Would you support an expansion of gambling in the Twin Cities?

Tight state finances appear likely to prompt efforts to build a new casino or create other gambling options for the Twin Cities area. Today’s Question: Would you support an expansion of gambling in the Twin Cities?

  • Tim

    No. Gambling creates nothing, but people who need treatment for their gambling addiction.

  • Barb

    No Just another tax on the poor

  • Lou

    No! If the state needs to raise revenues, it should raise taxes. If legislators do not have the courage to do that, they should find another line of work.

  • Joe

    No. I would prefer that state government get it’s revenue in ways that are more honorable, straightforward, equitable and transparent.

  • Joe

    Only if it is expanded in conjunction with the legalization of all forms of currently illegal drug.

    Once we get to that dire of a situation, I will understand the need to do this. Until then, I will continue to call the current push to expand gambling nothing but a lack of imagination from the legislature.

    Yes, we have a $6 billion budget deficit. If you can’t tax/cut our way to a solution, you likely don’t deserve that election certificate that we the voters gave you. .

  • Paul

    Definitely not!

  • Wade

    Yes, It’s not going away. There are two options we have there.

    #1. Tax the heck out of the Native American casino profits.

    #2. Build our own white owned casinos that can compete with the Native American Casinos.

    People are going to gamble, that’s life. Might as well benefit from it.

  • Wade

    Yes, it’s not going away. So we have two options.

    #1. Tax the heck out of the Native American Gambling profits.

    #2. Open our own casinos to compete with the Native Americans.

    The state could definitely use the money to balance the budget. I think prohibition proved that it’s going to happen whether it’s legal or not.

    Of course following that logic, we might as well legalize pot to.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Cassinos are examples of naked economic predation. They create nothing of value (except some dubious “entertainment”) but only profit by selling false hope to people who would be better off doing smarter things with their money, some of whom wind up losing everything after becoming addicted. The state has no business encouraging such activities.

    However, It doesn’t really matter whether I would support it. Our government follows the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules. On this issue, those with the gold would rather give the state a cut of the profits they’ll get from new gambling enterprises than do the honest thing and pay their fair share of taxes. It will probably happen.

  • joel

    Gambling is horrible, but we need to accept that its here and legal.

    The issue isnt should we allow gambling, but rather should we allow legal gambling to be the domain of a select few with little public oversight.

    Either get rid of them all or allow the state to capture some of the revenue and break the current monopoly

  • Randy

    As one who derives no pleasure or entertainment from gambling, I am completely ambivalent towards any sort of expansion.

    The question I have is where does the money come from? Is there enough discretionary income floating around to provide the desired profit from such an expansion without having some significant, and possibly grave, impact somewhere else in the economy?

  • Connie

    No. Gambling is enjoyed by the wealthy and ruins both the wealthy and the poor. This is not a way to improve our economy.

  • glenn


    The way the City of Minneapolis is laid out- they can easily claim to be a soverign nation. Build the casinos!!!

  • Chuck

    To gamble or not to gamble is an individual choice. We, in MN, already have quite a number of gambling choices available to us. Will a State sponsored casino make any serious difference is how people choose to spend their money? I doubt it. A State sponsored casino would put some people to work, make a few wealthy, and maybe provide healthcare and retirement benefits for the casino employees. What happens if the casino fails – who pays for that?

  • JBlilie

    I wouldn’t oppose it; but I wouldn’t promote it either.

    Adults should be responsible for their own behavior. I don’t have any issue with “voluntary taxation.” I pay high taxes on alcohol. Sure, I’d rather pay less of them; but does it really bother me? No.

    (I would also like to legalize “minor” drugs such as marijuana.)

    (I find the antagonism directed at Tribal casinos ridiculous. First we take their land and livelihood and put them on the scraps of land left after the “white man” got his pick. Then we take their kids and put them into boarding schools. When they finally do what any “white man” would do and find loopholes in the law to exploit to their advantage, the “white man” condemns that and wants to take that away as well. Casinos have pulled many, many native families out of poverty.)

  • Jenny

    No. Revenue from gambling is quite regressive. Casinos prey upon those with serious addictions to gambling.

  • barbara

    No. Are they hoping to create deeper financial crisis by giving people more ways to lose their money? Sounds foolish to me.

