If the state owns the casino, there will be a 1% payout and a raft; no; a 5000-pax cruise liner of new spending.

If the state owns it, (1) the house take should be regulated by statute or preferably even by constitutional amendment, and (2) actual operation of the casino and its related attractions (entertainment) should be contracted out to someone experienced in doing it.

If the state has to own the casino, shouldn't the state also own all the hookers?

I do not agree that the state should own gambling operations. I voted against the lottery and think it's a low, even shameful, way to raise revenue. I agree this is a battle of hypocrites. I'm voting yes. And not for the waterslide.

Am I missing something about a federal ban on privately owned casinos? I thought the only authorized casinos were on tribal lands.

Jack look under "Whelan Boot" or "Sunny Boot" for Ed Whelan.

There's no federal ban, otherwise we wouldn't have Nevada.

Those of us of a certain age KNOW who does the BEST job at running a casino.

Bring back the mob.

The ORIGINAL mob, not these new guys that pretend to call themselves "elected officials"... Amateurs.

Hey boss how bout we call it The YMCA? Nah, too Christiany says the boss.

Hey boss how bout Moose Lodge? Nah, too outdoorsy says the boss.

I know says the boss, we call it The Grange. Known for their history of advocacy and as the Patrons of Husbandry, we will use dis name to promote economic well being, while at the same time we'll be screwing the entire community.

But boss, do you think the “actual” Grange might object to us using their name? Nah says the boss, we’ll just make em offer they can’t refuse.

I grew up on the east side. It was a once-proud area of blue collar working class neighborhoods, full of well-tended yards and pride for the local school team. Today much of the east side is a war zone. I drove through my old neighborhood and others on a hot day last month.

The Multnomah Kennel Club was a bustling center of activity during dog racing season. And I have wondered why some PRIVATE money could not be used to try and draw some economic activity.

Its easy for the elites of Portland, and those not from here to turn thumbs down on this project. Better location, etc. etc. But that area needs some help. And as long as it's not huge taxpayers risk I say good for them.

Jack, I'm with you (half-way) about the gambling, if there is to be gambling it should be in the heart of Portland, either by the state -- so all profits go to state budgets, or all indian tribes act as a consortium to split revenue and agree it doesn't set precedent for off reservation gambling.

But, here, I would part company: Put the casino at the top of a convention hotel (keeping it off the street and providing excellent view of downtown Portland) where gambling profits pay off hotel expense, so no burden or risk to taxpayers.

That would potentially spur convention business, pay for a convention hotel and keep taxpayers off the hook.

Just a thought.

A large casino in Portland will increase the number of personal bankruptcy filings, prostitutes, suicides, divorces, and alcoholics.

Other than that, I'm all for it.

"A large casino in Portland will increase the number of personal bankruptcy filings, prostitutes, suicides, divorces, and alcoholics.

Other than that, I'm all for it."

Just because of that, Mister Tee, I'm all for it. Them's the features, not the bugs.

And the drug addicts, don't forget the druggies!

If there's going to be more gambling in Portland, the state ought to own it. But that's not to say there should be.

The reason they are making it a "family-fun" amusement park is so parents can park their kids in the supervised play areas for hours on end without repercussion. This way they can go blow the college fund on the slots and not be bothered with a pick up time. It's a win win situation!

State legislators already have a vested financial interest in promoting gambling, booze and tobacco. I shudder to think of what they would do if we added a casino to their playpen.

There is no guarantee they'll ever build the "family friendly" part of this project. The measure, and the plan, state that they will build the casino and hotel. Then they promise they'll eventually build the waterpark, theatre and rest of the venues. But when you ask them when they'll build it or how much profit they will have to turn before they build it, they hem and haw and say "trust us, we'll build it". In the meantime, we'll have a casino with more slots than any other casino in the country, including Vegas or Atlantic City. No thank you. This East County resident it voting NO.

From what I understand, the "Family Fun" part of the venture as well as anything not related directly to the Casino itself will not be built until the casino proves itself. So, the casino will be built first and then -- when the developers decide that it's doing "well enough" -- they'll get around to the water park, etc. If it doesn't pencil out to their expectations, they may well decide to simply enlarge the casino rather than waste money on such frippery peripherals as community meeting rooms.

Meanwhile, the National Grange has made nice and set up an agreement with the casino development weasels. They can use the name "Grange" but they have to include disclaimers. In the old FFA days, I don't think they would have let these folks off so easily.