< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
At first I was tempted to support Amendment 33, which
would put electronic slot machines, or video lottery
terminals,
at Colorado's racetracks, with $25 million
of the annual proceeds guaranteed to go to promoting
tourism.
According to its supporters, Amendment 33 would
support Colorado's economy and environment.
Now who,
other than a Republican in state government (our economy
and environment both seem to have deteriorated during total
GOP control), could be against that?
There are some troubling connections here, though. Colorado has five racetracks, either dog or horse. They're in Loveland, Commerce City, Aurora, Colorado Springs and Pueblo. A British company, Wembley, owns all except Cloverleaf in Loveland.
Wembley is spending $10 million to promote Amendment 33, which explains the glossy bulk-mail fliers, as well as those folksy TV ads that feature tourism entrepreneurs while denouncing the greedy mountain-town casinos for not wanting to share their bounty.
In Rhode Island, though, a federal grand jury has indicted two Wembley officials for attempting to influence legislation in another way -- bribery. Wembley owns the Lincoln Park racetrack there.
The two Wembley officials are accused of making illegal payments of $4.5 million to a law firm in Pawtucket. One of the law firm's partners, John Harwood, is a state representative. The indictment charges that the payments were for his support of expanding the number of video lottery terminals, and for his opposition to a law that would have allowed a new Indian casino.
They're innocent until proven guilty, and Wembley's
Colorado press agent, Lyena Hansen, says that We believe
most Coloradans will see through this for what it is, a
narrow and targeted issue in Rhode Island.
Suppose she's right, and a majority of us agree that we want a British company running some Front Range casinos. It should, after all, cut down on traffic to the three mountain towns -- Cripple Creek, Black Hawk and Central City -- which currently cater to people whose idea of a good time is to stare at a machine while inserting money.
And then there's the promised $25 million a year to
promote Colorado tourism. According to the pro-33
propaganda, Colorado has slipped in its popularity as a
tourist destination ever since a state marketing program
was abolished in 1993. This is costing $2.3 billion a year
in economic activity, or so they say. Counting what
might have been
isn't exactly reliable.
Even so, they say that if we started spending $25
million a year on tourism marketing, we'd all benefit from
growth in what they're calling a clean industry.
I enjoy being a tourist as much as the next guy when I
leave town for a few days, and as is the case with most of
us in mountain towns, some of my livelihood comes at least
indirectly from tourism. But with that said, let's quit
pretending that tourism is a clean industry,
or even
an especially desirable one.
Here's a simple demonstration on cleanliness. Start with
a dirty industry,
such as mining. From Interstate
70, turn south on Colo. 91 at Wheeler Junction (sometimes
called Copper Mountain
by the unsophisticated) and
drive over Frémont Pass to Leadville. You'll pass
gigantic tailings ponds left by Climax Molybdenum, as well
as the remnants of the big mine on the Continental Divide.
Down the hill, the east side of Leadville -- the Fryer Hill
area -- is one of the most intensively mined places on
earth.
Yet all this affects perhaps 50 square miles. Now
consider the course of I-70 from Idaho Springs to Glenwood
Springs -- 120 miles through a broad corridor of
environmental degradation, almost all of it resulting from
the clean tourism industry.
Also note that even with Colorado's alleged decline as a tourist destination, I-70 is already so crowded that the state is looking into expansion possibilities -- more noise, more exhaust, more strip malls, more fragmentation of wildlife habitat, etc.
If Referendum 33 succeeded, it certainly wouldn't improve that situation.
Tourism also offers low-paying seasonal jobs that seldom provide benefits, and we've been reading about how the rising number of Coloradans without health insurance -- something that affects everyone here. Referendum 33 doesn't address that problem. either.
So even if Referendum 33 did what its supporters say it
will do -- bring in a lot more tourists -- we'd merely end
up with more low-paying seasonal jobs along overcrowded
highways. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as a way to
improve our environment and economy.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >