How gambling can transform the East Bay -
mega-casinos can play havoc on the East Bay
by Tony Daysog (project opponent)
A landless Indian tribe of 50 people has stirred up a
hornet's nest of opposition in proposing a casino that, at
250,000 square feet, will contain an amount of gambling
space equivalent to four football fields.
Residents of Alameda and San Leandro recently attended
a rare joint meeting called by their City Councils to discuss
impacts of the casino, proposed for a vacant 35-acre site
near the Oakland Airport. Reactions were understandably
negative, given the proximity of the casino.
While many raised the usual not-in-my-backyard concerns,
others spoke about matters beyond their neighborhoods,
addressing what appears to be a growing wave of Las
Vegas-style casinos that are washing up on the shores of
the East Bay. More than a catchy phrase, that "wave" is a
fitting description: In addition to Oakland's casino, the one
proposed for San Pablo will contain 200,000 square feet of
gambling space, while two similarly sized casinos are
proposed for Richmond.
For perspective, Las Vegas casinos such as the MGM
Grand Casino, Mandalay Bay, Bellagio and Bally's contain
from 133,000 to 170,000 square feet of gambling space.
So it's no surprise that proponents of the Oakland project
would boast that they are building not just a casino but a
"destination resort, " one that will be designed by leading
architects from Las Vegas.
The size of the Oakland casino, combined with those in
Richmond and San Pablo, suggests major changes that
many in this region are beginning to grasp. This is not
simply a matter of traffic congestion, impacts on local
government services or visual blight caused by garish
neon signs. This is not simply about families going
bankrupt because of a gambling addiction. There's
something more at stake.
Truth be told, casino proponents are eager to mitigate their
impacts because they can afford to cut checks of any size
to local governments in need of a quick fix of cash. That's
why the tribe agreed initially to fork over $10. 7 million to
Oakland annually. Of this amount, $7.3 million would go
directly to Oakland government, while $3.4 million would
go to a variety of community nonprofits.
Some touted the $7.3 million as a good deal for local
government, but closer scrutiny suggested this was an
overstatement. If the casino performs as well as a Nevada
gambling operation -- which, on average, earns $1,007 per
square foot -- it will generate $252 million a year. Thus,
Oakland's share of casino earnings would amount to 3
percent. If revenues are similar to that of the most
profitable casinos in Las Vegas -- $1,700 per square foot
-- local government's share would be smaller, or
approximately 2 percent of $425 million in revenues.
Because of mounting opposition, casino proponents
upped the ante in early January by increasing the $10.7
million amount to $25 million, with an additional $5 million
set aside for nonprofits, for a total package of $30 million
annually for 20 years for Oakland. Where does the
additional money come from? The tribe simply increased
the gambling area to 250,000 square feet from the original
220,000 square feet. The difference in square footage
conservatively increases revenues by $30 million. More
important, the total package of $30 million equates to 7
percent of estimated revenues -- still significantly less than
the 25 percent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger negotiated
with the tribe seeking to build a casino in San Pablo.
Aside from direct payments to Oakland, proponents tout
the benefits of the casino to the region. In hiring more than
2,000 workers and purchasing goods and services with
area businesses, the casino will stimulate almost $1
billion in economic activity, they say. But think about it: A
gambler only has so much disposable income. Money
wasted at a casino is money that could have been spent in
local stores. So it could be argued that this casino will
produce little to no "net" benefits, if employment and
economic activity generated by the casino are offset by
unemployment and possible store closures resulting from
a shift in gamblers' disposable income from local stores
to the casino. Thus, claims of $1 billion in benefits are
greatly exaggerated.
The larger question that elected officials and residents of
the East Bay must answer is whether we want the
I-880/I-80 corridor from Richmond to Fremont to be
transformed into a new Las Vegas Strip. If one
mega-casino in San Pablo causes concern, then that
casino, along with the two in Richmond, is cause for
alarm. A fourth mega-casino on the heels of the other
three is a crisis.
Unfortunately, the combined efforts of the Alameda and
San Leandro City Councils are not enough to stop the
proposed casino. We thank the Oakland City Council for
opposing the casino, but are mindful that we need help
from people in high places in the region, Sacramento and
Washington. In addition to calling state and federal
legislators, residents can contact the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the federal agency that has ultimate
decisionmaking authority over the proposed Oakland
casino. Tell the BIA that Las Vegas-style casinos are not
appropriate in urban areas.
