I'm really sorry if this type of post does not belong here, but my family's a bit desperate in the homestretch, and I don't know how else to help. I don't intend to start a debate about this, but to make a plea, and give a personal side of things. If you're in California, you will have a chance to vote on Props 94-97, which will generously expand current tribal casinos for 4 tribes. [link=http://www.nounfairdeals.com/]Click here for background info and why this won't be a good idea[/link], and [link=http://www.ragesd.org/]Click here for a local grassroots effort.[/link] Prop 96 is the one dealing with the Sycuan casino, in east county San Diego. My family lives just a few miles from the casino. To reach that rural casino, there are only winding, 2-lane roads leading to it. In the past few years since the casino was built, we have seen a tremendous increase in traffic, and crime as well. We're all really worried what would happen if the number of slot machines went from 2,000 to 5,000, as this proposition would allow. We're also worried about Sycuan building a second casino just a mile from my family's house - where the Singing Hills golf course is - which the proposition would allow them to do. I know residents near the Pechanga casino near Temecula have similar fears, as it's in a residential area, with an elementary school across the street. So, a NO vote on Props 94-97 preserves the status quo - the casinos will still be there if you like to enjoy them, and the casinos will still be giving money they are required to, to the Special Distribution Fund, which is used to mitigate effects of the casino, giving money to local works like the fire department and roads. A yes vote means that the casinos won't be required to pay into that fund, and will be paying into the state's general fund, which can be used anywhere, not necessarily locally. Even if you're not personallly affected by casino expansion, a NO vote means that the tribes can come back later with a better compact, one that offers more money locally, one that offers more money to tribes without casinos (each of those tribes curently receives $1.1 million). The current proposition also does not address money to help problem gamblers, of which [link=http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/03/news/top_stories/22_47_102_2_07.txt]there might be 1.2 million in the state of California[/link], costing $1 billion to the state's services. So, please, please vote NO on Props 94-97 (or at the very least, nix prop 96). If you're undecided and hadn't planned to vote on them, please vote NO as well, to prevent the yes vote from slipping above the 50% mark. Thank you for listening.