1619-5-3 Casino supporters : Expensive campaign takes a big beating. [RETURN] to continue or type q to return to Menu:
C� mh94 CASINO SUPPORTERS'' EXPENSIVE CAMPAIGN TAKES A BIG BEATING 11/09/1994
THE MIAMI HERALD
Copyright (c) 1994, The Miami Herald
DATE: Wednesday, November 9, 1994 EDITION: FINAL
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: lA LENGTH: 88 lines
SOURCE/CREDIT LINE: MICHAEL BROWNING, KAREN BRANCH And FRAN BRENNAN Herald
Staff Writers
CASINO SUPPORTERS' EXPENSIVE CAMPAIGN TAKES A BIG BEATING
KAREN BRANCH And FRAN BRENNAN
For the third time in fewer than 15 years, casinos came up with a busted
flush at the ballot box.
Tuesday night, $16.4 million poorer, casino backers gave up, at least for
1994. Florida voters decisively turned down a proposal to legalize casino
gambling at 47 locations around the state. More than 60 percent voted to
reject the proposal, despite a lavishly funded campaign of mailers and
television ads urging them to do otherwise.
In 1986, the last time casinos were on the ballot, the proposal failed by
68 to 32 percent.
The proposal fared best in Dade and Broward, Florida's most populous
counties, but strong opposition sank it in other parts of the state, notably
North Florida, Central Florida and the southwest coast.
Pro-casino forces gathered in Tallahassee's Radisson Hotel for a final
flutter on election night but there was little to cheer.
"I hate to tell you to go home now," said Pat Roberts, casino movement
leader, shortly after 11 p.m. , "but we do concede. " But the casino question is
still in Florida's future.
"We took a defeat tonight, " he said. "I'm not sure Pat Roberts will be
back here in four years, but I can assure you the casino issue is far from
over in Florida."
Roberts said that anti-casino forces werS` smart to get the hotel and
motel association behind them. And, he said, the language of the proposal was
too specific about where casinos would be placed. A simple Yes or No on
allowing casinos would have fared better, he believed.
In South Florida, a party for the victors at the Biltmore Hotel was more
upbeat.
"I know it's proper to be gracious in victory, " Miami Beach Mayor Seymour
Gelber said to a small gathering at the Biltmore Hotel. "I would like to
decline that honor. Florida is not for sale. This is an invasion by gambling
interests from Las Vegas. "
More money had been spent wooing voters to legalize casinos than on
the campaigns of both gubernatorial candidates combined. In vain.
A meagerly financed but deeply committed coalition of clergymen,
business executives, elected officials and Mickey Mouse combined to overthrow
the casino proposal. Walt Disney World in Orlando contributed $525,000, by far
the largest sum in the anti-casino war chest.
The entire anti-casino effort raised only $1. 6 million, one-tenth the sum
their foes commanded.
Opponents of casino gambling were jubilant Tuesday night.
"Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Right is right, even if no
one does it, " said Lester Basford, a Baptist well-driller from Marianna who
staunchly opposed the casino proposition.
If approved, Proposition Eight would have located vast gaming halls at 47
locations around the state. Most -- 30 of them -- would have been annexed to
parimutuel horse and dog tracks or jai alai frontons. Others would have been
built at pre-picked locations, whether the local communities wanted them or
not.
This geographic imperative, thrusting casinos into predefined locations
without consulting local opinion -- strongly prejudiced voters against the
measure, said state Sen. John Grant, R-Tampa. People who might have traveled
to Biloxi, Miss., or Las Vegas to gamble did not necessarily want Biloxi or
Las Vegas in their back yards.
"No questions asked. No bids required. The wording of Proposition Eight
was outrageous, " Grant said. "It was not so much whether or not we will have
casinos. It was not a case of amending the constitution.
