Editorial: Keep restrictions on South Dakota gaming

Tuesday, June 3, 2008  

Ed. Note: South Dakota limits each tribe in the state to 250 slot machines, while non-Indian facilities have been allowed to operate more than 8,500 machines.

"A proposed new large-scale casino in Larchwood, Iowa, just east of the South Dakota border, might be good news for South Dakota's gamblers. But it's not-so-good news for South Dakota's coffers, which rely heavily on in-state gambling taxes.

The casino surely will succeed or fail on its merits, and it appears the project makes sense under Iowa law.

Viewing it from the west, though, it appears to be yet another reason state-sanctioned gambling is a bad revenue source: it's inconsistent. Of course, it's also regressive and ethically dubious, but that hasn't kept the state from protecting video lottery from any local government encroachment.

So faced with a new casino that could siphon some money away from South Dakota, the state might be tempted to respond by further weakening our restrictions on gambling, allowing state-sanctioned casinos that would keep Sioux Falls gamblers in state.

That would be unwise. Instead, this is an opportunity to end our reliance on a revenue stream that relies in large part on the misery of the citizenry."

Get the Story:
Editorial: Casino highlights inconsistencies (The Sioux Falls Argus Leader 6/3)