Opinion: Casino question a slap in the face to tribes

Monday, October 20, 2008  

"I am not opposed to Question 2 - whether to allow a casino in Oxford County - on moral grounds. In fact I like the idea of new jobs for Mainers. As a Maine resident with a mortgage, I have known what being jobless in this state is like, and I know how incredibly hard it can be to obtain employment. That being said, I am against Question 2 because it is profoundly flawed and prompts the question of whether the ends should justify the means. Short-term job gain would be justified by legislation that would be detrimental for the state of Maine.

One main flaw in the bill is that if passed, it would prohibit any other casinos from being built in Maine for 10 years. The Native Americans in Maine have sought multiple times to have various gambling facilities built on their reservations or local land that would have meant a lot economically to their communities. These attempts were defeated in similar votes on November ballots every time. If Question 2 is passed this year, it would not only seem like a "slap in the face" to the Native Americans of Maine, but would perhaps seem antagonistic if it could be the only such gambling facility in the state for 10 years.

This restriction is not only unfair to Native Americans. I have been told that Washington County is the poorest county in Maine. If the casino passed and did prove an economic jumpstart for Oxford County, how could we justify not allowing Washington County, or any other county, to benefit from casinos as well? It seems that the 10 year moratorium would only be profitable for the Olympia Group - the company backing the casino - and certainly not for Maine."

Get the Story:
Heather Omand: 'Profoundly flawed' casino question is a slap in the face to Maine's Native Americans (The Maine Campus 10/21)