"It was more a question of: 'Shall we or shall we not pour $30 million
apiece into the back pockets of 30 parimutuel owners in the state? Shall we
enrich Mr. Kramer down on Miami Beach?' "
Thomas Kramer is a German developer who wants to build a giant casino
and hotel in South Miami Beach. Kramer contributed $2.5 million to the
pro-casino campaign.
"Tom Kramer became a focal point, " said Gelber, "because this was a
person people could identify with and there was such overwhelming arrogance .
happened to be Thomas Kramer. I'm not trying to demonize him. He played his
cards. He suffered a resounding defeat and he deserves it."
Some South Beach residents voted down the casino proposal
because they feared it would bring crime to their neighborhood:
"I love Miami Beach, " said Dominick DeMartino, 82, as he left his
precinct at South Shore Community Center. "I was born and raised with the mob,
and it's not for Miami Beach. If casinos come in, we'll have more crime. We
can't even walk on the beach now as it is."
At the height of the campaign, potential voters were bombarded with
television ads featuring stern law enforcement officials, assuring viewers
that casinos would not bring more crime to Florida. Black voters were targeted
with mailed propaganda, promising a windfall of jobs.
KEYWORDS: GAMBLING ELECTION RESULT
TAG: 9403190618 t
21 of 123, 31 Terms
mh94 NO DICE! 11/09/1994
THE MIAMI HERALD
Copyright (c) 1994, The Miami Herald
DATE: Wednesday, November 9, 1994 EDITION: FINAL
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: 24A LENGTH: 51 lines
SOURCE/CREDIT LINE: Herald Staff
MEMO: CASINOS, NETS BANNED
NO DICE!
Casino promoters yesterday made the most expensive
purchase of fresh produce in Florida history. For $12 million, they got a
slot-machine display showing a lemon, a dill pickle, and a persimmon. Sour
news indeed for them. Sweet news -- oh, how sweet! -- for Florida.
As in 1986 and 1978, voters decided to keep Florida as ,Florida, not make
it a honky-tonk. the only thing "limited" about the casino come-on was the
chance of undoing it later had it passed.
How sweet, too, that Floridians also passed a constitutional amendment to
ban fishing with big nets in state waters. Commercial fishermen fought this
proposal vigorously, arguing that it was a giveaway to sport fishermen that
would put commercial boats out of business.
Voters chose to preserve a precious public resource -- finfish,
especially mullet, and shellfish -- by banning nets that scoop up all marine
life in their path. Commercial fishermen have adapted to net bans in other
states. Surely they'll adapt in Florida, too.
But Floridians served themselves a sour -- perhaps even bitter -- future
repast by passing three other constitutional amendments yesterday.
amendment I seemed innocuous enough, simply changing the Legislature's
starting date to March from February. Yet just four years ago, voters
overwhelmingly moved the date to February
from April. This gives state agencies and, especially, Florida's 67 school
districts extra leeway in preparing budgets before the fiscal year starts on
July 1.
Yesterday's unwise vote cuts that extra leeway in half. It means even
more pressure and uncertainly on every entity whose own budget depends wholly
or partly on state appropriations.
Similarly, Amendment 2 will limit state revenues to the previous year's
revenue plus the percentage increase in the growth in Floridians' personal
income as averaged over the previous 20 quarters. The Legislature can exceed
this cap by a two-thirds vote -- all but impossible except in the direst
emergency.
The last, and potentially the worst, mistake that Floridians made
yesterday was to pass Amendment 4. This potentially disastrous move will
permit constitutional amendments limited state revenues to embrace multiple
subjects.
Florida wisely has had one of the nation's strictest rules limiting
constitutional amendments to a single subject, clearly explained. That way,
voters could reasonably judge what they were voting on, and its consequences.
But when one amendment covers several subjects, it invites "log-rolling, " with
each predictable result causing other, wholly unanticipated, results.
Together, Amendments 2 and 4 could prove as unwise a bet as casinos.
TAG: 9401020186
22 of 123, 9 Terms
mh94 VOTE 94 11/09/1994