HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 5272 2004-09-27
RESOLUTION NUMBER ?~ 7J-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH IN OPPOSITION TO
PROPOSITION 68, THE GAMING REVENUE ACT OF
2004
1
Whereas, Proposition 68 would authorize the corporate gambling interests bankrolling the
measure (racetrack and card club owners) to operate Las Vegas size casinos' with 30,000 slot
.machines in our cities and suburbs-near 200 schools and already congested streets and
\ freeways; and
Whereas, Proposition 68's backers are deceptively trying to sell their measure as a way to help
the state's fiscal crisis, yet according to the independent, non-partisan Legislative Analyst's
report, not a single dollar generated from Prop. 68 could be used to reduce the state budget
deficit; and
Whereas, until now, slot machines in California have been limited to Indian lands.' But
Proposition 68 would usher in a whole new era of private gambling establishnients, with many of
the new casinos 'larger than the largest casinos in Las Vegas; and
Whereas, the California ,Police Chiefs Association, California State Firefighters'
Association, California District Attorneys Association, and more than 1?0 law enforcement
groups and public safety officials, including more than 30 county sheriffs strongly oppose
Proposition 68 because these huge new casinos would increase crime and traffic, straining
already-stretched local public safety budgets; and
Whereas, Proposition 68 exempts the huge new casino developments from local zoning laws
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thereby undermining local control;
and
1
Whereas, Proposition 68 exempts these card clubs and racetracks from future state and local
tax increases; and '
Whereas, except for the few cities and counties that would host these casinos, Proposition 68
funds cannot be used to reduce existing budget deficits of individual cities and counties, and
the measure denies cities and counties the right to use funds where local governments
determine they are most needed; and
Whereas, according to law enforcement experts, the funding this measure provides for local
police, sheriff and fire departments is "exclusively" for "additional" personnel and cannot be
used for any other purposes such as equipment, support, training" supervision and other
necessary expenditures required to support new personnel; and
Whereas, according to the former California State Auditor General, cities and counties must
use existing budget dollars to establish a baseline or maintenance of effort expenditure for
child protective services, sheriffs, police officers and firefighters to be eligible for any new
funds generated by the measure which could end up worsening local budget problems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HEREBY OPPOSES PROPOSITION 68 AND URGES ITS
STATE LEGISLATORS ALSO OPPOSE SAID PROPOSITION.
I
1
1
I
Resolution Number 5~ I ~
P ASSED APPROV~~TED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach
this Ot 74-i-\ day of 2004 by the following vote:
. '
Council Member{)/)1~ ~/ir~ 1fWH'A"l , ~
Council Members ~
Council Members ~~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
~or
ATTEST:
~~l~
~lerk
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 5~7)-on file in the office
of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by th~e City of Seal
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9-- 7<:.f1-day of ,2004.
~.
rJ-dtL
Ity lerk
4J~A
" '
\'..
. .,~\
.'
'....1" ~
. ~ ,.
.>-; ...
..: .~,
'. .'-'.. -:\
':'~~/
.' ;,~'}-'
, ".....i'i":'
.. '.
,,\?~
. ,
I
',<
.. -:: ~\
~:':'~~;;' '~~~-