Should the state allow city-run casinos?

The Fond-du-Luth Casino in downtown Duluth, Minn., pictured here in a 2011 file photo, was the state’s first jointly run gambling operation.

The Duluth City Council is scheduled to take up a resolution Monday evening seeking state permission to open a city-run casino. The move would require a change to the Minnesota Constitution.

Since the Fond du Lac Ojibwe band stopped sharing casino revenue with the city, Duluth has been trying to figure out how to fill that budget hole and fix its deteriorating streets.

“There is no silver bullet, no one’s going to come in and fix our roads for us, and yet you have to find the balance between the need to invest in this infrastructure, and our community’s ability to pay for that,” Duluth Mayor Don Ness said earlier this year. Duluth has considered raising property taxes or adding a new monthly fee to utility bills. Now, the City Council is looking at opening a city-run casino, which is currently not allowed.

Today’s Question: Should the state allow city-run casinos?

More: Duluth’s roads need work, but city needs money first

  • JQP

    Yes.
    The tribal casino’s, instead of using the majority of their income funds to support tribal education, housing, welfare and jobs across all tribal communities… hold it as a sole asset of the singular tribe whose land is adjacent to a great location and … only share the income to an ever more bizzarely qualified members of the nation.
    In short.. they have abused an opportunity and harmed the vast majority of indians across the state.
    Cities don’t get to make some families wealthy but artificial choice. the money must be for community development and assistance on county and regional projects.

  • Nick

    Casinos (and gambling in general) are inefficient at raising revenue, and they do so on the backs of poorer residents. No, gambling should not be state-sanctioned.

  • PaulJ

    Try a real reform and have a sports book.

  • KTN

    No, and while I agree with JQP (below) in principle, I believe that as sovereign nations, they have treaty rights to continue that monopoly. How they choose to direct their profits is really up to them, that they choose to keep those profits held closely is not great for perception, it is their right to do so.

    All of this is probably moot however – I doubt a constitutional change will actually happen.

    • JQP

      I can accept that logic to a point… but the tribes really sold the absence of federal and state funding to support tribal communities as a key factor in why they should be granted casino operation rights. Then… they turn around and do the exact same thing… ( largely ) by continuing to ignore the vast majority of tribes out there who are suffering from sub-standard living conditions ( home, health, food, training-education) .

      They argued for the benefit of ALL indians.. .and provide for the success of about 10% or less.

      There has been a national wave of tribal councils canceling tribal membership to long-standing families … in order to consolidate and shrink the members who will receive shares of casino wealth.

  • Rich in Duluth

    No. While I’m in favor of gambling, I don’t think it’s governments place to provide gambling. Government should be educating the public about the consequences of gambling…and taxing gambling.

  • Gary F

    Sure, the insatiable beast called government needs to be fed. There is never enough money.

  • Jim G

    No. If you don’t trust your local government now, just wait until your city can run their own casinos. There is a conflict of interest when government runs any gambling operation. In smaller markets even more so. Taxes are a more transparent path to raising revenue.

  • Glenn

    The City of Minneapolis can do it now!! According to the procedure of Land Surveying within said city – a very strong argument can be made for sovereign nation status!! Don’t take my word for it – asK a LAND SURVEYOR!!

  • Brian

    Isn’t the lottery government run gambling? Where does that money go?
    Is there turstworthy oversight?