Departments
Don’t Gamble
on Winning Trust
February 21, 2012Q. What’s your opinion on the way the announcement of the proposed casino in Lansing was handled?
A. We are scratching our heads, as are many others, including members of the Lansing City Council, because the announcement generated more doubts than enthusiasm. Surely the developer, the mayor and other proponents know that the casino business is a controversial one that raises many thorny issues and concerns. They seemed, however, curiously unprepared with answers to questions that even a fresh-faced public relations intern could have predicted.
It appears that they were betting that the lure of gaming revenue and jobs would be such a powerful enticement that people would be willing to turn a blind eye to the seamy side of the casino business and the troubled track record of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
In three weeks the situation has staggered from a possible game-changing development project to a public relations nightmare. This is an industry, after all, that is not far removed from the days when crime syndicates ruled. The public needs ironclad assurances that this casino will be run on the up-and-up, that this is the highest use of public land and that this venture has the financial strength to fulfill its promise.
Proponents need to start answering the tough questions that people who are charged with protecting the public interest are right to ask. Only by being straightforward, transparent and honest will they gain the trust necessary to move forward.
(Note: Paula Blanchard Stone served on the Michigan Gaming Control Board when it licensed three casinos in Detroit. She was appointed by Governor John Engler to two terms.)
Paula Blanchard Stone and Patty McCarthy are partners in McCarthyBlanchard, an executive training firm specializing in key message development, presentation skills training, media interview training and executive presence. Copyright © 2008 McCarthy Blanchard. | Website
Recent Articles
- Social Media Making Social Change: Kony2012
- Don’t Gamble on Winning Trust
- Change vs. Hope
- Bully for the Governor!
- Don’t Look Away
- View TV Interviews as a Game
- Disarm the F-Bomber
- Focus on the Photo Shoot
- Dealing with the Louse or Mouse Spouse
- Lessons from a Fiasco
Other Articles
- Joe Schwarz: “To Run or Not to Run?”
- Green Acres in the Motor City
- Budget Battle Redux: Business or Education?
- Reform and Shenanigans
- Vitriol Is Not the Truth
- Real Court Reform Overdue
- Say Yes To Autism, but No to Mental Health Parity?
- Lansing and Licensing
February 20, 2012
· Filed under Winning The Day Tags: casino, lansing, michigan, politics
4 responses so far ↓
1 Joe Ross // Feb 22, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Our research firm has done a few reports for gambling operators during the past 15 years.
What I learned is building casinos is a sign of a region’s failed attempts to develop and grow its commerce in a sustainable way, such as the exporting of goods/services. Casinos often serve as shiny examples of desperate economic development efforts.
Joe Ross
http://www.PrCr.biz
2 Terry Vanderveen // Mar 3, 2012 at 1:45 pm
I would also respectfully suggest there be a very thorough investigation of the so-called backers and investors of the proposal. Recent history suggests there are several examples of several business failures, at least in the horse racing industry. I seriously doubt those recent examples of business conduct and ethics would provide great confidence with this project going forward. Good luck.
3 Liz Homer // Mar 9, 2012 at 11:00 am
The opposition goes beyond the above. People in Lansing flat-out don’t want a casino in the historic state capital. The location might as well be on the front lawn of the capitol and they think it is unsuitable IN a city. Others believe the economic environment will soon improve and our broken system of financing education will get fixed eventually. The time spent on this by the city, without telling anyone, could have been better spent on bringing jobs to the city in a more wholesome way. People point to the negative economic, social, and political consequences. As Abramoff said, casinos aren’t about gambling or economic development, they are about money. Some think too few will benefit from this. The Sault Tribe and investors expect to annually sap $250,000,000 out of the area, primarily with 3,000 slot machines preying on those who can least afford it. Lansing will get 2.5% (not a fixed sum, subject to the vicissitudes of the economy.)
The tribe plans to subcontract its governmental responsibilities and burdens to the city for .5%. The federal law and the Bureau of Indian Affairs points out this weakens the tribal government. The 2% for scholarships is needed in their application for trust land to show the tribe is trying to mitigate its harm in social and economic impact. If they can’t or won’t provide the 2%, the city would be up against tribe attorneys for a long time. The Pueblo Tribe of Jemez, New Mexico was turned down again in Feb. They have been seeking trust land for a casino since 2004. Besides the governing issue, the Bureau says the management of a casino far from the reservation is not acceptable. The Pueblos Tribe is 293 miles from the trust land they want. Just about the same number of miles as the St. Marie tribe is from Lansing.
4 Liz Homer // Mar 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Oops. looks like there is a strategy to circumvent the BIA.
Leave a Comment:
Be sure to put in the security words and hit SUBMIT