It
alternated between apologetically shuffling its feet and
furtively glancing back over its shoulder, eastward. But
it also made promises -- all kinds of promises -- about
'oh, how well it would behave,' and 'oh, how much money
it would raise.'
Money for our kids' education. Money to pay
the bills. Money for high culture in the Silver State.
Money for all the good things of life.
Free money.
All Nevada had to do, it pleaded, was just
give it a chance. Just let it into the house, it said,
and we'd see how very very good it could be.
Now, six decades later, the gambling biz no
longer stands hat in hand on Nevada's doorstep, seeking
approval. Now it stands astride the state, an
arrogant behemoth, before which all institutions in the
state now ritually bend the knee.
But don't think that the gambling biz has
forgotten the Nevada taxpayers to whom they once promised
so much. No indeed. The casinos have plans for
Nevada taxpayers.
Under a recipe being pushed furtively (some
things never change) at the 1997 Legislature, money is
now to be routed from the pockets of Nevada taxpayers
|
into those of the
Nevada gambling industry's Grand Poobahs.
The scheme is this: To continue expanding,
casinos (and developers) need a guaranteed water supply
big enough for their plans. To get that amount of water,
they'll need -- and so have prepared -- the Southern
Nevada Water Authority's proposed water-treatment and
transportation project.
However, at an estimated cost of $1.7 billion,
that project -- designed to raise total water delivered
to the Las Vegas Valley from Lake Mead to over a billion
gallons a day -- would be, experts say, the most
expensive water project ever built in the U.S. without
federal subsidy. And so casinos are now at the front of a
coalition asking the state legislators to raise Clark
County sales taxes to help pay for the project.
Of course, the casinos and the developers who
have such a vested interest in the water project most
likely could finance it themselves, through industrial
revenue bonds. But that would mean that they,
rather than taxpayers, would run the financial risks of
their project. Far more appealing is the other
|