Nevada casinos have been facing the threat from California tribal gaming for years. Having a large property within an hour's drive from San Francisco ups this by a couple of notches. The San Francisco area has around 11 million people. Having a large gaming property within a 60-90 minute drive can not be good news to Lake Tahoe and Reno casino properties.
The Casino Journal reports "after years of planning and 16 months of construction, Graton Resort
& Casino officially opened its doors to the public earlier this
week. The $800‐million facility is the closest full‐service casino to
the Bay Area, and ushers in a new level of sophistication and excitement
to Northern California." The property will have 3,000 slot machines and almost 150 table games, along with over a dozen restaurants. This is a big operation and will definitely draw, in my opinion.
What is new is that with this property near San Francisco, this property might draw customers that would have traveled to other Northern California tribal casinos. A previous post regarding a tribal property near a large metro area is here. Do not be surprised if more tribes will attempt to build facilities as close as possible to the major population centers. That effort might run into trouble with regard to on/off reservation regulations regarding properties, historical lands and the like, but with so much money in gambling, the trend is set. Another post regarding tribal casino economic impact can be found here and a post highlighting the strong competition California tribal gaming is to Nevada casinos is here.
I've discussed earlier what Reno and Lake Tahoe casinos could do to combat this threat. It is controversial in nature, but desperate threats could make controversial solutions more palatable. To learn about what Nevada casinos could do to differentiate themselves from California casinos, read this post.
Showing posts with label Indian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indian. Show all posts
Friday, November 15, 2013
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Tribal Casino Lowers Gambling Age
UpperMichiganSource.com reports that the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians has lowered the minimum gambling age at its Odawa Casino from 21 to 19. The change should be implemented by the end of the year.
It is apparent that there was no restriction from the State in order for the tribe to make this operational change to the casino on its tribal lands. However, the change did have to go through the tribal council. The Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians Tribal Council passed the bill and it was signed into law by Tribal Chairman Ken Harrington.
Since legal age of adulthood is 18, it may be only a matter of time for minimum gambling ages to be lowered to 18. In several jurisdictions, you can play the state lottery at 18, but not in a casino until 21. So, the age restriction for casinos may not be as much in order to protect innocent youth as opposed to the providing the state lottery the best chance to grab as much money out of a young adult's wallet.
It would be expected that tribes that have this latitude to change the minimum age to gamble to eliminate this state advantage, but not to lower the age below 18. Generally, the minimum age to gamble is in the 18 to 21 range, although in Missouri, a person as young as 16 can play charity bingo.
It is apparent that there was no restriction from the State in order for the tribe to make this operational change to the casino on its tribal lands. However, the change did have to go through the tribal council. The Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians Tribal Council passed the bill and it was signed into law by Tribal Chairman Ken Harrington.
Since legal age of adulthood is 18, it may be only a matter of time for minimum gambling ages to be lowered to 18. In several jurisdictions, you can play the state lottery at 18, but not in a casino until 21. So, the age restriction for casinos may not be as much in order to protect innocent youth as opposed to the providing the state lottery the best chance to grab as much money out of a young adult's wallet.
It would be expected that tribes that have this latitude to change the minimum age to gamble to eliminate this state advantage, but not to lower the age below 18. Generally, the minimum age to gamble is in the 18 to 21 range, although in Missouri, a person as young as 16 can play charity bingo.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Arizona Tribal Gaming Revenue Stablizing
Unlike the continuing trouble with Nevada gaming, the tribal gaming properties in neighboring states are somewhat stable. Casino Gambling Web reports that current gambling revenue for the quarter will come in at around $22 million, about 1% higher than the same period last year, reversing the declining revenue trend of the last couple of years due to the economy.
The tribal properties in Arizona pay differing tax rates, depending on their compact with the state. The article states that there are 22 tribal gaming properties in Arizona, with each property paying a tax rate that varies between 1% and 8%, again depending on the compact.
Since Arizona stirred up controversy and a boycott due to its illegal immigration law, that seems to have not had a huge negative impact on gaming revenues.
The tribal properties in Arizona pay differing tax rates, depending on their compact with the state. The article states that there are 22 tribal gaming properties in Arizona, with each property paying a tax rate that varies between 1% and 8%, again depending on the compact.
Since Arizona stirred up controversy and a boycott due to its illegal immigration law, that seems to have not had a huge negative impact on gaming revenues.
Friday, November 27, 2009
How Far Off-Reservation Should Off-Reservation Indian Casinos Be?
The Associated Press reports on the cases of Indian tribes looking to off-reservation locales for new tribal casino properties. There have been some of these off-reservation locales applications in the past, usually involving tribes that have recently obtained federal recognition and needed to acquire lands for a reservation. Some of these locations could be located near lucrative population centers.
However, there are instances of tribes with reservations located great distances from population centers attempting to locate casino properties within close proximity to those sources of customers (i.e. you and me). The story discloses that the Bush administration decided that these off-reservation casinos could only be within commuting distance of the reservation. That seems like a reasonable restriction. The Bush administration, for example, rejected 20 applications for off-reservation casinos, one an astounding 1,400 miles from the reservation. Fourteen hundred miles? Well, you can't blame the tribe for trying!
