Tribal gaming compact not in Florida's best interests
(Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, is chairman of the House Select Committee on Seminole Indian Compact Review)
By Rep. Bill Galvano (R-Bradenton)
© 2009 Bradenton.com
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Making informed decisions about what is in the best interest of Florida’s financial future is crucial in these difficult economic times.
Floridians expect that the state will not fall prey to short-term fixes with long-term consequences. While many hope that the Legislature will take what is being promised as “easy money” to dig us out of our current deficit, simply taking money for today without ensuring the best deal for Florida’s future ignores our elected responsibility.
The conclusions reached in the March 20 piece “Tribal gaming deal: Galvano panel should OK Crist Compact” rely on overstated economic figures and misplaced legal conclusions in demanding that members of the House of Representatives neglect their constitutional duties and responsibilities and accept what is now widely considered a bad deal for Floridians.
It has become clear that the positive economic benefits to the state claimed by the governor and tribe do not include the negative impacts to other sectors of our economy. We learned at our last meeting that our resort and convention industry would lose almost $100 million as a result of the tribe’s hotel expansion activities. That does not include the decline in revenues from pari-mutuel operations and sales tax collections that are anticipated by the expansion of the tribe’s gaming activities.
Another common misconception is that if we don’t reach a deal immediately, the Department of Interior will permit the tribe to engage in Class III gaming activities without the state receiving any revenues.
This is simply untrue or, at the very least, highly unlikely. There is already one United States Appellate Court that has overturned the department’s attempts to enforce Class III gaming on Texas and there is no reason to think that the results in Florida would be any different. Furthermore, based on committee testimony by the Florida Attorney General’s Office, any attempt to force such a proposal on Florida would be met with additional litigation.
Another fallacy is that the tribe is only permitted to revenue share if they get additional games like blackjack. In truth, revenue sharing is permitted where the state conveys an economic benefit on the tribe. This benefit can take any form, including geographic exclusivity or exclusivity in types of games provided. In fact, the voided compact provided both exclusivity of types of games and geographic exclusivity as a basis for the revenue sharing. Providing the tribe with the exclusive right for slots outside of South Florida would convey a valuable economic benefit to the tribe and justify a comparable revenue sharing agreement between the tribe and the state.
The piece published on March 20 demonstrates that the public relations tactics used by the tribe have been successful in convincing some Floridians that the state’s only option is the deal negotiated by the governor and invalidated by the Florida Supreme Court. In the end, gaming is not the answer to solving Florida’s current budget problem and does not provide Florida with the type of industry upon which to build Florida’s future. Allowing the widespread expansion of an industry that preys on false hopes or long shots is not the answer to Florida’s long-term financial prosperity and will not balance Florida’s budget. Floridians deserve better.