Opinion: Indian gaming not a jackpot for all tribes

Monday, February 12, 2007  

"If you object to American Indian casinos, you might not laugh at a joke circulating in what is commonly called Indian Country.

Among the 'Top 10 things you can say to a white person upon first meeting' is:

'What's your feeling about riverboat casinos? Do they really help your people, or are they just a short-term fix?'

Let us charge into the din and clangor of the fractious subject of Indian casinos and see if we can break even.

The casinos exist because native people were trying to get more for native people and, unlike in many other situations, got a break from Washington. This try started with legal actions by, among others, California's Cabazon tribe near Palm Springs, which was trying to expand its bingo and poker operations.

In 1987 came the break: a Supreme Court ruling restricting states' abilities to regulate gambling on reservations. The next year, Congress passed the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It basically stated that tribes, as sovereign nations, can work out their own gambling arrangements with states 00 if those states already allow gambling. California did. In 1999, then-Gov. Gray Davis signed compacts with 61 tribes, and in 2000 voters seconded the motion. This was not the end of the situation, as California voters well know.

Indian casinos nationwide now gross more than $20 billion annually, according to the National Indian Gaming Association. That is the headline. Back on reservations with casinos, there is much more to the story."

Get the Story:
Alison Owings: The ka-ching doesn't ring for everyone (The San Francisco Chronicle 2/11)