View Full Version : Tribal Casino in OKC



glennp
02-08-2008, 01:36 AM
Would you vote:

Yes
No
Undecided

This is if it was up to you...

Oh GAWD the Smell!
02-08-2008, 06:06 AM
No thanks.

All alliterations aside, keep those trashy and tacky temples of turpitude out in the sticks.

FritterGirl
02-08-2008, 07:42 AM
No thanks.

All alliterations aside, keep those trashy and tacky temples of turpitude out in the sticks.

I couldn't have said it better myself. AMEN!!!

bombermwc
02-08-2008, 09:19 AM
Depends. I don't think we know enough on the find pointed deatils yet. If I was to vote yes, then it would mean that every scrap of their project would have to be built and that they wouldn't be able to trim it down to a tent casino like we see elsewhere in OK. It needs to be a real structure with all the items they have discussed...not just a little casino. I'm not opposed to casinos, but I am opposed to crappy ones.

jsenter
02-08-2008, 09:40 AM
Casinos are a regressive tax that take advantage of poor people hoping to strike it rich.

CrimsonOberon
02-08-2008, 12:23 PM
Undecided.

On one hand, if it is indeed a resort, I could see it being a good tool to attract out-of-staters to OKC. A resort would be a great addition that would hopefully give new life to the Adventure District nearby.

On the other side, I don't particularly like what casinos represent, and I'm not sure it's the image I want to project for OKC. If it's successful, it won't be long before others are enticed to try building one to compete.

BDP
02-08-2008, 03:09 PM
I would vote against a trashy temple of turpitude. However, I wouldn't mind a luxury resort that needed the gaming revenue to pay for the upscale amenities and entertainment. I think as it is now, unfortunately, that's the only way we'd get such an establishment in oklahoma city.

I'd love to see it be nice enough to be a destination to out of staters, but as long as the gaming rules are as they are, I doubt the draw would ever go above a half day's drive.

bombermwc
02-12-2008, 09:14 AM
Casinos are a regressive tax that take advantage of poor people hoping to strike it rich.

I don't really buy that arguement. You might as well say cigarettes and alcohol have the same base. It's just not really valid.

You can't blame a casino because it's frequented by certain people. They choose to go there and gamble. And casinos don't live on those folks anyway. It's the high rollers that make them their money. These "poor" people are nickle and dime slot folks, not the multi-thousand dollar poker players that DO go to the places. We have high rollers in OK now already, so don't think they don't exist.

If you don't like the casino idea, fine, that's your opinion. But give a reason that doesn't involve a person's own personal decision to frequent that establishent. Otherwise by that logic, we should ban ALLLLLL kinds of things.

Midtowner
02-12-2008, 09:26 AM
I would vote no because I think that if one group of people is allowed to have a casino, then the state should open up the gambling business to everyone.

I realize this isn't necessarily something the state or city has everything to do with, but if the indians are given their trust status, then the Adventure district as a whole should be opened up to other gambling operations (non-Indian) as competition will create a better product in the end.

jsenter
02-12-2008, 03:01 PM
I don't really buy that arguement. You might as well say cigarettes and alcohol have the same base. It's just not really valid.

It's very valid. Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are also regressive.


You can't blame a casino because it's frequented by certain people. They choose to go there and gamble. And casinos don't live on those folks anyway. It's the high rollers that make them their money. These "poor" people are nickle and dime slot folks, not the multi-thousand dollar poker players that DO go to the places. We have high rollers in OK now already, so don't think they don't exist.

You'd be surprised who the high rollers are. Spending your entire paycheck on gambling instead of on groceries for your family can make you a high roller. I've seen it more often than you'd imagine.


If you don't like the casino idea, fine, that's your opinion. But give a reason that doesn't involve a person's own personal decision to frequent that establishent. Otherwise by that logic, we should ban ALLLLLL kinds of things.

I think we should ban all sorts of things. It's all fraud, and it takes advantage of poor people. I put casinos up there with other types of fraud, that encourage the poor to give their money in hopes that they'll reap a big reward.

jsenter
02-12-2008, 03:02 PM
I would vote no because I think that if one group of people is allowed to have a casino, then the state should open up the gambling business to everyone.

