Laserfiche WebLink
12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />171 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />RESOLUTION NO. R-109-04 <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE COLTON CITY COUNCIL <br />OPPOSING PROPOSITION NO.68 – THE GAMING <br />REVENUE ACT OF 2004. <br />Whereas, Prop. 68 would authorize the corporate gambling interests bankrolling the <br />measure to operate Las Vegas size casinos with 30,000 slot machines in our cities and <br />suburbs—near an estimated 200 schools and already congested streets and freeways; and <br />Whereas, Prop. 68's backers are deceptively trying to sell their measure as a way to <br />help the state's fiscal crisis and according to the independent reports, not a single dollar <br />generated from Prop. 68 could be used to reduce the state budget deficit; and <br />Whereas, until now, California has limited slot machines to Indian lands, but Prop. 68 <br />would bring private gambling establishments with many new casinos larger than the largest <br />casinos in Las Vegas; and <br />Whereas, the California Police Chiefs Association, California State Firefighters' <br />Association, California District Attorneys Association, and over 130 law enforcement groups <br />and public safety officials, including more than 30 county sheriffs strongly oppose Prop. 68 <br />because of the estimated increases in crime and traffic which will further strain our over <br />burdened local public safety budgets; and <br />Whereas, Prop. 68 exempts the huge new casino developments from local zoning <br />laws and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), thereby undermining local <br />control; and <br />Whereas, the Prop. 68 exempts these casino developments from future state and <br />local tax increases; and <br />Whereas, except for the few cities and counties that would host these casinos, <br />Prop. 68 funds cannot be used to reduce existing budget deficits of individual cities and <br />counties, and <br />