  • David

    Absolutely. Across the nation, casinos and other forms of entertainment businesses have proven to stimulate local economies in many ways. Not only do the casinos themselves generate significant tax dollars and good employment to many, they also stimulate ancillary businesses surrounding them such as restaurants, retail, housing,etc.

  • Philip

    Nope! I cannot support an industry that makes money off the people who can afford it least.

  • Dan

    I do not support expansion of gambling in the Twin Cities.

    I believe (though I have no empirical evidence) that any tax revenues generated by gambling is easily eclipsed by pilfering and embezzlement of local companies by workers with a gambling addiction.

  • Tim Hance

    Yes, I feel very strongly that the State needs to add a State run gambling faciiity. Gambling in the Indian Casinos is a Billion dollar business. Why shouldn’t the State get some of that money.

  • Fran

    Absolutely! We already have 18 casinos which collect billions in revenue from Minnesotans without paying taxes on their profits. We should have competition which pays taxes on its profits.

    At a time when our state needs revenue and jobs, it seems to me that adding a racino or two (at places which already have 24/7 gambling) would accomplish both at a time we need it most.

  • Mike

    The fact of the matter is gambling is here to stay. As it stands right now, the state (and the citizens of Minnesota) do not benefit at all from gambling. Racino legislation is one form of gambling that makes sense for the state and for its citizens.

    Racino legislation will create or save thousands of agricultural jobs in addition to providing the state with $250 million every budget cycle.

    New gambling legislation will allow the citizens of Minnesota to benefit from an activity that is already going on in the state.

    The citizens of Minnesota are typically the individuals partaking in this activity. Thus, they should benefit from the activity. Currently, Native American casinos do not pay any state corporate taxes. Legalizing racinos (or any other form of gaming) would correct this oversight.

    It’s easy to say “no”, but if you look at the situation realistically, gambling is here to stay. It’s time that the citizens of Minnesota benefitted from the money they spend at these establishments.

  • elizabeth scott

    NO! As a Mille Lacs Band member, I strongly oppose state gaming expansion because it will greatly effect the American Indians’ lively-hood. The Mille Lacs casino alone is the biggest tax payer in Mille lacs county and created 1000 of jobs in which employ a majority of non indian folks! Also, since the recession hit, all casino revenues have fallen dramatically and a state casino would NOT bring in nearly enough new revenue as public officials are stating.

  • Kay

    Gambling has been and is expanding every day! Didn’t Mystic Lake start out as a small Bingo Hall? Allowing Racinos at Minnesota’s race tracks would bring money in to the State’s coffers and would bolster an entire industry – agriculture! Racinos would create jobs during construction and after the facilities were up and running. The increased revenue from Racinos would increase purses making our race tracks competitive with others which would ultimately bring more horses and their connections to Minnesota. These horses need grain, hay, veterinarians, farriers, the people who provide their care on a daily basis, fences, barns, farm equipment, trucks, trailers and the list goes on. Jobs and economic infusions to the State – it seems like a win-win! Consider this a “voluntary tax”. If you don’t play, you don’t pay! When’s the last time the State gave you an option of paying a tax?

  • Tim Hance

    Yes, I feel very strongly that the State needs to add a State run gambling faciiity. Gambling in the Indian Casinos is a Billion dollar business. Why shouldn’t the State get some of that money.

  • James

    No. The politicians are like drug users, once they get a fix of gambling money they will want more.

    What we need is good honest hard work. That would require good honest industries.

    Government run gambling is for a weak, last ditch, failed society…. THE USA is NONE of those.


  • Tracy

    YES!!!! It would be the perfect thing to help put Minnesota ahead. All of the other big cities and major vacation spots have it. It would give adults something to do when they vacation here. Not to mention it would help the states budget problems.

  • Shelley Robshaw

    I agree with Lou, who challenges legislators to raise taxes. Trying to tap into gambling revenues seems to be a sour grapes attempt to take back the only good money making enterprise we have allowed the Indians after gutting their way of life.

  • Bob

    Yes there should be slots at Canterbury Park. Canterbury Park already have a casino where you can play poker and blackjack. Adding slot machines is just another bet to make and should not be considered to be an expansion of gambling….another note….just who authorized indian style casino gambling? it was never authorized by the state legislature….