For the sake of the East Bay, it's time to circle the wagons.
Tony Daysog has been a member of the Alameda City
Council since 1996.
mega-casinos can play havoc on the East Bay
by Tony Daysog (project opponent)
A landless Indian tribe of 50 people has stirred up a
hornet's nest of opposition in proposing a casino that, at
250,000 square feet, will contain an amount of gambling
space equivalent to four football fields.
Residents of Alameda and San Leandro recently attended
a rare joint meeting called by their City Councils to discuss
impacts of the casino, proposed for a vacant 35-acre site
near the Oakland Airport. Reactions were understandably
negative, given the proximity of the casino.
While many raised the usual not-in-my-backyard concerns,
others spoke about matters beyond their neighborhoods,
addressing what appears to be a growing wave of Las
Vegas-style casinos that are washing up on the shores of
the East Bay. More than a catchy phrase, that "wave" is a
fitting description: In addition to Oakland's casino, the one
proposed for San Pablo will contain 200,000 square feet of
gambling space, while two similarly sized casinos are
proposed for Richmond.
For perspective, Las Vegas casinos such as the MGM
Grand Casino, Mandalay Bay, Bellagio and Bally's contain
from 133,000 to 170,000 square feet of gambling space.
So it's no surprise that proponents of the Oakland project
would boast that they are building not just a casino but a
"destination resort, " one that will be designed by leading
architects from Las Vegas.
The size of the Oakland casino, combined with those in
Richmond and San Pablo, suggests major changes that
many in this region are beginning to grasp. This is not
simply a matter of traffic congestion, impacts on local
government services or visual blight caused by garish
neon signs. This is not simply about families going
bankrupt because of a gambling addiction. There's
something more at stake.
Truth be told, casino proponents are eager to mitigate their
impacts because they can afford to cut checks of any size
to local governments in need of a quick fix of cash. That's
why the tribe agreed initially to fork over $10. 7 million to
Oakland annually. Of this amount, $7.3 million would go
directly to Oakland government, while $3.4 million would
go to a variety of community nonprofits.
Some touted the $7.3 million as a good deal for local
government, but closer scrutiny suggested this was an
overstatement. If the casino performs as well as a Nevada
gambling operation -- which, on average, earns $1,007 per
square foot -- it will generate $252 million a year. Thus,
Oakland's share of casino earnings would amount to 3
percent. If revenues are similar to that of the most
profitable casinos in Las Vegas -- $1,700 per square foot
-- local government's share would be smaller, or
approximately 2 percent of $425 million in revenues.
Because of mounting opposition, casino proponents
upped the ante in early January by increasing the $10.7
million amount to $25 million, with an additional $5 million
set aside for nonprofits, for a total package of $30 million
annually for 20 years for Oakland. Where does the
additional money come from? The tribe simply increased
the gambling area to 250,000 square feet from the original
220,000 square feet. The difference in square footage
conservatively increases revenues by $30 million. More
important, the total package of $30 million equates to 7
percent of estimated revenues -- still significantly less than
the 25 percent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger negotiated
with the tribe seeking to build a casino in San Pablo.
Aside from direct payments to Oakland, proponents tout
the benefits of the casino to the region. In hiring more than
2,000 workers and purchasing goods and services with
area businesses, the casino will stimulate almost $1
billion in economic activity, they say. But think about it: A
gambler only has so much disposable income. Money
wasted at a casino is money that could have been spent in
local stores. So it could be argued that this casino will
produce little to no "net" benefits, if employment and
economic activity generated by the casino are offset by
unemployment and possible store closures resulting from
a shift in gamblers' disposable income from local stores
to the casino. Thus, claims of $1 billion in benefits are
greatly exaggerated.
The larger question that elected officials and residents of
the East Bay must answer is whether we want the
I-880/I-80 corridor from Richmond to Fremont to be
transformed into a new Las Vegas Strip. If one
mega-casino in San Pablo causes concern, then that
casino, along with the two in Richmond, is cause for
alarm. A fourth mega-casino on the heels of the other
three is a crisis.
