Indian Casinos Establishing a Foothold in State
June 30, 2004

The Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma is poised to purchase real estate in the Ohio town of Botkins. The Tribe is prepared to purchase 83 acres in the town from a private owner, and an additional 50 acres currently owned by the village. Purchasing the land will be the first step towards establishing a casino in Ohio. Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, a tribe must be federally recognized and have land (either a reservation or land held in trust for the tribe) in order to operate a gaming facility. The Eastern Shawnee will seek to have the 133 acres, strategically located near I-75, placed into trust – a necessary step in opening a casino.

The Tribe was expected to purchase the 83-acre parcel on Tuesday, June 22, 2004, and plans have already been drawn up to sell the village's 50-acre parcel for $600,000. The president of National Capitol I, Tom Schnippel, feels the Botkins village council has been supportive of the proposed casino, and expects the sale to be approved. If the casino is established, the Tribe has a tentative agreement with Botkins for the village to receive 2% of the casino's annual gaming revenues. Under this agreement, the village's first payment is expected to total approximately $3.5 million, an amount nearly double the village's current budget of $1.94 million.

Since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, no out-of-state tribe has been successful in getting off-reservation land placed in government trust for the purpose of gaming. The Tribe feels that, because the Shawnee once lived in this area, they have a legitimate claim to the lands.

Back to top

Casinos Will Revive Downtowns
June 30, 2004

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio should allow casino gaming – but not in race tracks or Indian casinos. In an editorial the Plain Dealer advanced the premise that by legalizing wide-open gaming, Ohio's major cities would be able to attract casinos and develop gaming zones. According to the editorial, these gaming areas would make Ohio a legitimate travel destination, attracting visitors and conventions from around the world. While recent proposals to allow slot machines in racetracks would provide extra revenue for the state, the editorial suggested that Ohio cities would not benefit as much as if open gaming were simply made legal and if Ohio doesn't move soon, Indian casinos will develop in rural areas and limit the market for new gaming centers in downtowns. Casinos are revitalizing downtown Detroit, and the editorial maintains that there's no reason why they shouldn't work in Ohio cities as well.

Back to top

Update on Indian Gaming in Ohio
June 18, 2004

National Capitol I, Inc., which is negotiating on behalf of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma for a Native American casino in the Shelby County village of Botkins, is also looking at potential sites in Middletown, Ohio. Warren County elected officials are worried that an Indian casino in Middletown would strain infrastructures to the breaking point – increasing traffic congestion, and depleting medical and social service resources. Several Middletown elected officials suggested that any decision regarding an Indian casino in their city should be voted upon by local residents.

The Eastern Shawnees already operate a casino and a bank in Oklahoma. They have been recognized by the Federal government as a Tribe since 1939. To get their casino, the Tribe must first file an Ohio land claim. This would allow them to operate a "Class II" casino, which would offer games already legal in Ohio, such as lotteries, pull-tab games, and bingo. If the Ohio General Assembly approves a constitutional amendment, to be placed on before the voters on a ballot, that would allow VLT's in racetracks, and the voters approve the amendment, then the Tribe could offer those games as well, making it a "Class III" casino. To operate a Class III casino, the Tribe would need to have a financial compact with the state. The compact is an agreement on how the profits would be shared with the state. The state would be required to approve the compact.

The president of National Capitol I, Inc., Tom Schnippel, recently announced that he is launching a statewide public relations campaign to put pressure on Gov. Bob Taft and other elected officials who are opposed to casino gaming. The Eastern Shawnee Tribe announced that it would be willing to invest up to $2 billion in Ohio casinos. If the casinos are built, they will be managed by a Las Vegas-based gaming company.

Back to top

Bill Calls For Increased Gaming Profits
June 18, 2004

The House and Senate agreed on a bill, House Bill 325, to provide relief to veterans and fraternal organizations in the form of increased profits from gaming revenues. The new bill allows these organizations to keep 75% of the first $75,000 of net profits, and requires that 25% of the first $75,000 be donated to charity. After that, the organizations may are permitted to keep 45% of the net profits from gaming, and must donate 55% to charities. The $75,000 figure is set to adjust annually for inflation. In addition, veterans and fraternal organizations would be permitted to sell instant bingo tickets for 12 hours each day. Currently, they can only sell tickets for 10 hours a day.

A spokesperson for Gov. Taft said that the Governor is pleased with several of the changes. The changes were agreed upon by both the House and the Senate, and the proposal is now before the Governor for approval or veto.

Back to top

VLTs Voted Down
June 18, 2004

House members voted 57-40 against a plan to install video lottery terminals (VLTs) at Ohio's racetracks (60 votes were required to pass the measure). The plan would have put a constitutional amendment allowing VLT's on the November ballot. Officials representing racetrack interests said they were unsure whether the racetracks would seek to collect the signatures necessary to get the issue on the ballot. Various Ohio educational associations are opposed to the plan – saying that casinos will give voters a false sense of security in their school district's financial outlook, and will lead them to vote against education operating levies.

Back to top