  • tim

    Yes, in a limited capacity. We should provide for a racino at Canterbury Park. It’s a win-win situation, the state benefits from revenues, only those who wish to participate will pay, the horse industry prospers. I am not in favor of a state run casino, however, as Mark Dayton has suggested.

  • Carol

    The greater issue here is what is better for the people of Minnesota.

    A Racino/Casino at Canterbury Park or the ever increasing property and sales taxes,

    taxing clothing, groceries and medication?

    Where does that end? Which is ‘more fair’ continued mandates for all people to be taxed on necessities or permitting those who like to ‘play the cards, play the horses’ do so of their own free will at legal venues.

    Expansion of gambling continues with additional scratch off games by the candy counters at convenient stores, betting illicitly on professional sports, church basement bingo – Racino is a legal venue. Going there is a choice.

  • Connie

    Yes. Indian casinos should welcome opportunity for competition! Competition is good for any business-many Minnesotans now go to Iowa and Wisconsin to gamble so why not create competition right here in Minnesota?

  • John truscott

    Well Gambling goes on & No one will be able to stop it. The WTCU tried to stop drinking in the twenties, they failed, they just made things worse.

    Gambling goes on now everywhere, it will not be stopped-the big silly thing is that it goes on & the public sector gets gain from it.

    A big example would be Racino, if passed the state & county would get a great benefit, the people who bet , bet any way & the state would collect a lot of revenue,

    It would create countless jobs for people to pay taxes @ the Canterbury park & many other jobs around the state. The people who are against either do not think very well OR are invested in the competitors


  • Amy

    Yes, absolutely! Especially if it means keeping taxes where they are at or even lowering taxes. Gambling is a choice. Yes it can become a bad habit, but that hasn’t stopped the government from taxing other bad habits like smoking and alcohol consumption. People have the right to make choices on how they want to spend their money, so I say go for it!

  • Brett

    Absolutely! Racino legislation would create economic growth that would benefit all of Minnesota. A Racino would be more than just a building to drop money in a slot machine, it would mean growth in agriculture, horse farms, training facilities and all the people that work in those areas and it creates tax revenue! Scratch tickets and lottery tickets at the local gas station can’t do that.

  • steve

    i dont gamble and it is a vicious bad habit that will bankrupt people fast!

  • steve

    i dont gamble and it is a vicious bad habit that will bankrupt people fast!

  • Jon


    Didn’t Mr. Dayton’s numbers show that this would not expand the amount being gambled, just take money away from Native Minnesotans? We demolished the tribes and left them few options for self-suffciency, now we want to raise their taxes because we don’t want to raise our own. How is that just?

    Any increase in taxes should be focused on those who can most afford the additional burden.

  • Donna

    Yes, why not get some of this revenue. They are going to gamble anyway.

  • Greg

    Gambling should not be set up for the purposes of creating general revenue. If it is set up for something discretionary, such as paying for a Vikings stadium, that is acceptable, But to use gambling to support the general budget is not defensible from a practical or a moral perspective. If it used for something discretionary, then if supporting something that is a “take-it-or-leave it” that no one depends on allows people to gamble or not with a clear conscience. Gambling to support the general fund creates a dependency that should better be dealt with by the legislative and executive. We pay taxes and elect people that we expect to deal with our state finances; fixing the state deficit is a pyhric process bound to create more problems in the long run.

  • Craig Biorn

    YES!! Racino is the best path. Canterbury Park is already operating and generating revenue. Our state would see an immediate return on the decision!

  • Jeff Johnson

    I would only support increased gambling provided it was administered under an agreement involving the out-state tribes at places like Red Lake and White Earth. The tribes could share the profits to fund / recover the costs of a new Vikings stadium or other program not covered by the General Fund.

    Gambling should not be expanded as a source of state revenue. Gambling is not a growth industry and is not a reliable source of funds that are necessary to keep the General Fund coffers full.

    Gambling will not keep my property taxes from rising; pay for assistance to our cities; or, pay for education. Let’s focus on tax programs that will.