Unfortunately, the combined efforts of the Alameda and
San Leandro City Councils are not enough to stop the
proposed casino. We thank the Oakland City Council for
opposing the casino, but are mindful that we need help
from people in high places in the region, Sacramento and
Washington. In addition to calling state and federal
legislators, residents can contact the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the federal agency that has ultimate
decisionmaking authority over the proposed Oakland
casino. Tell the BIA that Las Vegas-style casinos are not
appropriate in urban areas.
For the sake of the East Bay, it's time to circle the wagons.
Tony Daysog has been a member of the Alameda City
Council since 1996.
Leading Opposition Against Mega-Casino
March 28, 2010
In late 2004 and early 2005, I vigorously
opposed the mega-casino slated for a site
near Doolitte Avenue in Oakland -- too close
to our East End and Bay Farm/Harbor Bay
communities. The casino plan failed.
Below is a debate on the pages of the San
Francisco Chronicle between me and project
proponents. Our positions were displayed in
a side-by-side manner that allowed readers
to easily grasp drawbacks to the casino plan.
I was also interviewed on a local morning
television show about this matter. Here's a
video of that KTVU interview.
/s/ Tony Daysog
March 28, 2010
In late 2004 and early 2005, I vigorously
opposed the mega-casino slated for a site
near Doolitte Avenue in Oakland -- too close
to our East End and Bay Farm/Harbor Bay
communities. The casino plan failed.
Below is a debate on the pages of the San
Francisco Chronicle between me and project
proponents. Our positions were displayed in
a side-by-side manner that allowed readers
to easily grasp drawbacks to the casino plan.
I was also interviewed on a local morning
television show about this matter. Here's a
video of that KTVU interview.
/s/ Tony Daysog
| ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
| How gambling can transform the East Bay San Francisco Chronicle, January 27, 2005, page B-9 |
How gambling can transform the East Bay -
jobs, non-profits boosted in deal
by Daniel Beltran (project proponent)
The city of Oakland has a history of embracing diversity, a
commitment to cultural identity and an understanding that
the people need opportunities for a brighter future. The Koi
Nation has met with hundreds of business, religious and
community leaders. The message we continue to hear is
clear: The residents of Oakland want positive change and
the opportunity for a brighter tomorrow. They want new
jobs, economic vitality and money to stay in the community
to help those in need.
We believe the Oakland City Council's recent decision to
oppose our entertainment resort, including our $30
million-per-year offer for city services and funding for
various community programs, was premature. We believe
the City Council acted hastily on an issue that could
provide thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars
each year. It's unfortunate for the residents of Oakland that
the City Council reacted to recent negative press
surrounding Indian gaming and buckled under pressure
from surrounding communities.
This project will go through the lengthy and
comprehensive federal process to take the land into trust,
allowing the city, county and residents to provide input into
the project. We will not cut corners to fast-track our project
at the expense of the local community. We are committed
to making sure everyone has the opportunity to be involved.
We made an initial offer of nearly $11 million annually to
be paid to the city, but after meeting with city officials,
residents and community leaders, we concluded that $30
million annually, including $5 million a year to the Koi
Nation Oakland Community Trust to benefit local
nonprofits, would be an appropriate figure to ensure that
this project is not a burden on the residents of Oakland.
This is not a "free lunch." Instead, the Koi Nation offers a
partnership that could become the economic backbone to
provide money for cash-strapped city services and
community programs for Oakland residents.
We are troubled by recent comments made by some City
Council members, who acted surprised about our
proposal to the city, especially because we'd met with
each of them to present our proposed project. We have
made no secret about our intentions and commitment to
Oakland to address and mitigate impacts. Members of the
City Council had not done their homework when, for the
sake of their own political careers, they made a rash
decision to oppose what could become an economic
engine for the city.
The residents of Oakland had no idea that the City Council
was going to discuss and vote on the project on Jan. 11.
The City Council decided this was something it alone
would decide for the people. Council members rejected
the idea of putting the project on the May ballot. Letting
people decide is something the residents of Oakland
should demand of their City Council, whose members
should be encouraged to support placing this matter on
the ballot.
