 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
BACK TO HEADLINES |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| Indianapolis Star January 9, 2005 Poll: 52% Back Plan for Stadium Loath to expand gambling, Hoosiers like tax option less. By Matthew Tully The city's stadium plan The Star/WTHR (Channel 13) poll surveyed Hoosiers on their feelings about the mayor's stadium proposal and paying for it with gambling revenue. Respondents were provided with some of the basic elements of the plan, including details such as the Colts' agreement to stay in Indianapolis for 30 years and make a contribution of about 10 percent toward the stadium's cost. They were then asked if they support the mayor's plan: • Favor: 52% • Oppose: 42% • Not sure: 6% The poll also asked whether respondents would support a stadium financed in a more traditional way through a sales, income or property tax, provided the Colts made the same 10 percent contribution. • Favor: 24% • Oppose: 71% • Not sure: 4% Note: Number may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: Poll of 805 Hoosiers statewide with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. More from the poll Here are some highlights from The Indianapolis Star/WTHR (Channel 13) poll on gambling and a proposal to pay for a new Downtown Indianapolis stadium with gambling proceeds: Support for the mayor's plan Here is how metropolitan Indianapolis residents responded when asked whether they supported gambling proceeds to fund a new Downtown stadium: • Favor: 55% • Oppose: 40% • Not sure: 5% 49 percent of respondents in northwest Indiana oppose the mayor's plan to pay for a new stadium. That part of the state was the only region where opposition topped support. 72 percent of respondents who gambled on an Indiana riverboat or at a casino elsewhere in the past year support the mayor's plan, while 25 percent oppose it. 49 percent of people who described themselves as born-again Christians support the mayor's plan, while 47 percent oppose it. The gambling debate While Hoosiers support the mayor's plan to pay for a new stadium with gambling proceeds, they are doing it reluctantly. More Hoosiers oppose expanding gambling than favor it: • Favor: 40% • Oppose: 50% • Not sure: 10% The new poll, however, shows more than half of the state's residents have participated in some form of legal gambling in the past year: Played the Indiana lottery: 48% Gambled on an Indiana riverboat: 18% Gambled in a casino somewhere else: 17% Gambled at a horse track or OTB parlor: 8% None of these: 44% 68 percent of respondents 65 and older oppose expanding gambling. Note: Answers are based on responses to questions when poll respondents were provided some additional information about the agreement between the city and the Indianapolis Colts. Source: Poll of 805 Hoosiers statewide with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for the full sample. A majority of Hoosiers like a proposal to finance a new Downtown stadium with revenue from additional slot machines in Indiana, according to an Indianapolis Star-WTHR (Channel 13) poll. Fifty-two percent of poll respondents said they support Mayor Bart Peterson's plan to build a new home for the Indianapolis Colts and other major events, while 42 percent are opposed and 6 percent are not sure. The statewide poll finds that even many who are hesitant to expand gambling are willing to tolerate more slot machines if the money is used for a stadium -- especially if the alternative is an increase in other taxes. "I'd hate to see people in the casino who can't afford it losing their money," said Gary Pierce, a 35-year-old cement truck driver from Cicero in Hamilton County who opposes expanding gambling in the state. Despite his qualms, Pierce supported the idea because the slot-machine taxes would be used at least in part to pay for a new stadium. "We need to keep the Colts," said Pierce, a father of two who was excitedly looking forward to today's playoff game. "If we lose them, we're never going to grow." In the poll, respondents first were asked their initial response to the Peterson plan -- 47 percent supported it and 42 percent were opposed. Support grew after residents were given more details of the proposal -- the Colts would contribute to the stadium's cost and sign a 30-year lease, and the venue would host events such as NCAA basketball tournaments in addition to football. Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, conducted the poll of 805 Indiana adults Monday and Tuesday. