Our reporting relies on your support. Contribute today! 

Help us reach our goal of $250,000. The countdown is on!

It’s important to note that Props 94-97 require enhanced cooperation with and protections for local governments since the gaming agreements impact tribes within our county boundaries.

Specifically, the tribes must negotiate and enter into binding and enforceable agreements with the county and any impacted city to fully mitigate any impacts of gaming-related projects on the off-reservation environment.

In addition, these agreements require compensation from tribes to cities and counties for law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical services, infrastructure and any other pubic services to be provided as a result of the project.

This new provision is good for local government and San Diego County taxpayers.

I’ve also been asked why some of the tribes oppose Props 94-97. The simple answer is competition. The opposition ads are regrettably deceptive and fail to mention that Pala, United Auburn and five other tribes signed compact amendments in 2004 that allow for an unlimited expansion of gambling. Auburn and Pala, major funders of the opposition campaign, now run two of the largest and most profitable casinos in the state.

In fact, dozens of tribes throughout California support these agreements, including significant numbers of smaller tribes that will benefit from the revenue sharing. Additionally, the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA) supports Props 94-97.

Reader SouthSanDiegan wrote:

Can you elaborate on why SDCTA recommends voting yes on 91 when it’s original proponents are now saying that due to new legislation it is not needed and to vote No… so if the Yes on 91 people now say No, why vote Yes?

SouthSanDiegan: Proponents say that Prop 91 is no longer needed because Prop 1A was approved by voters in 2006. However, Prop 1A (which SDCTA endorsed) was a compromise and we have to look at the substance of Prop 91 on its own.

Prop 91 would eliminate the opportunity for the Legislature to raid Public Transportation Account and Transportation Investment Fund dollars that are generated from the five percent sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. In 2002, voters approved Prop 42, which constitutionally requires a portion of the gas sales tax revenue to be used exclusively for transportation purposes. Unfortunately, there was a loophole in the measure that allowed the funds to be used for general services under certain circumstances. Prop 1A tightened the loophole but it did not close it completely. Prop 91 would end the raids and ensure that certain motor vehicle related fees and gas tax revenue would be restricted to transportation purposes.

— LANI LUTAR

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.