I realize this isn't necessarily something the state or city has everything to do with, but if the indians are given their trust status, then the Adventure district as a whole should be opened up to other gambling operations (non-Indian) as competition will create a better product in the end.

Native American tribes are doing this all over the state. Why is the Shawnee tribe any different, then say the Cherokee Tribe, who has a big casino resort up in Catoosa?

Midtowner
02-12-2008, 03:52 PM
jsenter -- I understand.

Of course, this is different because we're talking about deeding land into trust which has no relation to the tribe's former range land or reservation. They'd have an unfair market advantage compared to say, the Absentee Shawnee Tribe.

That's why competition should be opened up to everyone. Level the playing field and you'll put a lot of folks out of business, but in the end, you'll be rewarded with absolutely top-notch facilities which will be real winners for the community. I really don't care about tribal welfare, but if we're going to have gaming, let's have the best damned gaming in the country.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
02-12-2008, 08:21 PM
jsenter -- I understand.

Of course, this is different because we're talking about deeding land into trust which has no relation to the tribe's former range land or reservation. They'd have an unfair market advantage compared to say, the Absentee Shawnee Tribe.

That's why competition should be opened up to everyone. Level the playing field and you'll put a lot of folks out of business, but in the end, you'll be rewarded with absolutely top-notch facilities which will be real winners for the community. I really don't care about tribal welfare, but if we're going to have gaming, let's have the best damned gaming in the country.

Yer damned skippy. I'm not much of a gambler, but if we're going to do it, let's go all the way. Only letting Indians open, run, and profit from casinos is both short-sighted and unfair. Chalk it up to a sense of guilt on the white folk or a sense of entitlement on the part of Indians...or both...But at what point do the actions of people 100 years ago stop dictating the state's well being today?

I say open it up to anybody to build and run one...The revenues could pay for the Ford Center's replacement all by themselves.

That's my doubled down $0.02.

Nixon7
02-12-2008, 09:23 PM
I don't know how any of the gambling laws work, but why is poker allowed and no sports books?

Kerry
02-12-2008, 09:34 PM
We MUST save the poor from themselves at all cost. Fast food is regressive because the food cost the same no matter the income of the person buying it. Maybe McDonalds should have 2 value menus. People making under $25,000 should pay $1 for a McChicken while people above $25,000 should pay $2 for the same sandwich.

Crap, now that I think about it the entire capitalist system is regressive. Everything cost the same no matter what the persons income is. How can this be? Maybe we should run private interprise like the IRS. The more you earn the higher the price for everything. Of course, this might discourage people from taking risks and improving the economic status but that is OK.

Hey JSENTER - maybe it isn't up to you how people spend their money - even the poor people.

Midtowner
02-12-2008, 10:02 PM
How about this proposition -- the poor people are only poor because they continue to allow themselves to be taken advantage of. If they're willing accomplices in their own demise, I have one word for you: Darwin.

Karried
02-12-2008, 10:31 PM
All alliterations aside, keep those trashy and tacky temples of turpitude out in the sticks.


I'm heading to the sticks this week - Vegas that is... I can't help but think if we had anything similar nearby, I might be tempted to spend my money closer to home, but alas, off I go on Champion Air - that's close to $500 bucks we could have spent locally if we had something like Vegas to visit.

Actually, I can't gamble very long..I hate giving money away.. I go more for the shows, the entertainment, nightlife, people watching and best of all, the endless all you can eat buffets... j/k

Oh GAWD the Smell!
02-12-2008, 11:15 PM
I'm heading to the sticks this week - Vegas that is... I can't help but think if we had anything similar nearby, I might be tempted to spend my money closer to home, but alas, off I go on Champion Air - that's close to $500 bucks we could have spent locally if we had something like Vegas to visit.

Actually, I can't gamble very long..I hate giving money away.. I go more for the shows, the entertainment, nightlife, people watching and best of all, the endless all you can eat buffets... j/k

Well...I'm kinda torn on whether or not to have them close to town. I guess if they were really nice destination places...Sure. Put up a couple of nice ones down there by the river east of Bricktown or something. But in their current form...No thanks. Keep the glorified tents with attached Comfort Inns on the outskirts.

bombermwc
02-13-2008, 07:36 AM
We MUST save the poor from themselves at all cost. Fast food is regressive because the food cost the same no matter the income of the person buying it. Maybe McDonalds should have 2 value menus. People making under $25,000 should pay $1 for a McChicken while people above $25,000 should pay $2 for the same sandwich.