Well there's a new administration in Washington, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is reconsidering the commuting distance rule. If the rule is overturned, and tribes can extend their casino properties far from their reservations, tribal casinos could be even more of a threat to non-tribal casino properties. What if tribes could have off-reservation casinos on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, the Gaslamp District in San Diego or Times Square in NYC?
There are two options in case this rule is amended. The first deals with the recently recognized tribes and tribes with no casinos yet established. The former will of course try and locate their new reservations as close to population centers as possible, but that wouldn't be required. The latter would be tribes with reservations in very sparsely populated, remote areas. It doesn't make sense to locate a casino on those lands as there is no customer base. They will be able to locate their new casino wherever they can obtain land.
The second option deals with tribes that have smaller, and perhaps not optimally located casinos. Those tribes might want to relocate their casino to a better location, closer to larger population centers. Why keep a location when a better location might be feasible? A recent post discussed the closing of a tribal casino, one not located in a prime locale.
If this change occurs, non-tribal casinos will be in even more peril. As discussed in a previous post, Nevada casinos have been suffering due to competition from California-based Indian casinos. Ceasar's Palace can't move from the Las Vegas Strip to LA, but tribal casinos might be able to do just that. This rule, if liberally modified, could open the door to Nevada casinos getting hurt to a much greater degree than what is happening now.
However, there are instances of tribes with reservations located great distances from population centers attempting to locate casino properties within close proximity to those sources of customers (i.e. you and me). The story discloses that the Bush administration decided that these off-reservation casinos could only be within commuting distance of the reservation. That seems like a reasonable restriction. The Bush administration, for example, rejected 20 applications for off-reservation casinos, one an astounding 1,400 miles from the reservation. Fourteen hundred miles? Well, you can't blame the tribe for trying!
Well there's a new administration in Washington, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is reconsidering the commuting distance rule. If the rule is overturned, and tribes can extend their casino properties far from their reservations, tribal casinos could be even more of a threat to non-tribal casino properties. What if tribes could have off-reservation casinos on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, the Gaslamp District in San Diego or Times Square in NYC?
There are two options in case this rule is amended. The first deals with the recently recognized tribes and tribes with no casinos yet established. The former will of course try and locate their new reservations as close to population centers as possible, but that wouldn't be required. The latter would be tribes with reservations in very sparsely populated, remote areas. It doesn't make sense to locate a casino on those lands as there is no customer base. They will be able to locate their new casino wherever they can obtain land.
The second option deals with tribes that have smaller, and perhaps not optimally located casinos. Those tribes might want to relocate their casino to a better location, closer to larger population centers. Why keep a location when a better location might be feasible? A recent post discussed the closing of a tribal casino, one not located in a prime locale.
If this change occurs, non-tribal casinos will be in even more peril. As discussed in a previous post, Nevada casinos have been suffering due to competition from California-based Indian casinos. Ceasar's Palace can't move from the Las Vegas Strip to LA, but tribal casinos might be able to do just that. This rule, if liberally modified, could open the door to Nevada casinos getting hurt to a much greater degree than what is happening now.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Further Evidence Smoking Bans Harmful To Gambling Revenues
Several months ago, I posted on the topic of smoking bans playing into the hands of online gambling operators, to the detriment of land-based casino operations. The data from Illinois showed gambling revenues down approximately 20% after the smoking ban took effect. Montana has recently implemented a similar ban and the gambling revenue impacts are similar. According to the story by MontanaNewsStation.com, gambling revenues across the state are down 16% to 18%, just after one month. This is in line with the experience from Illinois casinos.
In my original post, I made the point that online gambling venues may benefit as if someone could smoke in their home and gamble might be a more attractive option than traveling to a smoke-free casino. Play the same games at home and smoke if you want.
In Montana, the competition can be online gambling, but a more clearly defined alternative is the tribally-owned casino in Montana. Tribally-owned casinos are exempt from the smoking ban as reported by the Flathead Beacon. According to a related story by the Great Falls Tribune, "some businesses on the state's Indian Reservations, which are not subject to the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act, are now marketing to people who like to have a cigarette with their cup of coffee, meal or adult beverage or while gambling - indoors."
What Montana has done in addition to eliminating smoking in more indoor venues is actually provide a sustainable competitive advantage to the state's tribal casinos, to the detriment of the other gaming competition. That likely wasn't an objective.
Most legislative bodies are chock full of lawyers. But like most lawyers, there is one law that they haven't been schooled in and continually run afoul of - the law of unintended consequences.
In my original post, I made the point that online gambling venues may benefit as if someone could smoke in their home and gamble might be a more attractive option than traveling to a smoke-free casino. Play the same games at home and smoke if you want.
In Montana, the competition can be online gambling, but a more clearly defined alternative is the tribally-owned casino in Montana. Tribally-owned casinos are exempt from the smoking ban as reported by the Flathead Beacon. According to a related story by the Great Falls Tribune, "some businesses on the state's Indian Reservations, which are not subject to the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act, are now marketing to people who like to have a cigarette with their cup of coffee, meal or adult beverage or while gambling - indoors."
What Montana has done in addition to eliminating smoking in more indoor venues is actually provide a sustainable competitive advantage to the state's tribal casinos, to the detriment of the other gaming competition. That likely wasn't an objective.
Most legislative bodies are chock full of lawyers. But like most lawyers, there is one law that they haven't been schooled in and continually run afoul of - the law of unintended consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
