Editorial: Time to regroup/Casino bill takes wrong turn

April 28, 2005

It's no wonder that prospects are growing dim for legislative passage this session of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposal for joint state/tribal casino in the metro area. In recent weeks, the proposal took some bad turns.

Pawlenty's bill is rooted in a promising strategy, initiated four years ago by three northern Ojibwe bands, for using the state lottery's constitutional authority to allow them to operate a casino in the lucrative metro market. In exchange for the state lottery's involvement, a portion of the casino's proceeds would be shared with the state.

That notion is in keeping with what has been, for more than a decade, the Minnesota consensus on casino gaming. It has been a limited enterprise, available only to the state's native tribes and then only under the terms of compacts negotiated by the state and the tribes in 1989 and 1991. Its purpose has been the economic betterment of a disadvantaged population.

The consensus that casinos should be Indian ventures has been challenged for several years by a push to install a casino at Canterbury Park. Legislative support for a racino draws from a legitimate desire to assist the equestrian industry and spur tourism. But some support also springs from a less noble attitude -- a desire to get white hands on "easy money" now flowing to Indians.

Pawlenty's proposal took its first troubling turn when it called for a large licensing fee -- $200 million -- to be paid by tribal partners in order to initiate the venture. That big number signaled to legislators, fairly or unfairly, that the governor is more interested in casino proceeds than in making gaming a fairer development tool for the tribes.

There was another signal, too: The governor did not close the door to non-Indian casino proposals, including one at Canterbury.

Things became more problematic last week, when a new proposal emerged. It would build two large casinos in Shakopee, one operated by Canterbury, one by the state/tribal partnership. This was not the single-casino venture that some supporters of the tribes (including this newspaper) found acceptable. This was two full-blown, competing casinos.

That proposal breaks Minnesota's Indian-only casino configuration -- and it broke the deal for two of the tribes, Red Lake and Leech Lake. They have backed out of the proposal, leaving the state's largest band, White Earth, still pushing for action this session.

The move by Red Lake and Leech Lake undoubtedly contributed to the vote in the Minnesota House Tuesday that sent the casino bill to the unfriendly House Tax Committee. Meanwhile, senators say, the two tribes' retreat has stiffened the already formidable resistance to any gambling expansion in the Senate.

Given that political reality, the governor would do well to call a retreat of his own. Backing off from a gambling expansion this session would not be the end of the issue. But it would allow time for renewed efforts to develop a more widely acceptable proposal. A new effort should embrace both the disadvantaged tribes and those whose casinos have made them wealthy. Its aims -- in order of priority -- should be a greater measure of economic equity among the tribes; an assurance of a long-term, exclusive casino franchise for native people, and a stream of revenue to the state, comparable to what casinos might pay were they subject to state corporate taxes. Admittedly, attaining those goals won't be easy. But charting the right public policy seldom is.

Minneapolis Star Tribune