Missouri's gamble: Proposition A deals Eastern Jackson County a losing hand

The gambling industry has slapped a misleading name on a jumble of contradictions presented to the voters on Nov. 4.

Missouri’s Proposition A has an idea or two with merit, but as a whole it’s a bad bet. It doesn’t make sense for the state, and it specifically doesn’t make sense for Eastern Jackson County in a couple of crucial ways.

Let’s walk through Prop A:

• Start with one of the two things the industry really is after here, an end to Missouri’s $500 “per cruise” loss limit. It has been a bur in the industry’s side since the voters approved it when they let casinos into the state in 1992. Legislative attempts to end it have failed – thankfully. The voters approved it, and the voters should be the ones to end it. On its own, this idea has merit as the limits are easily evaded, the casinos want to market themselves more to high rollers and the industry claims many Missourians now gamble elsewhere because of the limits.

• The industry is offering more money for schools. The tax rate on casinos would rise modestly, from the current 20 percent to 21 percent, and ending the loss limit would mean more in taxes too.

But there’s a catch: Due to the complexities of the state’s Foundation Formula, some districts – including Independence and Fort Osage – wouldn’t see a dime of that new money at first, and proponents cannot say exactly when they might. Some districts would get millions. Independence and Fort Osage would get zero.

• Here’s that other thing the industry is really after. While it wants less regulation in form of ending the loss limits, it wants a new regulation to spare it from added competition. Prop A would cap the number of casinos to those currently operating or under construction.

In other words, forget those plans under consideration for a casino in Sugar Creek. With a cap, another casino would have to close and transfer its license for Sugar Creek to get into the game. Stifling competition is just the wrong way to go.

• That name, the “Schools First Initiative,” is simply misleading. The welfare of Missouri’s public schools is not what’s driving this. This is about an industry hoping to consolidate and stave off competition with the state’s help. That’s where the debate should be.

Between the uneven distribution of new money for schools and the freezing out of Sugar Creek, this is a loser twice over for Eastern Jackson County.

Advocates call Missouri’s gambling market mature, and that opens the door to what just about every mature industry wants – government protection. They say Kansas City cannot support its current four casinos plus a new one in Sugar Creek. They say Kansas – specifically the casino planned at Kansas Speedway – is getting ready to take away business, so we have to drop the loss limit. That’s the single, simple question the industry should have put forward.

The industry instead chose to go all in. The pot it’s asking for is too rich and leaves too many losers.