Laserfiche WebLink
54�-3 <br /> RESOLUTION NO. <br /> RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSITION 70, THE TRIBAL GAMING <br /> COMPACTS AND EXCLUSIVE GAMING RIGHTS INITIATIVE, ON THE <br /> NOVEMBER 2, 2004 STATE-WIDE BALLOT <br /> WHEREAS, Govemor Schwarzenegger recently negotiated compacts with <br /> several gaming tribes that will add more than $1 billion to the state's bottom line in the <br /> current fiscal year and hundreds of millions more every year, thus contributing to the <br /> State's financial well-being and reducing state budget pressures on local governments; <br /> and <br /> WHEREAS, the recently-negotiated tribal gaming agreements also require <br /> mitigation of the impacts of gaming operations on local facilities and require the <br /> preparation of tribal environmental impact reports on new projects; and <br /> WHEREAS, the recently-negotiated tribal gaming agreements provide <br /> unprecedented protection and revenue support to the state and local governments of <br /> California; and <br /> WHEREAS, Proposition 70 would effectively neutralize Govemor <br /> Schwarzenegger's recently-negotiated agreements and would have negative impacts <br /> on cities throughout California; and <br /> WHEREAS, this proposition Gives Indian gaming tribes a 99-year monopoly on <br /> gambling but provides no auditing vehicle to determine profits; therefore leaving <br /> undetermined the actual tax that they would pay; and <br /> WHEREAS, Proposition 70 will encourages tribes to put casinos in our state's <br /> major cities, increasing urban gaming; and <br /> WHEREAS, tribes under Proposition 70 are not required to negotiate with local <br /> government to mitigate or provide money for environmental, public safety, or other <br /> effects attributable to the project; and <br /> WHEREAS, Proposition 70 does not contain any provision addressing labor, <br /> worker safety or third-party injury, and according to the State Legistative Analyst, under <br /> Proposition 70 the uttimate payments to the state would likely be lower than those at <br /> present; and <br /> WHEREAS, the League of California Cities opposes Proposition 70, urges all <br /> cities to pass resolutions of opposition, and notes the importance of cities' consistent <br /> positions on this measure and the League's and the Governor's other two priority <br /> measures in the election, Proposition 68 and Proposition 1A (on which the Council has <br /> already taken positions consistent with the League's and the Governor's); and <br /> Atty/Reso/Reso.1499 <br /> 101804 � <br /> . _ <br /> , <br />