  • Tony

    No, we’re Minnesotans. Our prosperity should be based on our hard work, not the addictions of others. I don’t mind gambling at all, but as a source of government revenue it’s too reliant on people throwing their money away rather than investing it and spending it on worthwhile goods that could spur the economy even more. Leave gambling as it is and we’re fine.

  • Ted

    Absolutely. Gaming is now prevelant in Minnesota. The Tribes operate free and clear of any state encumberances per their compacts. As the oldest compacts in the country there was no provision for any state revenue like other states (WI, MI, etc.) and good for them for negotiating it. HOWEVER, the state is in crisis, people are going to gamble, there is gambling already at Canterbury and Running Aces and there would be millions of dollars flowing into state coffers. If the Tribe’s refuse to revenue share – as is their absolute right – then the state needs to find the revenue and what better source than an activity that already exists and is accepted?

  • St. Paul

    Reading the previous posts, many contributors favor expanded gambling for the economic benefits it would create. Most people posting today seem to think that since the users bear the costs, it’s their choice, and that’s OK, they should be allowed to do what they want with their money, even if gambling is a vice. I wonder how many feel the same way when the question is legalizing drugs. You can make the exact same arguments there, but when it comes to drugs (especially marijuana), people seem to go the other way.

    My take on the question is a bit nuanced. First, the unspoken decision behind the decision to expand gambling is that the state needs more revenue. If that’s true, the question should be, “Is gambling the best way to raise new revenue?” If the answer is “yes”, then we should expand gambling. If the answer is “no”, then we should discuss other ways to raise more money. Assuming the state does need more revenue, I would argue that gambling is not the preferred way to raise it, simply because of the damage it causes to society as a whole.

  • Erin

    Yes! We need the racino in MN to bolster purses to enhance the racing industry in MN. Larger purses mean more horses and more horses mean an economic boost to the horse industry in MN which is a billion dollar industry already with room to expand. This is not a question of whether people should gamble or not. I believe all Minnesotan’s should be able to reap the benefits of taxation on the gambling dollars not just those who are in the soverign nations.

  • Reservation Logic

    Shelley Robshaw posted….”Trying to tap into gambling revenues seems to be a sour grapes attempt to take back the only good money making enterprise we have allowed the Indians after gutting their way of life.”

    Take back? Providing special privilages to one group of Americans, the Indians, while denying the same basic liberty to another group, non-Indians, is preposterous.

  • http://www.udderlyez.com Buck Wheeler

    Yes. This is not an expansion of gambling and the majority of Minnesota residents have made their position quite clear ON NUMEROUS POLLS.

    The Indian Casino interests got left at the starting gate in the last election by backing the wrong horse! All one needs to do, is go online and check out every Racino in the country, for those of you who don’t know?, that is a racetrack with casino gambling, and it is quite evident how much money they are returning to the local economy, state coffers and not to mention the Agriculture and the jobs that will be created with the impact of this endevor.

    Canterbury Park has the Card Games, Black Jack, and the Horse Racing, just add the SLOT MACHINES and you have a beautiful, safe, secure facility that is already a legal enity without spending any of the taxpayers money, we do not need another Casino built in the Twin Cities. It is time for the new incoming elected officals to step up and do what they were mandated to do in the November elections….RACINO NOW!!!

  • Shane

    No…We should not fund government services with gimmicks. We obviously have a funding problem for our government and it should be dealt with directly. Everyone benefits from government, everyone should share in supporting it. A fair, non-regressive tax policy is what we need.

  • Lyle

    Absolutely, yes. Why not use a state run casino to promote employment both to build the building and to employ personnel to run the casino? This concept is long overdue. Use the downtown traffic or the traffic at the MOA to generate money from visitors. Go for it!!

  • Colleen

    Absolutely! More jobs, revenue, expansion of the horse industry and the business that support it. Common sense!

  • Jaclyn

    No. Research shows that gambling only artificially raises the amount of revenue the state would receive because you eventually have to shell out more dollars to help people when the gambling goes awry.

  • Christina


    It is an entertainment option for paying customers. And, as previous comments have mentioned, will generate money for the state, create jobs, and perhaps bring tourism dollars.

    This is not a question of morality and whether gambling is right or wrong. It is a legal activity that responsible adults have every right to enjoy. And if we can boost the economy by capitalizing on that, let’s go for it.

