Resolution 13769CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 7 6 9
OPPOSING PROPOSITION 68,
GAMING REVENUE ACT OF 2004
WHEREAS, Prop. 68 would authorize racetrack and card club owners, to
operate casinos with 30,000 slot machines in California cities and suburbs; and
WHEREAS, Prop. 68's backers are advocating their measure as a way to help
the state's fiscal crisis, yet according to the Legislative Analyst's report, no money generated
from Prop. 68 could be used to reduce the state budget deficit; and
WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association, California State
Firefighters' Association, California District Attorneys Association, and other law
enforcement groups and public safety officials, strongly oppose Prop. 68 because the
new casinos would increase crime and traffic, straining already - stretched local public
safety budgets; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities opposes Prop. 68 because it
exempts the new casino developments from local zoning laws and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thereby undermining local control; and 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, Prop.
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 Alameda hereby opposes Proposition 68.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting of the City Council
on the 5th day of October, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmember
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: Councilmembers Daysog and Kerr - 2.
s Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Jo
son - 3.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
6th day of October, 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City ,Ci
City of Alameda