A Disclaimer:This web page is about a referendum to authorize a casino in Dane County, Wisconsin. A number of web sites were created to discuss the issue. I refuse to place my faith in a bully and a liar regarding this issue. All in all DeJope comes across as a bully and a liar. At the moment I’m leaning against; the pro-casino side comes across as too dishonest. Now, the pro-casino forces point out that the casino could be authorized, even if the referendum fails. Will DeJope really drive local businesses out of business? I prefer the much more straightforward No Dane CasiNO (Link deleted 2007-01-08 as the site is gone.) The pro-casino forces have chosen to summarize their argument as “Yes on the DeJope Revenue Sharing Agreements.” Well chosen. However, it’s become clear that the pro-casino forces are not to be trusted. What the pro-casino forces ignore is Governor Doyle’s promise: The proposal only needs Gov. WISC’s article “Dane County Casino Referendum Approaches” – Notes that the pro-casino side claims $47 million per year in benefits, the anti-casino side claims losses of $148 million per year, and the regional planning commission claims anywhere from positive $65 million to negative $100 million.
They are lieing to and threatening the citizens of our county. Furthermore, that same Q&A actually threatens voters: If the referendum doesn’t pass, the Tribe could still get approval for casino gaming at DeJope, but – in that case – they would not be obligated to share the revenues with the City and County. So I’ve been seeing the ads from the extremely well funded Coalition for the Fair Indian Gaming and Revenue Sharing Agreements. Of course everyone would support revenue sharing over no revenue sharing. The key issue isn’t revenue sharing. Now that the issue is over (the casino was denied) the sites have been allowed to lapse and are now in the hands of domain squatters. Now it’s still not a clear issue. I now have a name for my concern. The Isthmus has an interesting article this week on the casino; basically putting forth that the developers have been engaging in shadowy meeting and general skeeviness to end up in this position today.
The referendum is on February 17th, 2004. So this article is both time and location sensitive. I’m been having a hard time explaining to myself why I felt I had the right to tell someone else what to do. Links to news articles are likely going to expire as time passes. I’ve tried to provide links to archive.org’s excellent resource, but I couldn’t find archive entries for all of the pages, and what archive entries I found are often only partially functional. I’ll be updating this page as I find further information that I find convincing either way. Think you’ve got something to convince me either way? I don’t want to form a business agreement with an organization that behaves that way. After all, it should be a free country and if people want to gamble, so be it. It should be a free country, they should have the right to run a casino. However, it’s important to note that no KYC casinos may have higher risks of fraud and money laundering, as it’s easier for players to create multiple accounts and engage in illicit activities without being detected.
Some casinos may require identification verification before allowing withdrawals, while others may allow withdrawals up to a certain amount without verification. Gambling at a Bitcoin casino with no verification of this type provides ease of use and added security. The verification process often includes providing personal information, government-issued ID, and proof of address. Online casinos accepting Ethereum fulfil just one of the use cases of this blockchain platform. It operates on its cryptocurrency, Ether, which executes transactions on the platform. Bitcoin transactions are not completely anonymous, as they can be traced on the blockchain, but they offer a certain level of privacy. Are Bitcoin transactions completely anonymous? The externalized costs are fuzzy and non-obvious. That builds a strong case for why BCH casino sites are a reasonable choice for today’s gamblers. In this particular case, why do I have the right to tell DeJope no? But at least I have a name for my concern. If they are, they have externalized costs and become a burden on society as a whole. Or put another way, “vote for this casino, or we’ll get the casino anyway and refuse cover the costs to the county.” A threat.