There were valid reasons for a no vote on the casino referendum.

I write in response to the guest column from Penobscot Nation Chief Barry Dana asserting that we made a grave mistake in voting no on the tribal casino referendum.

It would be easy to dismiss Chief Dana’s statement as sour grapes from someone who would have been instantly wealthy if the vote had been yes.

But about 175,000 Mainers joined Chief Dana in voting yes. They deserve a more thoughtful statement of why more than 300,000 of us were opposed to this project. We aren’t racists; we are not waging class warfare; and we weren’t duped, as Barry Dana alleges. There were good and compelling reasons to vote no.

No competitive bids

As proposed, the people of Maine were asked to give up their right to prohibit and regulate casino gambling in Maine in exchange for an estimated payment of $100 million per year. The owner and developer would earn many times that, none of which was possible unless the state gave up its rights to prohibit casino gambling.

The referendum question came to us as a proposal made by two Indian tribes. As a state, we had no opportunity to negotiate or bargain over the terms. It was a take-it-or-leave-it deal. The state never solicited proposals in the free and open market to compare the terms being offered by the tribes to what any number of other casino developers around the country might be prepared to offer for the same concession.

Government is required to seek competitive bids when it buys or sells virtually anything of value to assure that it is safeguarding the interests of the taxpayer. This was the biggest deal the state had ever been asked to make. If Maine is to sell a casino concession within its borders, it should take prudent and business-like steps to assure it is getting the best deal available. It hasn’t.

Wrong structure

On Nov. 4, we voted on whether to enter into a 20-page, 20-year contract with the tribes, which was irrevocable and could not be amended without their consent. The contract not only spelled out how revenues to the state would be determined, it also controlled how they would be spent. There was no escape clause, if Maine people decided casino gaming was not for them or if the needs of the state dictated that revenues be spent in some other way. Maine has no experience with casino gambling. To experiment with it by entering into a 20-year deal entirely written by the people across the table was reckless in the extreme.

Living with their deal

The November vote was a decision on whether the Indian Land Claims Settlement, which the tribes freely and voluntarily entered into, should be rewritten in a way that solely benefits the tribes. When the tribes agreed to drop their suit against the state in exchange for land and $81 million, the tribes agreed to give up the right to operate casinos in Maine on tribal lands. On Nov. 4, they asked for those rights back. They did not offer to return to the people of Maine the millions of dollars or the land they received to give them up. Of course, the tribes had a right to ask, just as the people of Maine had a right to say no.

Economic dependence

The tribes argued that the casino proposal was their opportunity to make Native Americans in Maine economically self-sufficient. But this was not a proposal that gave Native Americans an opportunity to compete on a level playing field, or even a proposal to assist them in gaining the tools, skills, education and training to do so. It was a proposal that merely promised to shift their dependence from government programs to the easy money of casino gambling.

Of course, it would take neither talent, energy, ambition or hard work to be successful as the owner of a casino that has monopoly status. Anyone could be successful in Maine if he had a monopoly on liquor, cigarettes or gambling. We owe the tribes, and they owe themselves, a future consisting of more than waiting for the next casino check to hit the mailbox.

A bad deal

The project, as proposed, did not merely consist of a casino. It also included a 900-room hotel, a convention center, a performing arts center, a spa, golf course and 10 restaurants and nightclubs.

It was designed to capture every single dollar spent by a guest during a stay in Maine. Such a proposal was not consistent with maximizing the multiplier effect and creating the greatest economic return for the greatest number of Maine businesses and people. This project concentrated all profit in the hands of the few. It did not spread the wealth.

Undetermined costs

The tribes focused our attention on the $100 million per year they estimated would be the state’s 25 percent share of slot machine revenue. But there was no information available of what the costs to government would be for services such as law enforcement, fire, highway construction and maintenance, education, welfare and substance abuse treatment. Maine people were being told the gross, but no one knew the net.

Sin taxes

Historically, government regulated and taxed alcohol, tobacco and gambling to discourage these activities, which were deemed inconsistent with the goals of a healthy society. More recently however, the state has become increasingly dependent on the revenue from these sources. The cigarette tax is now the third-highest revenue source of state government, behind only the income and sales tax. Instead of discouraging addiction by users, the state has become addicted to the money such activities produce, so that the state now benefits when tobacco and alcohol use go up and when gambling activities increase. The casino would only worsen the state’s addiction to the money produced by gambling, alcohol and tobacco. As tax policy, that is regressive. As social policy, it is repulsive.

Altered image

The $100 million per year the tribes estimated as state revenues is a modest amount of money considering state spending is about $2.7 billion per year. The money would not solve the state government funding problem or reduce taxes. In exchange, the state was giving up its brand in the market place, its image among the millions who visit here each year searching for anything but a casino, and what Maine represents to those who come here to start and build businesses because they want to raise their children here.

That was a heavy price to pay. Maine is singular, unique and special. The Maine mystique is alive and well, a combination of people and place that is a magnet to many. Our image, our brand in the marketplace, would be permanently altered by this casino. We who were called upon to make this decision do not own that image. We are merely its caretakers for the generations who come after us. It is deserving of special care. It should not be traded for a quick buck. That may be the way of casinos but it is not the way of Maine.

In short, Chief Dana is wrong to attack the integrity, intelligence and motives of the Mainers who voted no. His statement demonstrates skill as a demagogue. But his interest in get-rich-quick schemes shows an absence of leadership.

Ronald P. Lebel is an attorney with Skelton, Taintor & Abbott in Auburn.