Question 2 isn’t good for Maine
October 24th, 2008 by Marc A. Pitman
As many of you know, I am opposed casinos coming to Maine. I know many of my friends disagree and I respect that. I think these differences are one of the great things about living in the U.S.
But even casino supporters will probably think twice about Question 2 after reading this news brief in MaineBiz:
Casino sides battle
A group of state legislators held a news conference yesterday in Portland to speak out against Maine’s proposed casino referendum, prompting a reaction from casino supporters.The lawmakers, including House Speaker Glenn Cummings (D-Portland), voiced concerns over certain elements of the referendum that, if approved by voters on Nov. 4, would allow Las Vegas-based Olympia Gaming to locate a four-season casino resort in Oxford. They criticized provisions in the referendum that would lower the gambling age from 21 to 19, put a 10-year moratorium on other casinos in the state and require casino representatives be given a seat on the board of every state entity that receives revenue from the gambling operations, according to the Portland Press Herald.
Pat LaMarche, spokeswoman for the Vote Yes on 2 for Maine campaign, told the legislators at the event that they were standing in the way of job creation, the paper reported.
Read it for yourself here: An Act to Allow a Casino in Oxford Countyrent a car bulgaria.
- Lowering the gambling age to below the drinking age?
- Blocking any competition for a decade?
- Requiring the casino has voting representation on the board of any entity that receives revenue?
Who do these folks think they are? People who live in this state don’t even get deals like that!
Even if you’re pro-casinos, I’d hope you’d consider voting “No” on Question 2. It just gives too much away.
Other Possibly Related posts:
This entry was posted on Friday, October 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm and is filed under personal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
yeah, i agree. the proposition in RI a few years ago was similarly, deeply flawed. even if i was pro-casinos, which, growing up in NJ with Atlantic City is a tough sell to begin with, there’s no way RI’s bill made any sense and it doesn’t sound like the ME bill makes any sense, either.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
If what you quote is true, that is a huuuge & ambiguously gray area, which can be exploited , and not in favor of Maine’s values.
Speaking of Maine’s values, I’m personally opposed to casinos, just because of what they are.
I would so much rather see some sort of manufacturing, or other life giving trade come into town.
I just don’t see how having that sort of establishment would further the cause of the TYPE of vacationland we’ve grown to love & cherish.
MHO
Rich
October 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I read the act myself. I didn’t see the 19 year old thing but the rest was quite clear.
The casino rep as voting member on any board didn’t limit it to a state agency either.
Very scary.
October 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
…blogslack detected….
last post….10.24.2008
…end of blog slacker detection module…
October 31st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Yep. You called it.
Thinking of fixing it tonight…