Abstract
Recently four small isolated mountain communities, similar in history and common in their efforts to stem a half century of population and economic decline, chose to undertake a unique community development effort to revitalize their economies: local option, limited stakes gambling. In all four, historic preservation was the rationale for the legalization of gaming and, in all four, gaming has been highly successful in creating jobs, private and public investments, and increased tourism; yet, different state approaches to regulating gaming resulted in contrasting community development efforts. In South Dakota, most gaming taxes and fees are ear-marked for preservation while in Colorado these revenues are destined primarily for the state general fund. These legislated mandates, along with different restrictions on the magnitude of gaming establishments, have resulted in different development paths. The similarities and differences among these four communities are examined.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
