Editorial: Fed gaming boundaries impractical

Tuesday, July 15, 1997 | 9:56 a.m.

SEN. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, should realize who his neighbor is before he comes up with grandiose legislative proposals.

Hatch this week reportedly plans to introduce legislation to ban gambling within nearly two miles of any school, college, university, public housing project, playground or swimming pool.

Under that scenario, Nevada might have to fold up its economic tent.

Sometimes ideas sound good but aren't very practical. This is one example.

According to a spokeswoman for Hatch, the Utah senator is concerned about the effects of gambling on young people. That's a legitimate concern, but not reason for such a blanket limitation on gaming establishments.

All Hatch has to do is look across his state's borders to know that it would be impossible to impose such a rule in Nevada, especially in the growth mecca of Las Vegas.

As a spokeswoman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., noted, this is a strange proposal from a Congress supportive of states' rights. Shouldn't this matter be controlled by states and local municipalities? Why should the federal government get involved and dictate where gaming establishments can be located?

State and local governments are better equipped to deal with local zoning issues. What works in one community may not in another.

Then there is the uniqueness of Nevada. Gaming is the main industry here.

Also, there are state and local initiatives that address neighborhood casinos and boundaries. That's how to deal properly with gaming boundary issues -- not sweeping federal dictates.

This is one proposal that's poorly thought out and should not even be introduced.