The question before Sedgwick County voters Aug. 7 seems simple enough, until you actually see the question, or rather questions. (The first is about whether to allow a casino. The second is about whether to allow slot machines at the Wichita Greyhound Park.)
Proposition No. 1:
Shall the following be adopted?
"Shall the Kansas lottery be authorized to operate a lottery gaming facility in Sedgwick County?"
Proposition No. 2:
Shall the following be adopted?
"Shall the Kansas lottery be authorized to place electronic gaming machines in Sedgwick County?"
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23

14 Comments
Is this like the “right to work” law that was mistakenly voted in by tricking out words on the ballot to where yes is no and no is yes?I hate it when they do that.
The questions seem obvious to me unless I’m missing something. Maybe the Liberal Left Hitlerites are concerned that their non-English speaking constituents originating illegally from south of the border won’t understand the question. :)
Yep. Just like the hate amendment. Where no meant yes and yes meant no.
If they have to resort to trickery, you know there will be problems.
I just love folks who think the voters are stupid. They usually ARE!
I have to agree with you Republican; the words are fairly clear. And it is definitely NOT a ‘yes=no’ ballot.
My concern with it is that we don’t have any real way to know just what shape and location a casino might be.
A good point was also made in Opinion Line this morning. In at least some ways the first question becomes “Sedgwick or Sumner” in that Sumner has already approved gambling.
It seems simple to me! Nothing complicated at all. The arena vote was the same way.
Joe,
Yep. The arena vote was the same way. And now we have a site with no parking and from what I’ve read, not enough seats. That was _not_ explained before election day.
I’m pretty up to date on local politics, but even I had to ask for clarification on question 2. There’s nothing in the ballot question that explains “A yes vote means Phil Ruffin gets slots at the dog track.”
Simple. Vote “No.”
And “no” means “no.”
That not the vote Tom!
You are not voting whether there is slots at the dog track or where a casino site and who is going to get it. You are not voting for how many slots there will be, how many poker tables there will be, if there will be adequate parking for people at the casino, how much in dollars will be set aside for gambling addict recovery and so on.
If this passes. You can’t go back and say the county “lied” and “broke promises” because you expected something that fell short.
And there will not be a re-vote either.
Actually, Joe, question 2 _is_ about slots at the dog track. It’s not fun reading, but take a look at SB66:
http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/66.pdf
The bill refers to it as “racetrack gaming facility” and “parimutuel licensee,” and talks about slots in the context of the current licensees in Sedgwick and Crawford counties.
Tom – you are correct. #2 is specifically Greyhound Park. Now the interesting definition question becomes what “owns and operates” means – can Ruffin’s groups also control a casino?
I wonder if the term “electronic gaming machine” applies to the Kansas Lottery terminals already in place.
First question allows, the single “a lottery gambling facility in Sedgwick County”
That’s one.
The second question has no limits.
Does future gambling put slot machines in the airport. I fear that.
The ambiguity of that question has long term affects.
Ruffin should be allowed to have slot machines at the dog track.
But he shouldn’t own both the slots there and casino downtown.
He can’t have ownership or control of all the slots in this county.
Competition is beneficial. I want the Canadians to win, though I don’t know who they really are.
I prefer the plan to develop around Century II.
Wichita won’t allow the casino to be built outside the city limits.
County has the arena downtown that’s more important than development of Britt Brown.
When the County picks their choice of casino plans, its hard for me to imagine they don’t want a casino downtown near the arena.
Near the best hotels.
Voters rejected the Colesium location for the arena, why would we want a casino out there.
Wichita won’t allow it, again. Whatever the City has to do, the casino is going to be downtown.
Anonymous,
There’s definitions at the beginning of the bill that I posted the link to. Perhaps your answer lies there.
More competition popping up:
http://www.kansas.com/news/updates/story/101026.html
Otoe-Missouria tribe plans new casino near Oklahoma-Kansas border
CHILOCCO, Okla. – The success of a small casino connected to a travel plaza near the Oklahoma-Kansas border has sparked plans for a new full-scale casino nearby, development authorities of the Otoe-Missouria tribe said.”
It seems that their market surveys are telling them to have a highly visible Interstate location to snag travellers doing 80 mph down the highway.
Winfield to snag them just before they hit the state line?