Kickapoo casino plans to builda large casino on 56 acres west of shawnee, does anybody know how big or where exactly it will be?

Isn't there already a casino out that way?

The casino would be on State Highway 177 and MacArthur.

Read more: http://newsok.com/kickapoo-tribe-of-oklahoma-plans-casino-near-shawnee/article/3642916#ixzz1l8r8Srgy

There's a new one going in at Pocasset too. I don't know what tribe. Edit to add...I guess that would be Chickasaw

http://www.mustangpaper.com/v2/content.aspx?module=ContentItem&ID=227548&MemberID=1586

I wish they'd quit throwing up metal shed casinos, and build 3-4 world class casino resorts. Once Texas legalizes them, we are going to fall by the wayside with crap casinos, not to mention they're an eyesore.

wow looks like we might actually have a casino strip soon in oklahoma.. shawneee 177 and the area will be home to 3 casinos all in one area almost.. the old firelake, the new thunderbird casino and now the new casino planned by kickapoo.. kind of interesting. wonder if more will follow in that area. Looks like it will be a casino hot spot, mini tunica.

To add to Metro's point a bit...imagine if they would consolidate them all into an area. We would have a well developed casino district that would surely attract more out of town visits than the current arrangement.

venture79, that is what a lot of people here have been thinking about for years.. to casino hop in oklahoma is crazy, it would be nice to have a strip of casinos... shawnee seems to be the hot spot for casinos since there is already 4 in that area, and plans for more

Sorry, but I just can't get excited on yet another indian casino. Anyone think we are getting a bit saturated?

Tunica MS works because its a cluster of high quality casinos near a state line for easy access for people in AR, TN, KY, etc. There's maybe 7 casinos across OK that rise to that level. And only 2 or 3 are near state borders.

The rest are crap that will eventually close when (not if) neighboring states legalize gambling.

wish one of the casinos in this state would do something that has shopping,something fun for children, daily shows,etc. It sucks that all the casinos here ar pretty much just casinos and nothing else to do, I hate that a couple casinos here are called resorts and vacation getaways, when there is nothing really else to do except gamble and sleep

Yep. They need an amusement park or water park so parents can dump their kids for the day and go gamble away their mortgage payments.

Yep. They need an amusement park or water park so parents can dump their kids for the day and go gamble away their mortgage payments.

would beat those who leave the halflings in the truck with a blanket and a drink while they go inside at night. Special corner of hell for such folk. If not, then there ought not be a hell at all.

i have seen kids in cars at the casinos, i still dont understand it.. But there is a casino route 66 casino in new mexico that has a kids quest center and we usually go to that with the kids, they love playing at kids quest and they are supervised. Oh and the ones complaining about people spending money at the casino, well some people rather spend 50.00 at a casino then 50.00 dollars at the movie theaters, just saying, as long as you set aside entertainment money who cares what you do with it, give it to churches, spend it at movie theaters, or buying over the top expensive clothing, or using it at casinos. There is just as many people who max out cards on lavish clothing and other things as there is people who spend it at casinos.. the problem with all of it is to just know what you can afford to spend, the problem is not the casinos, it is the people who dont know how to manage money.

I wish they'd quit throwing up metal shed casinos, and build 3-4 world class casino resorts. Once Texas legalizes them, we are going to fall by the wayside with crap casinos, not to mention they're an eyesore.

Agreed. Also, open it all the way up to all kinds of gambling. Might as well have it all since we have so much of it anyway. You can even play card-based craps at Firelake.

Another boon would be to put one on the edge of Bricktown.

I have no issue with folks spending funds at a casino, on tribal land or Vegas, NO, etc., if they have those funds to enjoy. Lots of folks collect first editions, and while that ain't me either, it likewise does not bother me in the least. But if you park your kid in a car with a comic or a sippy cup while you play cards, slots or bid on a first edition or slip a dollar in a gstring, then I have a problem. I am not a violent person, most of the time, but dang it, I swear sometimes that some folks would make better archery targets than they make parents.

I don't guess I care if we have them either but I don't like that they are bargaining chips with the tribes (no pun intended). If gambling should be legal, then I don't like saying that only one race of people can build and run them.

I get your point, but the only people standing in the way of non-tribal gambling are the non-tribal voters. We could have full blown Vegas style gambling here, or non-tribal gambling at the same level the tribes operate .. if enough voters wanted to say yes to it.

Bottom line is the voters do not want to approve it. Truth be told, given the shift in attitudes I have seen here in the last decade plus, I'm a tad surprised we haven't had a serious run at state questions aimed at shutting down racing, gambling and liquor by the drink and other various sinertainment venues.

Don't these have to be on Indian land? I didn't think we could have a "casino district" due to the placement of the land. Am I wrong?

Penny:

That has been my understanding as well. The main reason we don't have a "casino district" is that it has to be put on "indian land" that has been put into federal trust for that express purpose and has to be approved by the appropriate federal regulatory. Something that has been mentioned in the past was that the tribe wanting to open a casino also has to have an historical claim to the land in question. While i tribe may open several casinos within their own "jurisdiction", unless built along a common border with another tribe, you generally won't see casinos from competing tribes. This gives each tribe their own monopoly if you will within their territory. The historic claim was an issue with the tribe that is located up near Tulsa that wanted to build a casino in Bricktown and then later a resort on I-35 up near Frontier City. opposed by the Remington folks, OKC and our congressional representatives at the time. I have the letter someplace from then Rep Fallin (now Governor) opposing the proposal. Ironic that Remington would oppose it when another tribe ended up buying Remington (apparently the rule doesn't apply to them buying an existing casino/racino, only trying to build one from scratch?) The tribe that bought Remington may not even own the land it is sitting on as I read somewhere the land is owned by the Zoo Trust or something to that effect. I know I read that the Zoo gets revenue from Remington regularly as to the details of the setup....

Ironic that Remington would oppose it when another tribe ended up buying Remington (apparently the rule doesn't apply to them buying an existing casino/racino, only trying to build one from scratch?) The tribe that bought Remington may not even own the land it is sitting on as I read somewhere the land is owned by the Zoo Trust or something to that effect. I know I read that the Zoo gets revenue from Remington regularly as to the details of the setup....

Larry, the Remington Park casino is allowed specifically by state law without regard to who owns it. Indian tribes could own a Vegas casino too if they wanted to without being on Indian land.

I understand that. The irony is that the tribe that was trying to build one here should have just bought Remington and they could have bypassed all of those silly regulations

I understand that. The irony is that the tribe that was trying to build one here should have just bought Remington and they could have bypassed all of those silly regulations

The reason why I mentioned it is because of this.


(apparently the rule doesn't apply to them buying an existing casino/racino, only trying to build one from scratch?)

It sounded like you were unsure about what rules applied.

Larry, the Remington Park casino is allowed specifically by state law without regard to who owns it. Indian tribes could own a Vegas casino too if they wanted to without being on Indian land.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. At least the part about Indians being allowed to have a Vegas type casino, anywhere. State law governs on state land and Indians can't just ignore it because they are Indians. Indian land, though, that's different.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. At least the part about Indians being allowed to have a Vegas type casino, anywhere. State law governs on state land and Indians can't just ignore it because they are Indians. Indian land, though, that's different.

You are correct PennyQuilts, but some never let true facts get in the way of an argument.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. At least the part about Indians being allowed to have a Vegas type casino, anywhere. State law governs on state land and Indians can't just ignore it because they are Indians. Indian land, though, that's different.

PQ, you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that Indians could own a Vegas type casino. I said they could own a Vegas casino, meaning one located in Las Vegas and not on Indian land.