Crap, now that I think about it the entire capitalist system is regressive. Everything cost the same no matter what the persons income is. How can this be? Maybe we should run private interprise like the IRS. The more you earn the higher the price for everything. Of course, this might discourage people from taking risks and improving the economic status but that is OK.

Hey JSENTER - maybe it isn't up to you how people spend their money - even the poor people.

A-Freakin-Men!

mmonroe
06-03-2008, 04:32 PM
25000jobs.com

Did anyone else see this commercial?

OU Adonis
06-03-2008, 04:55 PM
25000jobs.com

Did anyone else see this commercial?

Maybe we can build a horse track around the canal?

mmonroe
06-03-2008, 05:04 PM
I don't think having an indian resort and casino would take away from the race track. Now if the casino was building a race track.. that would be different story. If the race track was really making that amount of money, than they wouldn't have the need to argue about the casino aspect. Remington was on it's way out before SQ721 changed that and they were allowed to put a casino in to eleviate the amount of money they were losing. It's just a big BOO HOO and I think 25,000 jobs is a bit overly stated. Not to mention, the Fair Grounds are picking up where Remington has left off... not much they can do to try and stop Tim O'toole from doing what he does over at the State Fair, so they attack the Shawnee Tribe. [I know i'm going to get it from at least one person, the relative location and distance from one another. Go ahead, give me that argument.] If this resort attracts more tourist dollars, because the last time I checked, Remington wasn't doing it, then i'm for it. If the resort brings in 100 more jobs than what Remington has employed, i'm for it. So BOO HOO 25000jobs.com BOO HOO

OKCMallen
06-03-2008, 05:12 PM
The one in the middle of Tulsa on Riverside is nice, safe, not an eyesore, and seems to do quite fine. Riverwind is almost in Norman, and is fine. I don't see the problem. All it would do is ATTRACT DOLLARS from out of OKC.

mmonroe
06-03-2008, 05:20 PM
Tourist come in, they troll around OKC, spend their monies.. I don't see a problem with it. More revenue for the city.

OKCMallen
06-03-2008, 05:30 PM
I agree monroe...these people are dirving from out of state into Tulsa. They'd come to OKC too.

edcrunk
06-03-2008, 05:44 PM
Casinos are a regressive tax that take advantage of poor people hoping to strike it rich.
really... it's entertainment to my friends and i. btw, we're not poor either.

edcrunk
06-03-2008, 05:49 PM
It's very valid. Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are also regressive.



You'd be surprised who the high rollers are. Spending your entire paycheck on gambling instead of on groceries for your family can make you a high roller. I've seen it more often than you'd imagine.



I think we should ban all sorts of things. It's all fraud, and it takes advantage of poor people. I put casinos up there with other types of fraud, that encourage the poor to give their money in hopes that they'll reap a big reward.

my parents are in a square dancing club and all those old folks like to go gamble. this is america... let people spend money however they wish!

bombermwc
06-04-2008, 09:16 AM
I disagree with jsenter....i very strongly feel it's up to the person to regulate themselves. It's not our job to tell someone how to run their life. If they are dumb enough to gamble away their grocery money, who's fault is that? It's the person, not the casino. We aren't a socialist country, we don't control people like that. Cigarettes and Alcohol fall under the same order. No one forces anyone to use them, people do it of their own free will.

I say let them build. Of course Remington Park doesnt want competition, but that's not a valid arguement. That would be like telling Target no because a WalMart is down the street. Competition of business is capitalism. If they aren't strong enough to survive, then they need to do a better job of attracting customers.

OKCMallen
06-04-2008, 10:34 AM
Cigs and alcohol are a little different, but I generally agree with you.

mmonroe
06-04-2008, 04:23 PM
Ah sarcastic satire.

chuckdiesel
06-04-2008, 06:00 PM
Cigs and alcohol are a little different, but I generally agree with you.


