For the hundreds of thousands of Californians who may be befuddled by the four Indian gaming casino propositions on Tuesday’s primary ballot, here is an insider’s view that has not yet been aired.
Twenty-eight years ago, Larry Zeidman of Culver City founded the L.A. Slot Machines Co., which grew into a multi-million-dollar international enterprise.
As the name of Mr. Zeidman’s company unabashedly announces, he is in the business of providing slot machines to casinos across the world.
The propositions call for the four Indian tribes to install exponentially more slot machines at their casinos, which would figure to bolster sales for L.A. Slots.
Still, Mr. Zeidman opposes them.
His seemingly counter-intuitive opinion on Props. 94, 95, 96 and 97 — which promise the state tens of millions of dollars in increased revenues over a period of many years — is as unshakeable as it is surprising.
Explaining Stance
“Even though I would profit if the propositions are approved,” Mr. Zeidman said this morning, “I am definitely against the four propositions. They are poorly written. We can do better.”
A not-incidental provision that would extend the state’s present compact with the Indian tribes by 10 years, to 2030, only would worsen an already undesirable, unequal arrangement, the Culver City entrrepreneur maintains.
“Other states have much better deals with their Indian gaming casinos than California does,” Mr. Zeidman said.
“We can do better than these propositions if they are written to genuinely improve the imbalance that exists.
A Huge Difference
“In other states, 25 to 40 percent of profits go into the General Fund of the state. In California, none does. In that respect, advertising by those favoring the propositions is misleading. They say the Indian casinos would contribute ‘more’ to California’s General Fund.
“Actually, that is not accurate. It implies the casinos already are contributing now to the General Fund. They are not.”
Control of revenue information is another area that distinguishes California from other states. “All slot machines today are capable of going online and reporting profits, by the minute, to a central computer,” Mr. Zeidman said.
But that is not the case in California where the Indian casinos would retain 100 percent control of their books, without any Sacramento oversight.
Would Change be Noticeable?
Mr. Zeidman indicated the pendulum that long has favored the Indian casinos in California might swing slightly back toward the state if the propositions pass. “But the wording is too vague” to assure more than minimal progress.
He said that since the Indian casino concept first arose during the administration of Gov. Pete Wilson in Sacramento in the early 1990s, Indian interests have, indisputably, held the upper hand. “The Indians won so many battles in the courts,” he said. “I thought the agreement was going to be 25 percent. But nothing ever was implemented.”
