RELATED STORY: CASINO BILL COULD FACE LONG ODDS
Sunshine State News asked state Rep. Erik Fresen, R-Miami, and Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, about their proposed "destination" resort casino legislation, HB 487. The following is their joint response:
Q. How did you vote on the Seminole gaming compact?
A. We voted yes for one reason: the pari-mutuels, many of them in my district, asked me to support it so they could get their 35 percent tax rate. At the time, they were the only competition to the Seminoles and, clearly to leave them at 50 percent would have likely put them out of business.We dislike gaming, butwe dislike monopolies more.
Q. If the passage of your legislation enables the tribe to break the compact, what is your best estimate on the loss of funds to the state?
A. This is not about revenue.This is a policy debate.When we decided to require prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, it wasnt a budget discussion it was a policy discussion because the policymakers believed that this change was critical to protect the citizens of this state.
This issue is no different. Promoting a monopoly in gaming, as we have, is toxic to this state and we must correct it.With that said, there is a provision in the bill that will require these destination resorts to make up any revenue lost from any policy decision we make. That is a political necessity. Florida sponsored and promoted a monopoly for peanuts, and it was wrong. We need to correct it.
We strongly believe that MANY things taking place currently (and likely to take place in the future if we don't rein it in with our bill) will "enable the tribe to break the compact," including what just happened in Gadsden and Miami.
Q. What is your best estimate as to offsetting revenues coming from the "destination" casinos?
A. It is likely that this reform in gaming will bring additional revenue to this state in a variety of ways including additional property and bed tax. Not to mention an increase in sales tax because it will attract international tourists, unlike our current scheme of gaming which caters to Florida citizens only.
Q. What is the rationale for setting a $250,000-per-venue figure for addicted-gambling programs -- the same figure that applies to much smaller dog tracks and pari-mutuels (and the same amount currently paid by the Seminoles at each of their properties)?
A. We arenot a big fan of forcing them to pay for the programs. We have never asked the liquor industry to support AA. We believe responsible corporate citizens will do what they need to do. It looks bad for their industry not to support these programs. Gaming is a legal business with the potential for destructive behavior, as is alcohol. The liquor industry spends millions on programs, such as dont drink and drive, and it is not mandated.We believe this industry would too.
However, since it is precedent, and we ask our pari-mutuels to do it, we need to ask them as well. To try to choose a number based on revenue would be complex and the program they support would not have a reliable source of funds. We could look at other options. We are not married to this one.
Contact Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341.
