Kent considers lifting ban on casinos to cash in on tax revenue
»Play Video
KENT, Wash. -- The city of Kent is considering lifting its ban on casinos to raise revenue, instead of taxing residents.
Right now, the Great American Casino in the Panther Lake neighborhood is Kent's only casino. When this area was annexed into Kent, the city made a deal with the state that all the tax revenue raised here goes to the state, not Kent. But now at least one city councilman wants to change that.
Kent City Councilman Les Thomas says he's been known to sit at the slot machine, but the bigger gamble is coming out against his city's ban on casinos.
Thomas says the Great American Casino gives Kent about $330,000 a year in tax revenue, which under the annexation agreement, the city sends the state.
"We get virtually nothing," Thomas said. "If they were to move out of the Panther Lake annexation area into the regular part of old city, we would get the tax."
But Kent would need to change its gaming ordinance to allow casinos.
A change to city law would allow the Great American Casino to move into a bigger space, add another table, expand its restaurant, and better compete with nearby tribal casinos that don't have table limits or state taxes.
"They have approached the city and the city says we can't do it unless we change the gaming ordinance," Thomas said.
Add three casinos to Kent, and that's roughly $1 million a year that Thomas says could improve parks, pave streets, and increase police. The city is surrounded by neighboring communities that allow gambling.
"It's all around us, the citizens of Kent who love to gamble are going someplace else," Thomas said. "So I looked at it and said, why shouldn't we get that revenue?"
The proposal is in the early stages and probably won't go to full council before May.
Right now, the Great American Casino in the Panther Lake neighborhood is Kent's only casino. When this area was annexed into Kent, the city made a deal with the state that all the tax revenue raised here goes to the state, not Kent. But now at least one city councilman wants to change that.
Kent City Councilman Les Thomas says he's been known to sit at the slot machine, but the bigger gamble is coming out against his city's ban on casinos.
Thomas says the Great American Casino gives Kent about $330,000 a year in tax revenue, which under the annexation agreement, the city sends the state.
"We get virtually nothing," Thomas said. "If they were to move out of the Panther Lake annexation area into the regular part of old city, we would get the tax."
But Kent would need to change its gaming ordinance to allow casinos.
A change to city law would allow the Great American Casino to move into a bigger space, add another table, expand its restaurant, and better compete with nearby tribal casinos that don't have table limits or state taxes.
"They have approached the city and the city says we can't do it unless we change the gaming ordinance," Thomas said.
Add three casinos to Kent, and that's roughly $1 million a year that Thomas says could improve parks, pave streets, and increase police. The city is surrounded by neighboring communities that allow gambling.
"It's all around us, the citizens of Kent who love to gamble are going someplace else," Thomas said. "So I looked at it and said, why shouldn't we get that revenue?"
The proposal is in the early stages and probably won't go to full council before May.
If councilmember Thomas wants to increase tax revenue, why is he asking other councilmembers to lower the casino tax rate from 11% to 4%, especially since the city can charge as high as 20%?
Do the city fathers feel better taking a cut of your money thru gambling rather than direct taxes? It is a moral thing?
While being a fan of capitalism and the American ideal of making a buck....I really don't care for what casinos bring to the community. But as a compromise, why not tear down one of those lower income old apartment complexes down by the river and put a casino in it's place? At least the crime, loitering, drugs, and basic low life factor should be somewhat reduced.Â
Kent has a ban on casinos? Because they're...so classy already?
Why not? If people want to go, they will go. If not, they won't.  I'm sure the Indian casinos won't suffer too much......
"Thomas says the Great American Casino gives Kent about $330,000 a year in tax revenue, which under the annexation agreement, the city sends the state."
Nice negotiating there, eh?
"Yes, I DEMAND to pay thousands over sticker and I insist that you simply give me $1 for my late model trade-in! Or  I'M walking!"
The GAC used to give you $25 in match-play just to walk in the door with your player's card. Maybe they still do? No commission Pai Gow? Much better deal than that tawdry building on the hill SE of Auburn. Nothing delights Mr. Mylon more than to see dozens of dealers standing around up there due to lack of customers. Now... if Mrs. Mylon would refuse to be a customer, I could buy that 27' RV in this lifetime. But alas...
For evil Kent politicians money talks, no money screams.Â
@George Nothing new here.......Its always about the benjamins.....Pot was all "reefer madness" till somebody finally realized it could make them some serious green. Right or wrong comes in a distant second.
About time I'd say.Â
Don't do it Kent. Look at the hole the Tulalip casino and alike have become. What a friggin mess and blight this has become. No thank you!Â
Good, the indian casinos have too much of a monopoly,Â
We need more casinos like we need more nail shops....ugh
@seattlenativemike If you don't like casino's... DONT GO!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Baffled by people Can you just imagine what his nails look like? Â
Why are we the ONLY state that does not tax or share in tribal casino revenue?  With all of the state budget problems it's never even mentioned by our Dear Leaders.Â
Could it possibly be the millions of unreported dollars the tribes pour into democrat party campaign funds?   A cynical person might conclude the tribes are bribing the controlling party not to tax them.
As Obama says, 'They didn't build that." We pay for the roads and infrastructure for off reservation casinos. Â
@Goodwin There was absolutely NO quid pro quo between those campaign donations and "Oh, LOOK! An advantageous deal for the tribes. Now, how did that get in there?
good question, need to as our dear former governor. I don't see why the agreement with the tribes is negotiable after X number of years. It was a stupid agreement.
sorry.. should be "ask"
Fine, let them have casinos, but anyone on welfare or public assistance of any kind who goes into one loses that assistance, sound fair?