 |
Recent NewsNewest video features MCK chiefs and Rama councillor originally a ‘no’ during his community’s referendum04/24/2012Electoral Officer issues statement re: petition04/20/2012Past Two Referendums" The first proposal was presented as MCK-owned and operated, on behalf of the community. " 1994 ReferendumDate: July 1994 Proposed by: The Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke. A management partner pre-selected and provided expertise (and funding) for the actual referendum campaign. Proposed Location:Unspecified. Ownership: This first proposal was presented as MCK-owned and operated, on behalf of the community. It would have seen 100% of the revenues be distributed to and by the MCK, on behalf of the community. Results: Referendum was held concurrently with the MCK Election, with 51% voting 'no', defeating the proposal. YES Campaign: "Tsiron Hen" ("Say Yes') T-Shirts and the slogan "Proud Past, Bright Future" were very prominent in the Community. Communtiy members worked with a professional Public Relations firm for the YES campaign. At the time, there was no 'desperate' financial Community need for the casino, but it was considered as a way to end Kahnawà:ke's financial dependence on the government and increase jurisdiction and improve our capabilities in this area. Job creation and potential economic spin-offs were touted as other reasons to vote 'yes' . NO Campaign: Consisted of "CasiNO" t-shirts. The No side felt that there was really no financial need for the Community, possible negative social impacts and did not like the fact that the MCK would receive all revenues on behalf of the Community without any individual dividends. Additionally, there is a certain percentage of the population that is fundementally against gaming and/or specifically a casino. 2003 ReferendumDate: 2003. The MCK announced in August that a Referendum would be held in October of that year, with Tewatohnhi'saktha as the proponent. " ...Kahnawà:ke needed to dramatically increase its own source of revenue if services were to be improved or, at least, maintained.. " Proposed by: Tewatohnhi'saktha, whose main goal was to create Community-owned businesses. Their assessment was that a Community-owned casino was the most viable and that the 1994 Referendum result was very close, that a second one be proposed. It was becoming clear that Kahnawà:ke needed to dramatically increase its own source of revenue if services were to be improved or, at least, maintained. Casinos Austria was pre-selected as the management partner. They would have built the casino with 100% of their own money, with no risk to the Community. They would have managed the casino until a return on their investment was achieved and then turn over 100% management control back to Kahnawà:ke and have no remaining interest on the facility. Proposed Location: Lot 106 (South Texas). At the time, there was no formal decision to officially declare that the area would be set aside for housing. Ownership: Tewatohnhi'saktha had indicated that the MCK would receive 40% on behalf of the Community and Tewatohnhi'saktha would receive 40% for further business development with 20% put back into casino operations. The casino would have been 100% Community owned, through Tewatohnhi'satha, with Community profits going to both organizations on behalf of the Community. Results: Once again, the proposal was defeated. This time it was approximately 53% that voted 'no.' YES campaign: There was no 'Yes' campaign, rather, an office staffed by four people was set-up to answer Community questions. Reason given to support the proposal included Job Creation, increased service delivery and less dependence on outside governments. No Campaign: The NO side engaged in a very vigorous campaign. At the time, the local economy was described as being fairly healthy. The MCK was described as financially stable, as were most other Community organizations. reasons given to vote 'no' included unknown social impact fears, lack of information on details of the partnership agreement, location, and MCK/Tewatohnhi'saktha control of the project. Location was a big factor as some Community members did not want to see land that could be used for housing used for a casino. Commonalities: No individual dividends were proposed in either casino project, though a dividend was proposed by Tewatohnhi'saktha toward the end of the 2003 referendum campaign.
Why a Casino? |
 |