Casino measure's intent hotly debated

A lawsuit might nullify Proposition A’s fate on the Nov. 4 ballot.

A heated debate has erupted between the measure’s supporters and its detractors, namely Rep. Ray Salva (D-Sugar Creek) and David Knight, a business owner from Cape Girardeau, Mo.

A hearing is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Wednesday in Division 2 of the Cole County Circuit Court.

Proposition A, also known as The Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Funding Initiative, calls for the following:

n A cap on the number of casino licenses at 13, the current number

n Repeal of the $500 loss limit

n Raising of the casino gambling tax from 20 to 21 percent

n Creation of a new specific education fund from the gambling tax called “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund”

n A requirement that there be annual audits of the fund to assure money isn’t earmarked for other purposes than public education.

In August, Sugar Creek City Attorney Bob Buckley filed for an injunction against the initiative, arguing that it violates the part of the Missouri Constitution requiring such petitions to have no more than one subject. Earlier that month, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan approved the measure to go before voters in November. Before Carnahan’s certification, 178,000 signatures were gathered over a two-month period from Pinnacle Entertainment in St. Louis and Ameristar Kansas City Casino and Hotel on Missouri 210. The driving force behind the petition is Yes For Schools First, a coalition of 600 individuals and organizations funded by two: Ameristar and Pinnacle.

“It’s like being offered a multiple choice test and only being able to choose all of the above,” Buckley said.

Scott Charton, a spokesman for the Proposition A campaign, said Salva and Knight’s case is a “suspicious marriage of expediency.”

“We believe it’s a solid, reasonable proposal and we support the secretary of state in her decision,” Charton said. “We’re very confident in the wording of Proposition A; we’ve been up front and thoroughly disclosed everything from the start.”

Salva and Knight have been joined in their opposition by Casino Watch, a Missouri-based volunteer organization opposed to the expansion of gambling.

“I call it the marriage of hypocrisy,” said Charton, speaking of Salva’s pro-gambling background and Knight’s role as a casino prospector. “They’re not just in bed together, these disparate groups; they’re sharing a pillow together.”

Salva has expressed support for a casino in Sugar Creek, which would be jeopardized if Proposition A passes by capping the number of casino licenses at 13. Iowa-based Wild Rose Entertainment has agreed to develop a $135 million facility on 200 acres east of Missouri 291 just south of LaBenite Park. With 1,200 slot machines and 30 table games, it would be the smallest riverboat casino floor in the Kansas City market. Plans also include a hotel and some stores with the possibility of a marina, an open-air theater and a golf course.

“That project is dead,” said Salva, citing a June moratorium on new casino licenses by the Missouri Gaming Commission. Its director, Gene McNary, had said the board’s reason for the moratorium was due to the petition. “Ameristar and Pinnacle have billions of dollars; their best interest is in growing their business in Missouri, which is not in the best interest of the people.”

According to a study by the University of Missouri-St. Louis, which was released in January, Kansas City’s overall revenue from a Sugar Creek casino was expected to increase between 2.4 and 3.2 percent, or $20.5 million. On the other hand, Ameristar, Harrah’s North Kansas City Casino and Hotel, Argosy Riverside and the Isle of Capri were projected to lose almost $200 million. Because of its proximity to the proposed Sugar Creek casino, Ameristar was the projected biggest loser at $60 million.

As for the repeal of loss limits leading to more problem gamblers, the Missouri Gaming Commission could not find any correlation in their annual report. However, a survey earlier this year prepared by the University of Missouri-St. Louis found that Missourians overwhelmingly support the current $500 loss limit, even if the state is one of few to practice it.

“The problem is that it doesn’t technically curb the loss limit because you can buy in another $500 every two hours,” Charton said. “All it does is inconvenience those who want to bet responsibly, causing them to go to any one of our neighboring states such as Kansas, Iowa and Illinois (none of which have loss limits) to get away from big brother.”

Charton said the study by the University of Missouri-St. Louis made it clear that 30 percent of potential casino business leaves the state.

Salva disagrees.

“The question was whether in the last five years you’ve ever gone out of state to gamble and these surveys were done near state lines in St. Louis and Kansas City,” Salva said. “Thirty percent say yes and it’s somehow assumed that that’s how many leave the state to gamble every year; there’s nothing in Proposition A but lies.”

According to Charton, the real winners if Proposition A passes are Missouri’s public schools, which will receive between $105.1 million and $130 million as a result of the initiative, according to the Missouri State Auditor’s office.

But Salva sees a problem in the $5 million to $7 million for higher education the ballot title suggests. He said the actual language of the initiative petition dismisses higher education, altering the formula for funding education from gaming revenue.

“According to the Missouri Constitution, the funds must be used for elementary and secondary education as well as higher education,” Salva said. “In Proposition A, this does not happen; it’s unconstitutional.”