But in which direction? Legislators aren't talking about finally approving a deal with the Seminoles; instead, they're talking about expanding commercial gaming in the state -- beachfront casino resorts, or even state-owned casinos. Here's how one legislator explained his reasoning: under the proposed compact with the Seminoles, revenue-sharing would mean that the state takes a cut of the tribe's profits. So why shouldn't the state just generate all the profits itself, and cut out the "middleman" of the tribe?
Well, we can think of at least two reasons. The first would be that a broad expansion of gambling in the state would presumably violate the exclusivity that supports the revenue-sharing provisions in the tribal-state compact. So, why would the Seminoles pay the state anything if they aren't getting anything in return? The state would be giving up a "sure thing" of steady revenue, as well as its ability to maintain an arm's-length distance from gambling interests. And the second would be that going up against the Seminoles isn't going to be a smoothly paved yellowbrick road. This is the tribe that made Class II gaming hugely profitable. This is the tribe that successfully expanded into Class III gaming even as the rest of the gambling industry felt the hit of the economic crisis. This is the tribe that acquired the Hard Rock brand. If you want to compete with that, Florida, you'd better bring something to the table.
Read more in the Sun-Sentinel: Casinos the Future of Florida's Beaches?