In what way?

flintysooner
06-04-2008, 08:32 PM
It seems to me from what I've read that the predominant research is really pessimistic about the success of the venture. This is a real problem for me to support the endeavor. It would be really terrible if the thing was built, failed, and then was empty for a long while. That would drag down the entire area I'm afraid and that area doesn't need that.

It could be worse, too. It could cause the failure of Remington. Then there would be two vacant facilities out there.

If the proponents could put forth some good supportive information that would address the viability and a few of the other issues they would have a better chance. But so far it doesn't seem to me that has bee done.

FritterGirl
06-04-2008, 08:37 PM
Hi flinty,

Could you provide some sources for this? I'd really like to see where this information came from. I'm against it for my own reasons (I find 'em rather tacky, personally), but haven't really seen any good economic data on it one way or another. This would be helpful.

flintysooner
06-04-2008, 09:01 PM
I really don't have sources to list. Mainly it is what I've read in the paper and heard from Cornett and various others who have been interviewed on radio or tv.

But it is a really big project: 18 story hotel, 2000 slots, 104 acres, $400 million. So the size of the project is a significant factor in itself. Even the title of one of the newspaper articles was interesting - Tribe Gambles on City Casino - or some such. Yes, it was a cute title for a casino but a $400 million project is hardly certain to succeed. I think I also read they need about 750,000 visitors per year. That's a lot of folks.

But the application is the size of 3 phone books according to the newspaper article so there may well be evidence in the application to support the long term viability of the project. I don't know if it is possible to see the application or not but even so I wouldn't want to read it.

The BIA doesn't have a history of granting applications so far from a tribe's headquarters either.

mmonroe
06-04-2008, 09:01 PM
OKC Major League (http://www.okcmajorleague.com/)

andy157
06-04-2008, 10:19 PM
It seems to me from what I've read that the predominant research is really pessimistic about the success of the venture. This is a real problem for me to support the endeavor. It would be really terrible if the thing was built, failed, and then was empty for a long while. That would drag down the entire area I'm afraid and that area doesn't need that.

It could be worse, too. It could cause the failure of Remington. Then there would be two vacant facilities out there.

If the proponents could put forth some good supportive information that would address the viability and a few of the other issues they would have a better chance. But so far it doesn't seem to me that has bee done.I wouldn't worry to much, or see it as a need for concern for that matter, that if by some chance one, or, even if both of them were to fail and become vacant that would create a problem. But if it did, then I would expect the County to pass a Bond Issue, buy the property(s) from it's owners, and lease it out to a new venture. Problem solved.

jbrown84
06-05-2008, 12:23 AM
I think I also read they need about 750,000 visitors per year. That's a lot of folks.

Adventure District has 4 million visitors a year.

And Cornett has a clear bias against this, so I wouldn't count him as an objective source of facts.

I'm not a huge fan of gambling, but the cat is out of the bag, and I think this would only help Remington, not to mention the rest of the Adventure District.

mmonroe
06-05-2008, 12:41 AM
At the least, it would pull people from the other area casinos like Riverwind and Firelake because it would be closer. People would still go to the casino at Remington because it's what they have always done. I don't see a problem with it. Plus it has a lot more than just other casinos, it has a resort, spa, and hotel.

andy157
06-05-2008, 02:00 AM
Adventure District has 4 million visitors a year.

And Cornett has a clear bias against this, so I wouldn't count him as an objective source of facts.

I'm not a huge fan of gambling, but the cat is out of the bag, and I think this would only help Remington, not to mention the rest of the Adventure District.How could Cornett be against this? It will provide short term jobs for hundreds of construction workers. Generate sales and use tax revenues through the purchase of the construction materials.

Provide hundreds, maybe thousands of perminate jobs for local citizens. Generate long term new and additional tax revenues. Spur on the Citys Economic Development plans. That spin off ED will create even thousands(estimated provided by the GOKCCoC)of more jobs, MILLIONS(same estimate source) more in taxes. Bring in more visitors, and they will need more hotels, more places to eat, stores to shop in.

The tribe has tons and tons of money so maybe if we're lucky they won't demand any sort of mandatory incentives, therefore it won't cost us a dime. And the Mayor is against it. That's interesting. I wonder why?

Toadrax
06-05-2008, 02:20 AM
I am against a "tribal casino", but I would not be opposed to a privately owned casino. I think gambling is a stupid way to make money but just as entertaining of a way to waste money as eating out at a nice place.

