Gambling bill should be left to die

In years past, Californians built or invented their way out of poor financial situations and while our economy is not perfect, it alone is one of the top 10 in the world.

Still, every now and then, there are proposals that seek ways for the monied few to prey on the weak rather than build on our ingenuity to help salvage a fragile economic situation.

This is the case with Assembly Bill 2409, authored by Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Leland Yee, D-San Francisco. The bill seeks to create a new way of gambling at race tracks across the state by allowing gamblers to place money on recorded races without knowing the identity of the horse or where the race originally occurred. Races can be bet on every 20 to 45 seconds. Critics contend that the devices are a way to sidestep the state’s ban on slot machines since the devices change the way gamblers can bet at tracks while Yee’s office sticks to its guns and said the Legislative Counsel of California ruled the devices are not an expansion of gambling.

Either way one looks at it, the devices aim to add more money to the pockets of those who operate the tracks with a percentage going to the city government and less in the pocket of the people in the communities where the race tracks are.

Californian horse racing was once a glamorous and exciting industry, but it has been dying for years and its track owners are forced to look for new ways to keep it viable.

In San Mateo, the owners of Bay Meadows continually expressed interest in expanding gambling at the track as a way to keep it operating. In 1995, voters shot down a proposal to create a card room at Bay Meadows and in 2004, California voters — including those in San Mateo County — overwhelmingly rejected a state proposition that would have allowed slot machines at race tracks.

With an acknowledgement that the city leadership and the majority of San Mateo residents who elected them do not like the idea of expanded gambling at Bay Meadows, the track’s ownership underwent a public planning process to redevelop the track’s 83.5-acre site into a combination of housing, offices and commercial development near the Caltrain station. It would be an example of smart growth that seeks to create much-needed housing next to public transit as a way to get people out of their cars and provide opportunities for those who cannot afford the escalating price of real estate. While the redevelopment is not the panacea to the county’s housing and traffic congestion woes, it is an ambitious and resourceful step in the right direction. Indeed, if our county economy as a whole is to remain strong, it just may be smart-growth initiatives like the Bay Meadows redevelopment that help lead the way.

Yee’s office contends that his bill does not necessarily preclude the redevelopment, but rather adds a source of revenue in the short term. However, his office seems to be dramatically out of touch with the San Mateo leadership who have strongly pronounced their opposition to any form of enhanced gambling at the track. Obviously, the bill has a broader scope and seeks to aid the dying horse racing industry across the state. However, the bill is not only bad for San Mateo, it is bad for our state. If horse racing is dying, then let it die in a dignified manner. Our state needs to be adroit with helping the industry rather than creating a new monster that preys on those who seek comfort in the temporary excitement the prospect of winning money from a machine brings while slowly losing money they may not afford to lose. We as Californians can do better.

Yee’s bill was postponed to bring about more discussion of the issue. Let’s hope the discussion begins with Yee finding out more about what this community needs and wants rather than delivering a condescending lecture on what will be to our benefit. The people of San Mateo are sophisticated enough to understand that a new form of gambling on races of the past is a way to expand gambling at race tracks regardless of a state legislative counsel’s ruling. We do not need to be sold on a bill that was the brainchild of lobbyists.

Yee is taking some positive steps in meeting with the elected leadership in San Mateo — the people he is likely to represent in the Senate next year. We are encouraged by his willingness to introduce himself to the issues that affect us and hope he will allow this misguided and foolish bill to languish in legislative no man’s land. Any other conclusion will create a contentious relationship between Yee and San Mateo’s leadership that will benefit no one.<