But you still need to activate your account.
Question 2: Oxford County Casino
Though they have been silent so far and probably will remain so, at least two groups and one business are likely to keep a close eye on the outcome of referendum Question 2 next month.
The Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Indian Nation, two American Indian tribes with a vocal interest in gaming, have not officially come out for or against the proposal to build a resort casino in Oxford County.
Some within the tribes, however, have suggested they personally won’t support the proposal, noting Maine voters have not supported tribal gaming in years past.
Similarly, Hollywood Slots in Bangor – the state’s only gaming facility to date – has indicated it has no real opinion on Question 2 and said it should be left for voters to decide. At first glance, however, another in-state casino would certainly draw business away from Bangor.
While those three parties remain quiet, one gambling opponent didn’t mind speaking for them.
“I know for a fact that Penn National [owner of Hollywood Slots] is very interested in the outcome,” said Dennis Bailey of CasinosNo!, which is leading the charge against the referendum. “And I know [the tribes] haven’t come out against it, but I think it would be a shame if voters turned down the tribes and gave a casino to someone we don’t even know.”
Question 2 asks: “Do you want to allow a certain Maine company to have the only casino in Maine, to be located in Oxford County, if part of the revenue is used to fund specific state programs?”
Proponents of the casino, a $184 million, two-phase project, are hoping the allure of adding several hundred jobs and millions in revenue to the state in the first year alone will be enough to generate support.
Opponents like Bailey counter that the question is too awkwardly worded, the proposal too ambitious and the financial backers too unknown.
Dean Harrold is the vice president of the Las Vegas firm Olympia Gaming that only last month took the reins of the casino proposal in Maine. He acknowledged an uphill battle.
“If it doesn’t pass this time, I don’t know that it ever will,” he said in a recent interview at the Bangor Daily News.
Bailey would be just fine with that, “but I don’t think they will stop trying,” he said. “The money is just too enticing for these guys. That’s why they keep coming back.”
Numerous referendums since 2000 have tried to bring slots and-or table games to Maine. Only the petition for Hollywood Slots in 2003 passed. That same year, voters rejected a huge tribal casino in Sanford.
Support of gaming in Maine has always been divided, and many on both sides agree that this year’s referendum has many obstacles.
Less than two months ago, the casino campaign was all but dead when Seth Carey, a Rumford attorney who led the initial petition drive to get the question on the ballot, dropped out amid legal problems.
Olympia Gaming came in, purchased controlling interest in Carey’s firm, Evergreen Mountain Enterprises, and revived the proposal. Olympia Gaming runs a casino in Reno, Nev., and has proposals for other gaming facilities throughout the country.
Last month, Harrold and others unveiled an architect’s rendering of what it called a New England-style casino resort that would fit in with local designs. Earlier this month, Olympia Gaming announced it would build in the town of Oxford near Oxford Plains Speedway.
“It’s a true resort,” Harrold said, which could help differentiate the casino from Bangor’s Hollywood Slots. “It will have entertainment and meeting space for conventions and trades shows. The casino, while it will generate most of the revenue, will only be a part of the project.”
Pat LaMarche, Maine spokeswoman for Olympia Gaming, said the casino could add 800 much-needed jobs and could bring in revenue not only for the casino but the entire state.
Bailey doesn’t buy it.
“There is not an economist in America that would tell you that gaming facilities are economic stimulants,” he said. “They like to dazzle us with numbers, but show me the evidence.”
The other big obstacle is the wording of the bill.
As written, the bill would allow people younger than 21 to gamble and to work in the casino. It would place a 10-year moratorium on competing casinos; and it would put the casino president on a number of boards that benefit from casino revenues. It also would allow the casino to extend credit to gamblers whose money runs out, critics say.
Maine Gov. John Baldacci, who has opposed gaming throughout his tenure in Augusta, called Question 2 “deeply flawed.”
“It’s important to point out that if Question 2 were to pass, significant changes in the law would be needed,” he said in a statement.
Baldacci said the provisions in Question 2, especially lowering the gambling age and creating a 10-year moratorium, are too risky. As he has said about previous attempts to expand gambling in the state, the matter ultimately should be decided by voters.
“Any further expansion of gambling must and should originate with voters through the initiative process,” he said.
Harrold and LaMarche both admitted the referendum’s wording is not perfect but said those provisions would be changed.
“We will work with the Legislature if this passes,” Harrold said. “We don’t want anyone under 21 working or gaming. We basically want the same language associated with [Hollywood Slots].”
Bailey wondered if Mainers can trust Olympia Gaming.
“I do think even the question now is misleading, and we don’t know what they are going to change,” he said. “We can’t go to polls with blindfolds on. It’s a huge risk.”
While the casino would be located in Oxford County, the entire state gets to vote. Of the previous four referendum questions dealing with gaming facilities, none was on the ballot during presidential election years.
That has Bailey a little concerned.
“There are going to be a lot of voters voting on other stuff, and they might not even know about Question 2 if they don’t live in Oxford County,” he said.
Proponents also are spending lots of money (more than $500,000 as of Sept. 30) on ads trying to convince Maine voters the casino is needed. CasinosNo!, by comparison, has spent only about $30,000.
“We think we have a chance or we wouldn’t be investing in this campaign,” said Harrold. “We know how to do this and do it right.”
erussell@bangordailynews.net
990-8167
Comments
comments for this post are closed