Casino could survive a vote in Grand Forks

By Mike Jacobs
G. F. Herald Editor

It might be a mistake to bet on a casino in Grand Forks, but I'm inclined to do it anyway.

First, as a disclaimer, I support the casino - not because I am much of a gambler. I do play poker with my buddies now and then, and I used to take part in an elaborate election pool. But in my whole life I've bought a grand total of two lottery tickets, and I've never placed a bet in a casino.

Gaming is a fact of life in North Dakota, though, and since passage of the Indian Gaming Act, large casinos have become facts of life, as well.

It seems to me that if the Indian Gaming Act is to accomplish its purpose, improving the economic status of Indian people, then tribes must be allowed to open casinos off their reservations. Otherwise, Indian gaming will enrich tribes that happen to have land in urban areas while leaving more isolated tribes impoverished.

The impetus for the casino in Grand Forks comes from the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. They have a casino at Belcourt, N.D., a long way from any population center. The band is looking for a better location. They've settled on Grand Forks for historical reasons. The city stands on land that was once within their territory.

It seems to me that Grand Forks ought to become a partner with the band in order to benefit both sides. Exactly what the terms of the partnership will be is a matter for negotiation. First, however, Grand Forks has to agree to the partnership.

City Council members interviewed by the Herald suggested residents should vote on the idea, and that position has a big majority in the on-line poll the Herald is conducting at www.grandforks.com.

Grand Forks voters are notorious for opposition to big projects. Both Columbia Road Overpass and the Alerus Center faced voters several times before both were approved.

There are several reasons to think that voters might be less hostile to a casino, however. First, it is not a city project. No tax money is involved. Instead, it might generate revenue for the city, helping to hold down property taxes.

So unhappy taxpayers might support a casino, whereas they opposed city-sponsored projects.

A council decision to ask voters helps dampen the spirit of opposition, too, because critics wouldn't be able to argue that city leaders are forcing a casino down their throats. At a minimum, that should help cool the rhetoric.

Support might come from two other sources.

One is the city's gamblers. Their number is unknown and probably unknowable, but we know there are some.

A second is younger voters who might view the casino as another entertainment option, a venue that would make Grand Forks more interesting.

Add to this supporters who believe the casino would be good for the economy, and you might have a majority of voters.

Of course, there will be opposition.

Some will come from people who oppose gambling on moral grounds and who aren't satisfied to stay away themselves.

Some will come from people who believe that gambling is a source of social problems and don't trust their fellow citizens to resist or overcome them.

Some may come from people who don't want to do business with an Indian tribe. While there might be an element of racism in this position, there is also an element of fair play. If gambling is to be legal, should private entrepreneurs be allowed to provide it? But, of course, the law doesn't allow that.

Perhaps the most important opposition will come from organizations that benefit from other types of gambling, including the numerous bingo halls and charitable gambling sites that the law already allows. Tom Dennis made this point in Saturday's editorial, suggesting that hockey parents are the archetype of voters who will decide the fate of the casino.

The casino project faces hurdles far beyond Grand Forks. These include opposition from other North Dakota tribes, the need to amend the existing compact that governs Indian gaming sites in the state, and the need to secure federal approval for a site away from existing tribal lands.

These are issues for another time. Grand Forks has the next move, and it appears likely that it will be a referendum.