At the Sioux Falls city council meeting Tuesday night, there was another fight of sorts. It had to do with an attorney who represents several bar and casino owners in town who just can’t get over the fact they should have ONE employee per casino. In the rest of the state, where hillbillism is alive and well, towns are allowed to have an imaginary line in between licensed casinos, so basically they can have ONE employee run two casinos. The state only allows 10 machines per VL license. This is regulated by the state, and the state legislature has NO desire to increase that number, so munipalities like to bend the rules a bit and create weird boundaries between casinos, or should I say NO boundaries.

I think the state legislature should repeal video lottery. As we have seen in Sioux Falls, all they are, are magnets for trash, robberies and various other crimes. I laughed when the attorney who was representing the casinos said that they are ‘small business owners’. He said it like they were the corner grocery store in a small town just trying to get by. Most small businesses have a business model, you pay them for a service or product. Casinos simply take your money and you get nothing in return. I can almost guarantee the state takes in less taxes then are paid out for the problems caused by video lottery. But that is a discussion for another day. Item #15, which was a 1st reading passed for a 2nd reading hearing. It’s a reach around of sorts that would allow casino owners in Sioux Falls to have ONE employee for two casinos, like a lot of other towns in South Dakota. While it passed for a 2nd reading, I think Stehly and Starr made it clear they don’t support it and that it makes the casinos less safe.

But Item #15 isn’t where this ended. While a majority of the council seem to approve of this rule change, when it came to amending and adding to the legislative priorities list at the end of the meeting, they seemed to show their true colors of hypocrisy. Starr made a motion to add to the priorities list that basically state law should change so VL casino owners could have 25 machines per license. I literally laughed out loud, and laughed even harder when the council voted down his amendment, the exact same members who were for item #15.

And they wonder why I call them hypocrites?

I found this quote from Haugaard in the Argus Leader yesterday interesting;

Rep. Steven Haugaard, R-Sioux Falls, pointed out that the role of government is to “never exercise a vice upon the citizens” and questioned how state officials can stop the “steamroller” of legalized marijuana.

Not to get in an argument on whether legalized mary jane is less harmful then legalized video lottery (and probably raise a heckuva a lot more tax revenue). But if Haugaard is so concerned about ‘vices’ being thrown upon the citizens of South Dakota I’m assuming he will lead the charge to have the legislature to repeal video lottery in our state during the next session? I have often argued that VL is a revenue neutral, if not a revenue negative on our state with all the social costs associated with it in crime (robberies), bankruptcies, broken families and even suicide.

So Steven, will you do the right thing and repeal this vice on the citizens of South Dakota?

‘There are two kinds of Video Lottery casinos in Sioux Falls, Ones that have been robbed and ones that will be robbed.’ – Scott Ehrisman

Let’s face it, all VL casinos in SF have become magnets for thieves. We certainly don’t need anymore. I have believed for a long time that the social cost to taxpayers far outweighs what the state makes from them.

Last night at the planning commission, (Item#8) they had a ‘sensitive use’ permit to approve for an alcohol license for a casino. Let’s face it, this isn’t about the license, this is about plopping another VL casino in the middle of an established middle class neighborhood that is already struggling with crime. The commission could have easily voted down the license (that is why it was sensitive use). Only one did, John Paulson.

The neighborhood testified against the casino, NOT because of the alcohol or gambling but because VL casinos get robbed, consistently and non-stop in this community. That’s a reality.

Commissioner ‘Know it all Nick Sershen’ said the neighbors were calling people who gamble and drink criminals. Uh, no they weren’t, they were saying VL casinos attract criminals. It just goes to show the planning commission members don’t give a rat’s ass about keeping neighborhoods safe. While they will debate the ‘safety’ of an electronic church sign for 45 minutes, they had ZERO discussion on this item before approving it. This was an easy one. They failed huge!

It’s funny, when the Bonus Round Bar by my house was a casino, it got robbed 1-2 times a month. Since they have converted it to an arcade bar, I haven’t heard a peep about a robbery. I’m not saying that there haven’t been any attempts, but I think burglars tend to case a place before robbing it, and once they realize it is NOT a casino, they move on.

SouthDaCola-56-knudson-video-lotter

Most may tell you that they don’t take loans out from pay day lenders for gambling but for rent. Which is probably true, because what usually happens is they spend their paycheck on gambling then don’t have money over for rent.

It will be interesting to see if Video Lottery revenue goes down due to the fact people won’t be able to get quick cash. I suspect in the first year it will probably be around 15% percent, but I think within the 2nd year, you are going to see revenue way down due to the closure of pay day lenders.

Maybe it is time to eliminate VL once and for all?