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The poll was conducted two weeks after Peterson announced a plan to build an approximately $500 million retractable-roof stadium, relying on taxes imposed on new slot machines. While the city has considered putting the slots in a Downtown Indianapolis casino, state lawmakers are studying bills to locate the machines at horse tracks in Anderson and Shelbyville. The plan has sparked debate in the General Assembly, which has plenty of gambling opponents and must approve any expansion of legalized gambling. Lawmakers predict the negotiations will continue until the session's final hours in April. Peterson's challenge The poll results underscore the difficult task Peterson faced as he worked to craft a stadium-financing package. For instance: • When asked whether gambling opportunities should be expanded in Indiana, but without details about what the money would be used for, 40 percent said yes. Fifty percent said no. • Nearly three-fourths of those surveyed -- 71 percent -- oppose using more traditional taxes, such as those on income and sales, for a stadium. But a majority approves of Peterson's plan, including people across most demographic categories, suggesting the mayor has dodged a public firestorm at the front end of the debate. "It's probably because while this is a tax, it's not tax dollars that are mandatory," Peterson said. "And it's not taking money from any existing revenue stream." The Colts' 12-4 regular season record and quarterback Peyton Manning's record-breaking year probably didn't hurt the proposal, either. There is more support than opposition among both men and women. Support for the plan also crosses income lines. But as the mayor prepares for the uncertainty of the General Assembly debate, there are pockets of opposition. For example, Hoosiers 65 and older oppose the idea 57 percent to 36 percent. While a majority of residents from the Indianapolis metropolitan area and southern Indiana support the mayor's plan, there is opposition in the northwest corner of the state. There, opponents outweigh supporters 49 percent to 46 percent. Although the stadium would be built Downtown, the plan is a statewide issue. Lawmakers from across Indiana will have a vote in the matter. "The solution to this is going to be broad-based," said state Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville. In northwest Indiana, home to several riverboat casinos, lawmakers are warning they don't plan to give Indianapolis everything it wants. State Rep. Ralph Ayres, R-Chesterton, pointed to several transportation issues he and others want addressed this session, possibly in return for supporting the stadium. Among those polled, the region's opposition to the mayor's plan can be traced in part to the area's emotional disconnect from the rest of Indiana. "From a business standpoint, you do nothing for us up here," said Karen Grater, a 53-year-old Valparaiso homemaker. "The politicians seem to make decisions for the southern half of the state and not the northern part." Moreover, populous Lake and Porter counties watch Chicago television stations, listen to Chicago radio and typically root for Chicago teams. "I would say generally people up here affiliate with the Bears," Grater said. The gambling debate Some opponents, however, simply disapprove of gambling. "It is really a tax on the poor," said Ken Elmer, 53, an engineer from Columbus. Gov.-elect Mitch Daniels has raised questions about new gambling, even as he deals with a huge budget deficit and acknowledges the importance of the Colts. "I wouldn't rule anything out, although I've expressed grave doubts about the expansion of gambling, particularly in the heart of our capital city," he said last week. Daniels has expressed concern that Indiana is overly dependent on gambling taxes. According to the most recent annual reports, the state's riverboats, lottery, horse tracks and off-track betting facilities pumped $922 million into the state's coffers. The American Gaming Association says only three other states take in more casino cash than Indiana. Along with that issue, lawmakers plan to look at the social cost of gambling. Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, said about 1 percent of adults in a given year are pathological gamblers, with another 2 percent to 3 percent possibly heading that way. He said studies have found that the surge in legalized gambling hasn't led to more problem gamblers. "But it's probably had an impact on the severity of the problems," he said. Ethel Prater, of Lawrence, doesn't think that will be much of a problem. At 72, she visits Las Vegas as often as possible and insists she wins more than she loses at the slot machines. If lawmakers approve new slots for Central Indiana, Prater said, she would stop going to Las Vegas and instead spend her quarters -- and dollars -- here. "It's an outlet for people," she said. "It gives you a chance to forget your troubles, and it gives you something to do." Call Star reporter Matthew Tully at (317) 444-6033. 
|
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||
 |
|
 |
||||
 |
||||||
 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|