  • Chris

    110%. You can BET on it.

  • Susan

    No, I do not agree with expansion of gambling in the Twin Cities in an attempt to bolster state finances. Previous comments speak of increasing jobs. What about the jobs that will be taken away from the Indian Casinos? Mille Lacs and Pine counties were two of the most economically depressed areas prior to the Indian casinos. Currently Grand Casinos employs roughly 3,000 people, mostly non-native. Creating jobs for the Twin Cities will only displace the casino jobs in the rural areas. There are not enough people who enjoy gambling as a source of entertainment to warrant gambling expansion as a way out of our state’s woes.

  • jeff

    of course they should….why should indian casinos make all the money and not pay any taxes to our state?…..maybe if they taxed those casinos like they do the people maybe we would have our cash…..my idea is to have the VIKINGS build there STADIUM next to CANTERBURY PARK and have the two go into business together……..add 30 more POKER TABLES that will help fund the stadium and also have the VIKES add money into the track that brings better horses and bigger purses here which draws more people to the track which helps the VIKES STADIUM AND CANTERBURY……and once the track is done racing they still have OTB and then the VIKES start up and its a win win for both places…….theres already ample parking for tailgating and they could add more HOTELS along the entrance for the people coming to the games and to the track………..and if MYSTIC LAKE doesnt like it then start paying TAXES TO THE STATE OR SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!!!

  • Greg d’Roseville

    hard to see the benefit. low paying jobs and like major league , doesn’t increase a customers “disposable income” it just creates a different place to put it.

  • Ron Jacobson

    Without a doubt as Racino kmakes perfect sense. Not only would it generate funds for the state, it would be a huge boost to the quality of racing at Canterbury and the related agriculture and other industries.

  • John

    Yes, the state should receive money from gambling in MN- the Indians should not be afraid of competition- just look at how Vegas has benefited from competition. The Native Americans have had a monopoly long enough. Competition would mean more JOBS and TAX $$$. A trip to the casinos in Iowa and Wisconsin will reveal more Minnesota license plates than Iowa or Wisconsin plates. Get smart, Minnesota.

  • Ed


    Don’t take the easy path that leads to more greed. If the state avoids this trap, I believe the tribes are willing to work together to fund a Vikings stadium and avoid the conflict of state-run gaminig.

  • Kirk

    The question seems posed to draw attention, along with other issues, to the possible moral implications.

    The TRUE moral implication, which everyone is conveniently overlooking, is that this would be YET ANOTHER instance of our BREAKING OUR WORD with the native peoples.

    We all “sorrow over” the injustices that were done to the First Nation people -those with even the remotest sense of a conscience anyway; then we turn around and just continue doing it?!

  • JJ Stoop

    I occasionally enjoy going to Canterbury and playing a few hands of blackjack or watch the races. Mind you we live around the corner but only go there maybe 6-10 times a year, take an amount of money I am willing to loose and enjoy myself. It’s fun and sometimes you can walk away a winner! Now, I do believe that if you want to say gambling is “evil,” I hope you don’t have any investments in the stock market…you can loose it just the same! I don’t enjoy Football so really not interested in paying for a stadium via paycheck without choice…here, it’s a choice and at the end of the day, that’s why I love America…the more choices the better!

  • Todd


    People can already gamble at any of the indian casinos in the state. By allowing a racino, a portion of the profits would be used to improve the purses Canterbury can offer which in turn results in the creation of new agri-related jobs (and tax revenue).

    Let’s start doing something useful with some of those gambling profits already being made in the state – beyond watching the tribal lobbyists throw money at state-legislators.

  • Kevin VC


    That comes from working in the industry at one point. It hurt seeing so many wasting their money away one pull at a time and getting nothing back.

    So many have a gambling problem and we were not allowed to be proactive about what we were seeing.

    Not a night went by when when someone was called or arrested who left their kids in the car for hours on end….. Also the theft and thievery is just way out of control….

    Sorry, but the problem needs to be removed or reduced.

    Our lottery tickets which were slated to help fund education and the environment, and I point out THAT was the only way it was approved, has NEVER been applied for such. The committee incharge has diverted the funds for other programs and projects ……

    The only people who are FOR gambling are nieve, already have too much money, or are in the industry wanting to expand it/be part of the money making.

