Gambling in Sedgwick county?

[Veritas]

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post this question. With Sumner county now gearing up for the positive financial impact of a casino being built across the Sedgwick county line, will Sedgwick county have another vote on the gambling proposition?

What do the Wichita citizens think now about the casino being built anyway and still taking Wichita money, but not receiving much of the positive economic impact?

All-in-all, wouldn't it have been better to have a casino built in Wichita?

I'm curious to what the counter points are to this issue.

thanks

[rrshock]

The citizens of Sedgwick county didn't want it. So they will go spend all of their money on the other side of the county line. That's their fault. And no, they can't revote. And the citizen's group that was so adamantly against it in Sedgwick county will try to have it blocked in Sumner saying that the law was unconstitutional, or something like that.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I think that it cant be voted on for like 10 years or something stupid.

Just something that I over heard and didnt really pay attention to

[The Mad Hatter]

Here are the counterpoints:

A. The closer the casino is to your city, the higher the crime and poverty rates you encounter will be. I am not glad to have the casino near Wichita, but any removal of the casino from the city helps addiction and crime issues because it is at least a little less accessible. All the studies show that any additional distance you can put between your city and a casino (even an additional 30 minute drive) diminishes the addiction and crime issues your city sees as a result of the casino. Most of the addiction and crime issues are not a result of people going out of their way to gamble, but in situations where the gambling is so easily accessible in people's daily lives that they have a hard time avoiding it once they become addicted.

B. Economic impact is actually the reverse. Cities that have built casinos to help their economies have generally experienced economic decline, not growth. Part of the reason the casino didn't pass in Wichita is that Wichita has a pretty strong economy and isn't in a desperate enough to pin economic hopes on a casino instead of more stable industries. That says good things about the future of the economy in Wichita, since the jobs created by current industry would be better than those in casinos (which are low paying with little to no benefits), and since a much higher percentage of the money in other industries stays local (instead of being shipped to Vegas or Atlantic City where the casino ownership is located).

C. There is little economic benefit to the county with the casino. Only about 2% of the profits, IIRC, go to the county, so it is not like there was this huge influx of wealth that Sedgwick is missing out on.

D. There is still question about whether there will be a casino at all since 1) The state constitution bans casinos, and there are current legal challenges being made to the legislature trying to allow them without changing the constitution, and 2) I believe some Indian tribes are challenging the casino on the grounds that they had a treaty giving them exclusive rights to casino operations in Kansas (which falls outside the state constitution since they are separate nations.

[BostonWu]

What does this all mean (from Sunday's Eagle)?:

On track

Phil Ruffin reports that his Thursday meeting with state gaming officials went well.

"Everything's still looking good for Camptown," he says of the dog track he hopes to reopen in Frontenac with 600 slot machines.

Ruffin says officials are receptive to his plans, which could mean he decides to once again pursue slot options for the Wichita Greyhound Park, which he would also like to reopen.

[ABC]

I believe the Legislature would have to reauthorize a vote for slots at Wichita Greyhoud Park.