Ski-Blog.com

Ski Blog... Been doing this since 2005!

« Mammoth Cuts 101 Jobs | Main | Ski Industry Retail Sales Down - But Not as Bad as It Could Be (h/t FTO) »

January 29, 2009

Casino Revenue in AZ Down--How Do They Fund SCOTUS Case Against Snowbowl Now

A little note on Indian Gaming revenue:

Revenue plunged at Arizona's 22 Indian casinos during the fourth quarter, as the worsening recession kept gamblers away from the tribes' gaming tables and slot machines.

Based on fees paid to the state, the casinos' combined revenue was down 16 percent, marking the biggest quarterly drop since Arizona Indian gaming was legalized in 1993.

"People are saving their money," said Sheila Morago, executive director of the Arizona Indian Gaming Association.

The casinos don't break out revenue figures on a quarterly basis.

I guess the Sierra Club will have to make up the difference if WMA, Navajo, and Hopi gaming revenue falls... Actually, only the WMA tribe has casinos if I remember right.

I was reading a book the other day The Millionaire Mind and it talked about gambling and how almost all of the successful millionaires surveyed for the book did not gamble. Indian Casinos are especially problematic in my mind because they don't face nearly the regulation that Vegas and other casinos do.

I won't rant too much about it, but I took notice of the situation when the WMA tribe started using casino money to fight Snowbowl's snowmaking. It is their right to do, even though I disagree with their legal footing. The WMA tribe fundamentally bothers me that they run casinos and a ski resort and use the the funds from these businesses to fight Snowbowl on religious freedom grounds.

Posted by Justin at January 29, 2009 04:57 PM

Comments

Please correct the gaming remark. You mention that Navajo, Hopi and WMA have casinos, then backtrack on your words realizing that only the WMA have them. More likely that was your intent to misinform so kudos to your effort.

I remember when all white citizens of AZ took part in the genocide of forcibly removing Indian children from their Indian lands beginning in the late 1800s until 1978, oh wait, actually only some whites did that.

Posted by: Isaac at October 23, 2010 08:30 PM

I didn't backtrack. It is a rhetorical device. You lose the context of the fact that the other tribes continue to fund ongoing lawsuits but lack the revenue streams necessary to do so.

Where does the money for the lawsuit come from? Couldn't the money Joe Shirley is spending be better used somewhere else?

Posted by: Justin B at October 23, 2010 10:29 PM