    Gambling does not MAKE anything, it steals everything from those that join in. All the glitz was paid for by other’s losses…..

    Sorry, no and HELL NO!

  • Ruth Jones

    No, more opportunities for people to gamble is immoral. It encourages people to waste money and become addicted to gambling. It’s a recessive way to get more money for the state instead of making the tax code more fair. I would be willing to pay more in taxes than have another casino.

  • Max Jodeit

    Maybe. Raising money from gambling can be an extremely recessive “tax,” but it depends on what sort of gambling it is.

    I’d approve of poker but not slots.

  • John


    additional slots at the race tracks would enhance an already established industry, providing more jobs and a verifiable tax base. unlike the indian casinos where there are no regulations governing gaming or their tax base, racinos would be regulated by the state. time to end a monopoly.

  • Marian

    I believe that people will gamble no matter what and a Racino at Canterbury would help the state get out of debt.

  • Owen Strand

    I wouldn’t support expanding gambling. I’m not against gambling or people who want to gamble, but the state should not be in involved in it in any way whether through casinos, lottery, pull tabs, or whatever. The only method I would consider is licensing it like Nevada does.

  • Helen from Minneapolis

    No. The state should not derive any revenue from gambling. Both the US and Minnesota constitutions state that the legislative branch shall get revenues for its budget from taxes and fees. ALL tax bills must originate in the House, although parallel bills in the Senate must be reconciled before the final bill is passed. Minnesota legislators and their constituents – ALL of them – must take a good look at the needs of our state and what it takes to meet them.

    Many people assume that the victory of many candidates spouting the “no new taxes” and “balance the budget by cutting spending” means that everyone agrees with these mindless, dangerous slogans. The income tax rates, in this state and nationally, are seriously skewed. They need to change. Higher income citizens are paying proportionally much less than lower income citizens. When sales and property taxes are taken into account, the gap is even greater.

    But it will take more than changing the income tax to continue to run the state and to invest in education, transportation, county and local governments and yes, health care. Sales taxes and health services taxes need to be part of the picture. Taxes are the rent we pay for living in our society.

    Taxes are not charity. With an increasing number of people in our state jobless and homeless, the people of this state must work together to turn things around. Much good bipartisan legislation was done in the past 8 years despite a nay-saying governor.

    Increased gaming is not the answer and will only add more problems.

  • Sue de Nim

    Expand gambling??? I’d like to see the state move the other way and even get out of the lottery business. More gambling may indeed raise money for the state, but at what cost? More problem gamblers. More crime by gambling addicts trying to fund their habbit. More families being deprived of support when dad or mom gambles away their paycheck. More state funds needing to be spent dealing with the problems problem gamblers create. And for what? An activity that produces nothing of value except the “entertainment” provided by brief moments of excitement. Yeah, some people are going to do it anyway, but the state should not be encouraging it.

  • Art Eaton

    YES!!! Let’s make this a level playing field, fair to everyone. Gambling is here to stay folks, like it or not. The media reports the Powerball numbers and other wagering numbers nightly on the news. You can buy lottery tickets and pull tabs just about anywhere in the state. Polls have shown that a majority of Minnesotans SUPPORT slot machines at Canterbury Park. Let’s think how slot machines at Canterbury would effect AGRICULTURE in this state. Slot machines would raise the purses for the races, generating more horses foaled out in our state, needing to eat more hay and grain produced by local farmers. More trainers would come and race here bringing more workers that would need to buy food from our local stores, patrons would support our local restuarants. Let’s make Mystic Lake adopt the state enforced Non-Smoking policy, instead of escaping the issue because they are a “SOLVERN NATION”. Give me a break!! They use our state services, so why don’t they pay their fair share of taxes? Let’s be fair folks. Mystic Lake or Treasure Island could add 1500 slot machines and no one would say a word. Let ‘s be fair to Canterbury and let them do the same thing. What are the Indian Tribes afraid of? Las Vegas hasn’t closed down yet because a new casino is built!!! The revenue from slot machines at Canterbury could get us out from under the tremendous financial problems our state is facing.

