Minnesota Poll: Majority in favor of metro casino, sharing profits

02/06/2005

Mark Brunswick, Star Tribune
February 6, 2005 POLL0206

About three in five Minnesotans believe the state’s Indian tribes should be asked to share some profits with the state to keep their monopoly on casino gambling. An equal number favor some sort of metro area casino, if a portion of the profits goes into the state’s general fund, a Star Tribune Minnesota Poll shows.

As several gambling proposals queue up for consideration at the Legislature—from a harness racing track/card club in Anoka County to slot machines at Canterbury Park to Las Vegas-style gambling at the Mall of America—public sentiment appears to support expanding gambling in the state, particularly if it can be used as a cure to some of the state’s fiscal ills.

Support for the two proposals is not just wide, it’s strongly held, too. Nearly half of those polled strongly support Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s negotiating with the tribes for more of the profits from their 18 casinos. About the same proportion—nearly half—strongly back a metro-area casino, if part of the profits were to go to the state.

Restaurateur Troy Nolop is among those who supports asking the tribes for a contribution and for the possibility of a metro casino. Nolop said Wisconsin benefited from a new deal with its gambling tribes and believes Minnesota should have the same opportunity.

“If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for us here,” said Nolop, the owner of Corky’s Pizza and Ice Cream in the southeastern Minnesota town of La Crescent. Nolop said the new money could be used to help his community’s struggling school district.

Pawlenty’s casino proposal, unveiled in a budget plan, would bring the state a one-time payment of $200 million in fiscal 2006 and $114 million a year beginning in 2008. The budget deficit for 2006-07 is $700 million.

Pawlenty’s plan calls for a consortium of tribes to select or form a management company to help run the casino with help from the Minnesota State Lottery.

Broad-based support

Dan McElroy, Pawlenty’s chief of staff, said the poll results buoy Pawlenty’s position.

“We find the public reaction encouraging,” McElroy said. “We had believed, based on people that the governor has spoken with, that there is a great deal of support. These numbers confirm it, which we see as good news.”

Support cuts across political lines, ages, geographic areas and income levels.

Among political factions, only those identifying themselves as liberal gave less than majority support (47 percent) in favor of negotiating with the tribes. In all age groups but one, most favored the non-reservation casino. The exception was those aged 55 or older (47 percent).

The nine members of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association (MIGA), which represents the tribes with the most successful casinos, have resisted Pawlenty’s overtures for revenue contributions and now predict that any form of revenue sharing with the state is unlikely.

After hearing the poll results, John McCarthy, MIGA executive director, acknowledged that more education is needed about the economic and charitable contributions the tribes make. He said that might be particularly true in rural Minnesota, where Indian casinos have spurred economic development and job growth.

“I think when you ask people if they’d like to see the tribes pay the state you’re going to see a high percentage of people say, ‘Yeah, because that’s free money,’ “ McCarthy said. “I’m not sure that people completely understand the effect of these kinds of things as they start to develop. Once you open this door, it never gets closed. This isn’t a one-time, one-casino deal.”

Brooklyn Park poll respondent Dave Schultz opposes the idea of a metro casino but thinks it’s a good idea to seek a contribution from the tribes. Schultz, who is self-employed, believes gambling is a destructive and costly social problem that the state should not be in the business of promoting. But he also believes that the tribes should make a contribution in exchange for exclusivity.

“As long as the Indian reservations have the right to operate casinos independently from government control, then I think it would be beneficial to the state. If we can’t eliminate it then the state ought to at least be able to benefit from it,” he said.

Poll respondent Ben Carrick is one of the 24 percent of the state who feels strongly that the state shouldn’t hit up the tribes, and the 21 percent in the state who feel strongly that there should not be a metro casino. Carrick, who works as a landscaper and lighting installer, thinks the state should stay out of all businesses, including his own.

“They shouldn’t be in the casino business, they shouldn’t be in the airline business helping Northwest Airlines out. That’s not the role of government,” he said.

Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, one of several Bloomington legislators who have raised concerns about the casino proposal at the mall, supports legislation that would preclude any casino being built in a community that does not want it. She is hosting a town hall meeting scheduled for February 15 at the Bloomington city hall to discuss the mall proposal and gambling expansion.

“There may be general support for a metro casino but what if you added ‘for a metro casino in your town’ at the end of the question?” she asked. “I bet the answer would be different.”