Politics: No on prop 94, 95, 96, 97

Prop 94-97 will allow more casino slot machines but in exchange for a bigger share of the revenue for the California budget.

How many slot machines are in Las Vegas?

According to About.com there are 197,144!

I don't know how many slots there are already here in California but this adds quite a few more!

The San Francisco Chronicle is against it:

Passage of these propositions would allow four of the state's wealthiest tribes - Agua Caliente, Morongo, Pechanga, Sycuan - to dramatically expand their Southern California gambling operations by adding up to 17,000 Nevada-style slot machines. Their casinos in Riverside and San Diego counties would become among the world's largest.

That $9 billion "windfall" for state government - assuming the proponents' projections come to fruition - would not suddenly fall from the sky. It would come between now and 2030 and the additional state revenue from the new slots would amount to, at best, perhaps one-tenth of 1 percent of the state's budget. It is not even close to a panacea for the budget woes that are dominating today's headlines.

The Los Angeles Times is in favor of the measure:

Despite a convoluted history, Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 are actually quite simple. They would uphold agreements to amend existing compacts between California and four Indian tribes that already permit gambling on their reservations. These addenda were negotiated by the state, vetted and adopted by the Legislature and signed by the governor, but a petition drive funded by organized labor, racetrack owners and several other tribes forced the four agreements onto the ballot.

The Contra Costa Times is against the props. Excerpt:

Even the high estimate is a tiny fraction of the overall California state budget and would not be a major contribution to solving the state's fiscal problems.

But there is a larger question regarding casino gambling in California. If Californians want their state to have Nevada-style gambling on a large scale, why limit it to Indian tribes, or just a select number of tribes, or specific tribes?

We believe Californians don't want to compete with Nevada for gambling titles. Also, in the long run, it is not economically productive for Indians to depend so heavily on gambling revenues. Nor should California be seeking more gaming money.

The Mercury News is against:

So let's cut to the chase. Vote based on what you want California to become. Should we compete with Nevada to become the nation's gambling capital? No. Stop the escalation now. Reject Propositions 94 through 97.

The Sacramento Bee is also against:

This page has consistently opposed the expansion of gambling, beginning with the state lottery. We oppose the new gambling deals contained in these referendum initiatives, too. Gambling is the wrong way to grow the state's economy. It doesn't create new economic activity. It simply substitutes one form of entertainment spending for another. More money spent gambling means less money spent to go to the movies, eat out, play golf – all activities that don't create gambling addiction or prey on the poor.

Stop the spread of the slots! Vote no on propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.