participants to take time to come to a decision;
2. require the tribe/developer to bear the costs of an attorney well versed in Indian law chosen by the city to represent/advise the city;
3. invite representatives from the town of Turtle, surrounding municipalities, Rock County, and local school districts to participate and provide input regarding the casino development;
4. enact a limited year renegotiable contract;
5. guarantee waiver of sovereign immunity to allow non-tribal court processes;
6. guarantee that the city may withdraw from negotiations at any point without penalty;
7. include a penalty clause in case of lack of quality development according to the agreed upon plan;
8. include specific agreement as to use of the land in trust if the casino were to fail;
9. earmark the annual casino payment to the city for specific enhancement opportunities in order not to become dependent on it for operating costs;
10. maintain city control of the types of retail sales and promotional incentives permitted at the casino in order to protect local businesses;
11. maintain city control in regulating the site, including zoning, site development, code enforcement, and the right to enter at any time, as well as regulating the development of the surrounding area;
12. require the tribe/developer to bear the costs of infrastructure and maintenance of the surrounding area (i.e. roads, bridges, sewer extension, etc.) as well as costs of increased police and fire protection;
13. require hiring of local citizens and minorities and the implementation of state and federal fair labor practices;
14. require funding from the tribe/developer for research, prevention, and treatment of problem gambling, and education of the community regarding gambling risks, etc. Estimates of adequate funding for these increased social costs should be obtained through consultation with local social service providers.
15. set up a reserve fund for long-term social costs such as criminal activity, poverty, homelessness, family abuse, suicide, and the associated addictive behaviors (drugs /alcohol) etc.;
16. plan and implement use of a casino for promoting cultural events and related Native American heritage; and
17. specify amount of tribal donations to non-profits, charities, and schools.