Lincoln, Nebraska - progressive? (Omaha, Franklin: to live, fence, price)

[thatguy1]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Further, Nebraskans are not stupid. A person in Scottsbluff knows he will see very little of the benefit. The manner in which the bills were written essentially made gambling legal in Omaha. The point is they weren't fair, so those in western Nebraska wouldn't support it.

Yes, they would benefit via some state taxes, but those taxes would disproportionately benefit Omaha. Further, the revenue produced by gambling is not simply just the gambling...look at the hotels, food, merchandising and etc. Well, Omaha reaps the larger benefit there because of local taxes.

The bottom line is if you would live 6 hours from Omaha I find it very hard to believe that you would be nearly as pro-Omaha casino as you are now. My point is the interests of those in the west are not the same as those in Omaha. Most viewed it as Omaha reaping a benefit with out providing that same ability (to build casinos) to other cities throughout the state. For example, why not Scottsbluff? or Kearney?

There were just all sorts of problems with the bills that were proposed that I believe were ultimately the reason it failed. But they weren't voting against their interests...they were pointing out Omaha's interests were not their own.

That’s exactly my point. If an issue has no effect for given cities, they should not be voting on it. A state-wide casino ban IS outdated.

If cities’ civic leaders feel the benefits of a casino outweigh the negative effects, they should be able to make that decision for themselves.

We don't need the people of Sidney or Scottsbluff telling us whether we need casinos or not.

I think the fact that the main lobbying parties’ being from Vegas is an arbitrary factor on the viability and integrity of an industry.

I'm pretty sure alternative energy (Ethanol in particular) weren't exclusively lobbied through the hands of Nebraskans. I’m pretty sure anyone can make a valid argument as to the cons of the ethanol industry.

That is just the nature of capitalism and the restriction of gambling in Nebraska goes against all fundamental principles of capitalism.

That is Nebraska's main problem. They feel the need to save the people from themselves. People only learn one way and it's definitely not from restricitive lawmaking practices.

[DTO Luv]

Great points in both posts burgerflipper.

[Tom Jefferson]

God Bless the 1800's, solid Republicans and Nebraska, for still holding on to some of the values that made this the Country you can still cry about in public.

[mattpoulsen]

Burger,

Everything you stated I agree with, but that's human nature...its not unique to Nebraska.

Further, the voting bill DID affect western Nebraskans. They weren't getting the same privileges as those being given to Omaha. They wanted a better bill and as a result wouldn't support the one that passed. That, is what politics in general is all about. Its about compromise.

Further, no new laws had to be passed to allow for ethanol production. So regulatory hurdles, maybe, but not fundamental changes to the laws of the state. Its an entirely different issue.

The issues you brought up have existed since the signing of the Articles of Confederation. But its a state law that needs changed and everyone in the state should be voting, the point is those in Omaha/Lincoln need to propose a compromised bill. Again, why not allow for gambling in Kearney and Scottsbluff?? You say it doesn't affect them but I don't see how that's the case.

[DTO Luv]

If they want to have gambling out there fine, but most of the money isn't going to come from there.

[thatguy1]

I guess my main point was that each local governent should be trusted to make these decisions with a local vote. If they want gambling in western Nebraska, thats great. They should take a vote.

I also think our legislature does a great deal of "reverse lobbying" of their own. I think they have decent intentions, they just have very little logic.

[mattpoulsen]

I think a casino in western Nebraska would actually be relatively successful. It could pull from Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and etc. And let's face it...its not like casinos built in the middle of nowhere haven't been successful.

The whole point is those in western Nebraska would like an opportunity to take advantage of the issue just like those in Eastern Nebraska want to. A casino in Kearney or Scottsbluff would bring in jobs, tax revenue, and all the same economic benefits had by those in Omaha.

Why exactly can't there be both?? This was a major major gripe when the last bill was presented. And if you reverse the roles then all of Omaha would have voted against it. Again, that's how the political system works. Present a fair bill and provide some compromise and it would have passed. If I remember correctly it wasn't a landslide.

Burger, I agree with you. They should legalize gambling and let each locality choose on their own. The problem is that's not what the most recent bill proposed. It was basically for legalizing gambling in Omaha. It was simply a poor attempt by the legislature. My point is if they present a fair one, like the one you suggest, I believe it would pass.

[DTO Luv]

Further proof of how unprogressive NE is. Trying to have seperate, but equal laws.

[itsMeFred]

I'm failing to see how this is "separate but equal."

care to elucidate?

[DTO Luv]

If the legislators knew that it would just be easier to legalize casinos statewide, then why put forth two bills that pit areas against each other? They let their own bias get in the way and set it up to fail. That's extremely slanted and unfair. If they can't even make fair bills with the chance of something they don't agree with passing then how can you argue that this is a fair, much less progressive, place?