At the moment it would seem to be fashionable to oppose gaming and casinos. In the UK the prospect of large casino leisure centres is coming under attack from councillors, MPs, the Churches and even the public. On the other side of the Atlantic voters have elected to say 'no' to most State propositions on gambling.

In Washington State there will be no expansion of gaming outside the Indian reservations. In California both Proposition 68 and Proposition 70 were turned down. In Michigan they have voted to make casino projects subject to ballot. In Nebraska voters rejected plans to permit casinos, which must be good news for the casinos in neighbouring Iowa.

The news from Britain is also negative. Liverpool MPs are against a casino development in the city, Plymouth Council say they are unlikely to permit a mega casino, and a Yorkshire MP has declared that Sheffield will not get a 'super' casino although Sun International, MGM Mirage and Las Vegas Sands all have plans for the area.

The Scottish First Minister is reported to have vowed to keep Las Vegas style operations out of Scotland and the British Casino Association (BCA) now wants a ban on Category A machines, which are the no betting-limit slot machines used for jackpot prizes. Less surprising is the British Amusement Catering Trade Association (BACTA) declaring that they will spend a minimum £1 million on lobbying ministers and MPs, advertising and research to fight the bill. Their members will lose slot machines from their premises if the bill goes through without amendment.

As far as the British legislation is concerned the present exclusion of Category A machines, except in the proposed new super casinos, is a major flaw in its structure, as without them current casinos operating in the country will not survive the marketing onslaught of the ‘regional’ and their brand new Category A slot machines. It is fine to leave commerce to marketing forces as long as the playing field is level for all concerned. Right now there is time to change that part of the law so that the UK gaming companies, which are the backbone of the industry in the country, are able to compete with the incoming foreign conglomerates.

Casinos also had a hard time on the Pacific island of Guam where voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal Tuesday to allow the opening of up to 10 casinos. According to unofficial tallies reported by Guam media outlets, voters in the United States territory voted against the proposal by a margin of about 60% to 40%. Though still a clear defeat, the proposal significantly garnered more support than a 1996 referendum on the issue. With the exception of Tinian, which hosts a casino owned by a Hong Kong company, voters on Guam and neighbouring islands, rallied by church leaders, have repeatedly voted against casino proposals as likely to increase crime and social problems.

Back in Britain the arguments rage. The government has stated that councils might be required, by a duty of consideration, to consult local people before issuing planning permission for casino projects. If the British public follow in the footsteps of voters in the USA, consequently delaying casino proposals by three years or longer, the overseas investors may vote with their feet and move to other less contentious jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2004 CasinoCompendium



>>> return to archives
>>> return to frontpage