While we are disappointed with the City Council's position,
we believe in the people and the City of Oakland. We will
continue to move forward with our federal land-into-trust
efforts and plans for economic development. We will take
the time to ensure everyone in Oakland has the facts about
the project, the process and a better understanding of
what the true impacts will be as a result of our
entertainment center. Regardless of the city's initial
position, the Koi Nation Tribal Council remains open to
respectful government-to- government dialogue and to
establishing a cooperative relationship with Oakland in the
future.
With more than 4,000 new jobs and up to $1 billion in
annual economic activity created by our project, as well as
the establishment of the Koi Nation Oakland Community
Trust, we are confident we have developed an economic
strategy that will help address community needs.
In spite of what the City Council may believe, the people of
Oakland have told us what they really need -- jobs,
economic growth and opportunities. We intend to do what
we can to help.
Daniel Beltran is chairman of Lower Lake Rancheria Koi
Nation.
jobs, non-profits boosted in deal
by Daniel Beltran (project proponent)
The city of Oakland has a history of embracing diversity, a
commitment to cultural identity and an understanding that
the people need opportunities for a brighter future. The Koi
Nation has met with hundreds of business, religious and
community leaders. The message we continue to hear is
clear: The residents of Oakland want positive change and
the opportunity for a brighter tomorrow. They want new
jobs, economic vitality and money to stay in the community
to help those in need.
We believe the Oakland City Council's recent decision to
oppose our entertainment resort, including our $30
million-per-year offer for city services and funding for
various community programs, was premature. We believe
the City Council acted hastily on an issue that could
provide thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars
each year. It's unfortunate for the residents of Oakland that
the City Council reacted to recent negative press
surrounding Indian gaming and buckled under pressure
from surrounding communities.
This project will go through the lengthy and
comprehensive federal process to take the land into trust,
allowing the city, county and residents to provide input into
the project. We will not cut corners to fast-track our project
at the expense of the local community. We are committed
to making sure everyone has the opportunity to be involved.
We made an initial offer of nearly $11 million annually to
be paid to the city, but after meeting with city officials,
residents and community leaders, we concluded that $30
million annually, including $5 million a year to the Koi
Nation Oakland Community Trust to benefit local
nonprofits, would be an appropriate figure to ensure that
this project is not a burden on the residents of Oakland.
This is not a "free lunch." Instead, the Koi Nation offers a
partnership that could become the economic backbone to
provide money for cash-strapped city services and
community programs for Oakland residents.
We are troubled by recent comments made by some City
Council members, who acted surprised about our
proposal to the city, especially because we'd met with
each of them to present our proposed project. We have
made no secret about our intentions and commitment to
Oakland to address and mitigate impacts. Members of the
City Council had not done their homework when, for the
sake of their own political careers, they made a rash
decision to oppose what could become an economic
engine for the city.
The residents of Oakland had no idea that the City Council
was going to discuss and vote on the project on Jan. 11.
The City Council decided this was something it alone
would decide for the people. Council members rejected
the idea of putting the project on the May ballot. Letting
people decide is something the residents of Oakland
should demand of their City Council, whose members
should be encouraged to support placing this matter on
the ballot.
While we are disappointed with the City Council's position,
we believe in the people and the City of Oakland. We will
continue to move forward with our federal land-into-trust
efforts and plans for economic development. We will take
the time to ensure everyone in Oakland has the facts about
the project, the process and a better understanding of
what the true impacts will be as a result of our
entertainment center. Regardless of the city's initial
position, the Koi Nation Tribal Council remains open to
respectful government-to- government dialogue and to
establishing a cooperative relationship with Oakland in the
future.
With more than 4,000 new jobs and up to $1 billion in
annual economic activity created by our project, as well as
the establishment of the Koi Nation Oakland Community
Trust, we are confident we have developed an economic
strategy that will help address community needs.
In spite of what the City Council may believe, the people of
Oakland have told us what they really need -- jobs,
economic growth and opportunities. We intend to do what
we can to help.
Daniel Beltran is chairman of Lower Lake Rancheria Koi
Nation.
Then-City Councilmember Tony Daysog is a guest on KTVU's
Morning Show talking about mega-casino proposed in 2005 for a
site in Oakland near the East End and Bay Farm/HBI communities.
Morning Show talking about mega-casino proposed in 2005 for a
site in Oakland near the East End and Bay Farm/HBI communities.