WE Blog

14 Comments

1. Wiseman
   Posted June 18, 2007 at 2:43 am | Permalink

   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.

2. Republican
   Posted June 18, 2007 at 6:02 am | Permalink

   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. :)

3. ksfarmgrrl
   Posted June 18, 2007 at 9:01 am | Permalink

   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!

4. Ben
   Posted June 18, 2007 at 9:05 am | Permalink

   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.

5. Joe Williams
   Posted June 18, 2007 at 9:08 am | Permalink

   It seems simple to me! Nothing complicated at all. The arena vote was the same way.

6. Tom
   Posted June 18, 2007 at 9:10 am | Permalink

   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.”

7. GMC70
   Posted June 18, 2007 at 9:14 am | Permalink

   Simple. Vote “No.”

   And “no” means “no.”

8. Joe Williams
   Posted June 18, 2007 at 9:24 am | Permalink

   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.

9. Tom
   Posted June 18, 2007 at 9:45 am | Permalink

   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.

10. Ben
    Posted June 18, 2007 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    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?

11. anonymous
    Posted June 18, 2007 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    I wonder if the term “electronic gaming machine” applies to the Kansas Lottery terminals already in place.

12. Mrage
    Posted June 18, 2007 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    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.

13. Tom
    Posted June 18, 2007 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Anonymous,

    There’s definitions at the beginning of the bill that I posted the link to. Perhaps your answer lies there.

14. Ben
    Posted June 19, 2007 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    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?