If the government should ban gambling, marijuana, or whatever... why not ban obesity? Heart disease is a leading cause of death in America. Obese people are a drain on our health care and cost taxpayers more than gamblers do. Not only that but it is something that causes other countries to make fun of us.

Imagine someone who can not go out and work to support her family because she can not fit through the door? I suggest mandated diets and in extreme cases, surgery. Tax credits for those who can run a mile and banning of all advertisements on television that might make someone want to eat.

(Yes that would be stupid, but not any worse than our government not letting us get a tattoo or smoke pot.)

bombermwc
06-05-2008, 07:28 AM
It's capitaism folks, we have to take the good, the bad, and the ugly. If we start saying idea A but not idea B can be built even though they are similar venture, then we've killed capitalism.

The sometimes unfortunate consequence of our country is that while for the most part, there may be a "majority" view of how things should be, we have to accept the minority view as well (and im not talking about race so don't even start there).

The point is, we can't tell Remington Park that we're going to help support you all this time but when there's a new guy that wants to come to town, that we won't even let them play. It would be like saying the new casino is OKC's red-headed step-child.

I haven't really decided whether to support the new casino or not. I think it can be a fun little getaway for a few hours. Take $50 and see what happens, if I lose it all, I'm not out any more than if I took someone to the movies at Warren and I get the same amount of time of enjoyment. I would rather do that type of gambling at an honest casino and not a race track with an added casino but that's just me. I don't think it's immoral or horrible or anything, it's just another form of entertainment. You just have to be responsible and use your brain.

flintysooner
06-05-2008, 07:38 AM
We also have to be responsible as a community. It is a large project. There is risk. If it fails it would be a blight. It could hurt other endeavors.

I want to see evidence that the financial projections are reasonable; that the project will complement the area and not detract from it; and that there are milestones that mark the growth.

If all that can be shown and the BIA can be convinced (which is entirely different) then I would at least be open to the project assuming all normal conditions for financing and operations are met.

AFCM
06-05-2008, 07:53 AM
I tend to agree with you bomber. To me, gambling is just like anything else in life; it can be fun in moderation, but dangerous if abused.

I remember when I first received my enlistment bonus ($15K). I pulled out $200 and went to Riverwind. I didn't expect to win anything. I LOVE playing poker and I get bored playing the same old get-together tournaments with friends and wanted to go up against some real challengers.

I had a blast facing real competition, lost all of my money, and walked away happy to have experienced a whooping at the table. I haven't been back since. I did it just that once for fun, and while $200 seems like a lot, it was money I could afford to lose.

Gambling is just another form of entertainment. It's not like we have mountains or the ocean to attract visitors, so why not give this a try? If done properly, this could be a good thing for Oklahoma City. I'm for adding a resort/casino, but I just don't know how I feel about a Tribal resort/casino; I'll just have to see more of their plans.

As for the moral issue of gambling: I'm tired of the holier-than-thou crowd influencing legislation to restrict things they don't see as "Christian-like". How can you tell a grown man that he can't go to an adult store and buy an adult video depicting penetration? I'm not trying to deviate from the original topic. I'm just pointing out how stupid that is. If a grown man wants to watch such a thing, let him. It's not hurting anyone. The same goes with gambling. The only problem I might foresee is a parent gambling away the grocery money, as was brought up before. Generally, I'm pretty apathetic when it comes to stupid people doing stupid stuff to mess up their own lifes, but messing up a child's life is something completely different. Still, I think you have to let people take responsibility for their own actions and quit trying to force certain people's values on others.

Midtowner
06-05-2008, 08:00 AM
It's capitaism folks, we have to take the good, the bad, and the ugly. If we start saying idea A but not idea B can be built even though they are similar venture, then we've killed capitalism.

No. This isn't capitalism. This is deciding who gets the government approved monopoly.

Capitalism would be to set up zoning districts in the city dedicated to gambling and entertainment, then allowing anyone who can meet the requirements of a gambling license (hefty fee, a certain amount of money in the bank, knowledge, whatever it takes) to procure such a license and open his own Casino.

THAT would be capitalism.

