Oregon Ballot Measure 35 (2008)
From Ballotpedia
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
|
| This measure did not appear on a ballot. |
Oregon Ballot Measure 35 (2008) or The Oregon Revenue Enhancement And Protection Act of 2008 is an initiated state statute that would allow a privately owned casino near Portland, Oregon. The casino would have a 15 year renewable license.
This measure goes hand-in-hand with Oregon Ballot Measure 36, which would amend the constitution to allow this casino in Oregon. The establishment of casinos is currently prohibited in the state under the constitution. Measure 35 can only be valid if Measure 36 passes. The constitutional amendment would only allow the building of this particular casino, and would not permit operation of other casinos within the state.[1]
No public funds will be used to build, operate, or regulate the casino, except for initial funds to set of a gaming comission that are subject to repayment by the casino. 25% of casino's gross revenues would be allocated to costs of regulation and other specified public purposes. The legality of Tribal casinos is in no way affected by this measure.[2]
Contents |
Status
The proponents have decided not to pursue signature gathering on this measure.
In a statement, Studer and Rossman said controversy surrounding two tribes’ efforts to establish new casinos in Oregon and Washington made the timing of the ballot measure less desirable.
The promoters’ statement did not indicate whether they would pursue another ballot measure in 2010, the next statewide election cycle.[3]
Official Ballot Title:
Measure 35: Establishes Privately-Owned Casino Near Portland; Creates Gaming Commission Oversight; Allocates Portion Of Casino Revenues[4]
Measure 36: Amends Constitution: Replaces Constitutional Prohibition On Casinos With Provision Requiring The Authorization Of One, Privately Owned Casino[5]
Proponents
Matt Rossman and Bruce Studer
Support
Mark Wiener, a political consultant who has ties with the Democratic political establishment in Oregon, joined the campaign in January and reportedly had a hand in making sure that 25% of revenue from the casino would go to state and local governments. 2/3 of that money will be going to schools, and 1/5 would be given to fund children's health care. The rest goes to nearby cities as well as to help fund gambling addiction treatment.[6]
The Oregonian published an article in December 2007 spotlighting the proponents, their friendship, and down-to-earth approach to the initiative process. The article also pointed out that the 25 percent cut that Studer and Rossman promise the state far exceeds what the state gets from the tribal casinos, which contribute smaller percentages to community funds.[7]
Opposition
The measure faces heated opposition from tribal casinos, as well as restaurant and tavern owners who have video gambling machines from the state Lottery. There's also some opposition in East Multnomah County from local officials who worry about the impact of a huge gambling operation on their area.[6]
In The Oregonian's article in December 2007 about the proponents' friendship, and down-to-earth approach to the initiative process, it was also mentioned that 59 percent of video lottery gambling revenues flow to state programs. So the state could wind up losing money if Studer and Rossman's casino took a large share of the lottery business.[7]
References
- ↑ Official Summary of Measure 36 (Constitutional Amendment)
- ↑ Official Summary of Measure 35
- ↑ TheOutlookOnline.com: "Casino backers give up, for now", May 5, 208
- ↑ Detailed information about Measure 35 from the Secretary of State
- ↑ Detailed information about Measure 36 from the Secretary of State
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 OregonLive.com: "Casino guys have new consultant and new plan", The Oregonian, January 10, 2008
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 OregonLive.com: "Stakes mighty high for suburban guys", The Oregonian, December 12, 2007
External links
See also
- Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2008)
- List of Oregon ballot measures
- Oregon 2008 ballot measures
- Procedures for qualifying an initiative in Oregon
- Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon
- Oregon signature requirements