  • mark

    I support a Racino 100%!!! It would create jobs and provide the state with tax revenue (200 Million) that they do not get from the casinos now.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Ooh, thank you, everyone who so helpfully informed us that gambling is really popular and isn’t going away. I had absolutely no clue about that. Naturally, that fact convinces me to change my mind and support an expansion of state-sponsored gambling in Minnesota, because, hey, that many lemmings can’t all be wrong, can they?


  • Chris

    The idea that casinos make money because all or most people who gamble are addicted is absurd. According to a study by the Harvard Medical School (which is consistent with other studies in this area) only about 1% of people who participate in gambling become addicted. That’s less than the percentage of people who consume alcohol and become addicted.

    That’s not to say that there isn’t problem gambling in Minnesota. Unfortunately there is addiction to gambling. The places which benefit from that pathological gambling (ie. the tribal casinos) only pay a coupe hundred thousand dollars toward Gamblers Anonymous programs in Minnesota. The state (ie. the taxpayers) pays the rest.

    It’s time for taxpayers to benefit from this untaxed billion dollar industry. Pass a racino and tax it accordingly.

  • Cameron

    State run gambling as a way to raise revenue to help balance the budget is irresponsible. One more way our legislators look to a gimmick instead of making the hard choices about raising taxes and cutting spending. Plus who goes and gambles? Minnesota will be raising revenue from the middle and lower economic groups. The upper income tends to gamble on houses and in the stock market. Really just a bad idea that should not be enacted.

  • Rachel

    I think there is another side of this issue that for the most part is being ignored. To me, a lot of what’s important about creating a Racino at Canterbury Park is not necessarily that it’s an expansion of gambling or that it will help raise tax revenues, it’s that a Racino would be important to the horse racing industry, especially in Minnesota. I am not saying this viewpoint is the only thing to be considered about this whole argument, but I am saying I think some attention needs to be paid to it.

    The horse racing industry is overlooked often and something the majority of people don’t know about or fully understand. Horse racing is one of the oldest sports in the world and it can trace its roots back to 1350 B.C. However, the state of the industry seems to be in decline. Canterbury Park needs a Racino to keep going. The revenue generated by the slots in addition to the card room would greatly bolster purses for the live racing meet during the summer. Bigger purses would attract more (and better) trainers for the live meet and it would encourage them to return in the following years. All of those trainers have more help and employees than the public sees, and for most of them, working with race horses is their only livelihood. These people need to keep their jobs, too, and with the decline of the racing industry those jobs are in danger. Their jobs should be thought of just as equally as everybody else’s, but many people aren’t aware of them.

    Canterbury holds sentimental value for a lot of people: workers, trainers, jockeys, and patrons. It would be a tragedy to let it fall apart, which seems almost inevitable if a Racino isn’t passed in the near future. The Racino would have a lot of benefits for a lot of people. It would create jobs, and help with job security as stated above. As, for the argument that creating jobs at a gambling facility at Canterbury would take away jobs from Native American casinos, that’s ridiculous. Do you realize how many people are without jobs right now with the present state of our economy? The more jobs we create, the better. The argument for this might be that with an additional gambling facility, attendance at Indian casinos would decrease. Yeah, right. Gambling is present and it’s here to stay. Also, just because you go to one gambling facility doesn’t mean you don’t attend others as well. The close proximity of Canterbury to Mystic Lake and Little Six Casinos is actually convenient- as embarrassing as it is to say, if I’m losing at Mystic, I head to Canterbury instead.

    Opening another gambling facility is not going to create more problem gamblers, people. Just because there is another place to go to gamble doesn’t mean there will be a sudden boom in addicts. People with gambling problems have their own issues that need to be addressed and the absence of one more casino won’t help them quit. As Chris pointed out, the number of problem gamblers is actually lower than you may think. A new place to gamble doesn’t force people to do it. Just because a new fast food restaurant opens up are you forced to eat at it? A new brand of cigarette is introduced, is it a law that you have to smoke it? No, it’s a choice, which is the beauty of America. There are other things we can do to address the needs of problem gamblers but attempting to banish gambling won’t do it. It may, however, make it worse. Kind of like the abolishment of alcohol in the twenties. That worked out well for us. As Chris pointed out, the number of problem gamblers is actually pretty low.

