‘Popular initiative only option after Senate killed casino bill’

By
|
Posted on Mar 11 2012
Share

The Senate’s decision to kill another bill legalizing casino gaming on Saipan is prompting pro-casino government officials to turn to popular initiative and have the question of casino gaming placed in the Nov. 6 ballot.

Allowing Saipan voters to decide on the issue instead of legalizing it through legislation has been what most senators have been asking for to begin with, said Sen. Frank Cruz (R-Tinian), that’s why they voted “no” twice in two years on Saipan casino bills.

House Ways and Means Committee chair Ray Basa (Cov-Saipan) said he is not giving up on legalizing casino operations because it is a major revenue-generating industry to help revive the economy, restore 80 work hours biweekly, and pay other government obligations.

“If no one’s going to do it, I will do it. There are lots of people out there who are now willing to vote for casino on Saipan,” he told Saipan Tribune. He said he could initiate the popular initiative as early as this week.

Gov. Benigno R. Fitial expressed disappointment with the Senate’s decision to reject once again a Saipan casino bill, and is now also looking at popular initiative. “Casino is the solution that we are all hoping for to help revive the CNMI economy,” he said.

He reiterated that casino operations will bring in fresh money into the islands. “The only alternative that is left for the Saipan casino would be a popular initiative that has to be placed on the ballot in November,” he said.

Basa said he’s appalled that the Senate would reject such a major revenue-generating bill without proposing an alternative source of revenue instead of proposing further cost-cutting or improve the system of collecting taxes and fees.

The Senate rejected the casino gaming bill Wednesday night by a vote of 6-2. Senate floor leader Pete Reyes (R-Saipan) and Sen. Luis Crisostimo (Ind-Saipan) strongly argued the bill’s passage but they were outvoted by those who opposed it. Sen. Ralph Torres (R-Saipan) was absent.

“The Senate had voted down a very important piece of legislation not only for Saipan, but also for Tinian and Rota. It just blew my mind. I cannot fathom what is the reason why they didn’t support that legislation. The question now in my mind, if they voted it down, what other alternatives do we have? The ones they are proposing are just minute, they cannot infuse money that we need and that casinos would produce or generate,” Basa added.

Former Public Works secretary Juan Reyes, who also supports casinos on Saipan, said he’s glad that Senate President Paul Manglona (Ind-Rota) brought up the issue of properly enforcing tax and fee collections to help improve cash flow.

“I really am glad the Senate president said that. The government should start with Tinian Dynasty, which owes the government some $30 million in taxes and other fees,” Reyes said, adding that he is “disappointed” with the Senate’s rejection of the Saipan casino bill.

Back in January, former Senate president Juan Demapan said while it is too early to begin the actual signature drive, developing the idea and planning for a popular initiative should now begin because of the considerable amount of time, effort, money, and other resources needed to ensure it’s placed on the ballot.

Rep. Froilan Tenorio (Cov-Saipan), author of the House casino bill that the Senate shot down in 2010, said it would not be hard to gather enough signatures to put the question of Saipan casino on the ballot. The hard part would be to ensure that it gets enough votes on Nov. 6, he added.

At least 20 percent of persons qualified to vote on Saipan need to sign the petition drive. It then has to be approved by two-thirds of Saipan voters who cast their votes. The last Saipan casino popular initiative was rejected by Saipan voters in 2007.

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.