Toadrax
06-05-2008, 10:54 AM
Bingo.

Letting Indians do it is retarded. One person should not have different rights than another by virtue of birth.

streuli
06-05-2008, 03:12 PM
My two cents:

The Journal Record - Column (http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=89434)

Whoa, Nellie - Blog Post (http://blogs.journalrecord.com/hottopic/2008/06/05/whoa-nellie/)

mmonroe
06-06-2008, 02:45 AM
I'm really in this for the Resort aspect. Don't get me wrong, I have players club cards from all the casinos around here and I enjoy going to different ones. It's money that I have to lose and i'm not worried. But the fact that we don't even have a resort around here kind of baffles me. I'd like to have a place close enough to get away while it is still just that, close.

bombermwc
06-06-2008, 07:15 AM
And I think that's the big point right there mmonroe. Right now all the casinos require a good amount of driving to get to them. Most people don't want to do that, especially with gas going up. It's a lot easier to take a 15 minute drive up to near Frontier City to have an evening of fun (not un-godly going to hell gambling better go pray afterwards).

I would consider myself a moderate I guess... I don't know. I have some conservative views, but I have some "liberal" views. Depends on the crowd you talk to what you consider each category. But I agree with AFCM. We need to stop letting people use their "faith" (which is often laughable considering their actions off the house/senate floor), out of the office. It's great to use it as a guide, but don't tell us that we can't do things because a faith says so. I'm a methodist, but that doesnt mean I think everyone should abide by my views. There are some just stupid laws, like the porn one. I could care less because I'm not going to go buy it anyway, but it's just dumb.

OKCMallen
06-06-2008, 07:57 AM
In what way?

Because cigarettes clearly have a toll on EVERYONE. Guess who pays for all the unnecessary health problems associated with smoking? Health insurance; OUR health insurance.

What we have are a segment of the population (I smoke occassionally, too, so I am not pointing fingers, just stating facts) that takes a completely unnecessary risk that results in millions upon millions of dollars of EVERYONE'S money. If someone were flying around dropping bowling balls from helicopters on public roads making potholes, people would freak out...you wouldn't ever hear someone go: well, that's their right to drop bowling balls on public roads. When the actions of a few cost the many a LOT of money, at that point, you have to wonder whether the government should step in and stop the few from doing so. It's not like we're tlaking about restricting people from traveling or some other fundamental right. We're talking about taxing a completely unnecessary vice out of existence. That's why government regulation trying to get rid of cigarettes is different from regulating gambling. It doesn't cost me anything if granny from healdton like to play a little bingo.

OKCMallen
06-06-2008, 07:58 AM
Also, this thread is turning into a referendum on gambling....I suggest we bring it back to a casino in OKC.

Jesseda
06-06-2008, 11:08 AM
common red 7s...

Jesseda
06-06-2008, 11:11 AM
Just kidding inthe earlier post.. what is the big deal.. I would think it would help out okc area. I would love the concept of just more that a casino..

Thunder
06-06-2008, 03:28 PM
We need a Las Vegas in OKC.

OKCMallen
06-06-2008, 03:38 PM
I actually agree with that. New Mexico allows craps and otehr table games in their Indian casinos, and they haven't imploded or anything. We could allow full gaming here, and because we're bigger than NM and more centrally located (I-44, I-35, I-40) and within a day's drive of more "big" cities (Denver, St. Louis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Texas, Nashville, etc etc) it would go over well. Lousiana has gambling, as does St. Louis on the other sid eof the river, but Texas doesn't and probably never will. We could never, ever match the attitude and pizzazz of Vegas, but we could do quite well for ourselves.

mmonroe
06-06-2008, 04:16 PM
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/emails/shawnee/images/shawnee1.gif
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/emails/shawnee/images/shawnee2.gif
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/emails/shawnee/images/shawnee3.gif
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/emails/shawnee/images/shawnee4.gif
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/emails/shawnee/images/shawnee5.gif
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/emails/shawnee/images/shawnee6.gif
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/emails/shawnee/images/shawnee7.gif
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/emails/shawnee/images/shawnee8.gif

I got this big image in an email from newsok...

Even on the shawnee site, OKC Major League (http://www.okcmajorleague.com/) they tackle the argument with Remington.