    A Racino WILL help bring in tax revenue, it’s very hard to actually argue against that. Its plain and simple. I myself don’t necessarily agree with some of this revenue going towards a new Vikings stadium, but I believe that is an issue that can be ironed out. It would be nice to see some of the money go to things we desperately need, such as education and repaying our debt (obviously).

    The fact of the matter is that a Racino is necessary for various reasons.

  • Clark

    Gambling,I like it, ,finally anothert tax against stupid people.

  • Steve the Cynic

    And why is it in the state’s interest to prop of the horse racing “industry”? I know lots of folks have a sentimental attachment to horses, but aren’t they sort of obsolete as farm animals? Is it a matter of needing to have enough people with knowledge of how to handle horses so we can go back to using them when the petroleum runs out? I don’t get it.

  • Bill A

    Why? we already have enough Casinos, the horse track and Lotto(whic I play). we have plenty of gambleiing oportunitys.

  • Rosemary Higgins

    I absolutely support RACINO. The Racino would allow Canterbury Park to install slot machines which would generate revenue to support the sport of racing and keep it alive and well in MN. Without a Racino the future of horse racing is bleak. If we don’t stay competitive in purse money for the races, we will lose the best horses, trainers, and other employees of the industry to other tracks in other states that do have a Racino to support them.

    The slot machines would also provide an estimated $100M annually in tax revenues to the state of MN. These additional revenues could help to balance our state budget and could possibly be used to fund a new Vikings Stadium.

  • Brian

    First of all, we would not be expanding gambling, it allready exists. The tribal casinos in MN are estimated to take in 5-10 billion per year. They will not release their actual figures, I wonder why? This is the only state in the country that receives nothing from tribal casinos. So, a few people that normally gamble at a tribe will instead go to Canterbury and everyone benefits.

    The Racino will create new jobs and sustain jobs for horseman, farmers, etc. It will also give the state some much needed revenue without raising taxes.

  • Samir Saikali

    Absolutely not! How could we possibly expect that money taken from even one person in financial need through deception and false hopes could have any blessings for Minnesotans? How could we possibly believe that an activity that results in the destruction of even one family could be beneficial for Minnesota?

    (I add my voice to Sue de Nim’s.)

  • Doug

    I visit the casinos at Hinkley and Mille Lacs

    just about every week. The people there

    are not poor misguided bums. For the most

    part they are people out having fun.

    I believe the gambling industry should be

    taxed liked every other business in the state.

    Gambling is a business and I support it.

    I would like to see competition for my gambling dollars.

  • Cal

    When Mystic Lake, (Little Six), was first allowed live Blackjack and slot machines, their entire casino consisted of two doublewide trailers connected to each other.

    Where was all the “expansion of gambling” hand wringing when they expanded to the mega-casino they have now?

  • Steve the Cynic

    Mystic Lake wasn’t something the State of Minnesota had any say in, Cal.

  • David Poretti

    For all intents and purposes, we have a casino in every gas station and convieince store (just without the bells and lights).

    Any economy that doesn’t actually produce a product is an economy based on consumption – and will eventually implode.

    Using “gaming” as a way to raise revenues is simply a tax on people that can’t (or won’t) do the math.

    Does anyone else see the irony of state gambling houses – were we once had our tax $ payin for vice-squads to break up this very activity?

  • mashood

    Gambling in an unethical business to start with, providing easy way out to earn money. The correct ethic is families work hard for the money they earn and have respect for that hard earned money and do not take anything for granted. question about taxing this money is out of the discussion when activity itself is unethical undermining the true and good spirits of hardwork and love for the hardwork instead of looking for short cuts

  • B. J.

    Yes. I would not normally say it with such certainty, but our state needs all the financial help that it can get.

  • Tom

    This is a no brainier. Minnesota deserves gambling revenue. Racino at Canterbury would provide jobs, create a little friendly competition in the industry, and most of all a little cushion for the state’s wallet. You can go on and on forever about the morality of the subject, but the fact remains that people gamble, and why shouldn’t the state get its far share? The Indian reservations have had their time, its time to be fair.

  • tiffany

    i am 13 and i am doing a history day project on how gambling affects minnesota so if anyone would post any numrical facts and figures and how gambling is affecting people i would really apreciate it. thanks