Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
I am not opposed to Question 2 – whether to allow a casino in Oxford County – on moral grounds. In fact I like the idea of new jobs for Mainers. As a Maine resident with a mortgage, I have known what being jobless in this state is like, and I know how incredibly hard it can be to obtain employment. That being said, I am against Question 2 because it is profoundly flawed and prompts the question of whether the ends should justify the means. Short-term job gain would be justified by legislation that would be detrimental for the state of Maine.
One main flaw in the bill is that if passed, it would prohibit any other casinos from being built in Maine for 10 years. The Native Americans in Maine have sought multiple times to have various gambling facilities built on their reservations or local land that would have meant a lot economically to their communities. These attempts were defeated in similar votes on November ballots every time. If Question 2 is passed this year, it would not only seem like a “slap in the face” to the Native Americans of Maine, but would perhaps seem antagonistic if it could be the only such gambling facility in the state for 10 years.
This restriction is not only unfair to Native Americans. I have been told that Washington County is the poorest county in Maine. If the casino passed and did prove an economic jumpstart for Oxford County, how could we justify not allowing Washington County, or any other county, to benefit from casinos as well? It seems that the 10 year moratorium would only be profitable for the Olympia Group – the company backing the casino – and certainly not for Maine.
On Oct. 14, Maine Public Radio broadcast a call-in concerning Question 2 with guests from both sides. Host A. J. Higgins asked Pat LaMarche, spokesperson for The Olympia Group, if Native Americans in Maine would receive any money from Question 2. She said something about being in constant consultation with Native Americans in Maine and caring about their needs. I called in and asked LaMarche if it wasn’t true that Question 2 was unfair to Native Americans. She said that it was “up to you” to approach legislators and change the bill, should the question pass. I said that I believed it was best to pass the most perfect form of legislation we can come up with, not to pass faulty legislation and deal with it later. The Portland Press Herald reports that Harrold Dean, a Las Vegas developer backing the campaign, “has said the proposed legislation is flawed and that he disagrees with several of the provisions.” Yet the plan is to pass the legislation and fix it later.
Harrold Dean would also become a very powerful person in Maine. Down East magazine reported that, “One of the conditions, however, is that the president of Evergreen Mountain Enterprises must be made a voting member of the board of every organization that receives a share of the casino’s income . that provision would put Nevada resident Harrold on the governing bodies of agencies and organizations all over Maine, from the Maine Community College System board of trustees to Dirigo Health to environmental organizations involved in cleaning up the Androscoggin River.” There are other provisions as well, like the fact that individuals under 21years of age could work and gamble at the casino. It seems that no matter how we look at this bill, the ends do not justify the means.
Heather Omand is a senior anthropology student.
Bangor Daily News