Lottery Getting Warmer Reception But Questions Remain

BY VICTORIA ECKENRODE
FOR THE SALISBURY POST

RALEIGH – Although lawmakers expect the lottery issue to fare better this session than in past years, several local legislators said they aren’t ready to place their bets on the lottery just yet.

While lottery bills are circulating around both houses of the General Assembly, legislators are predicting that a proposal might pass the Senate and spark serious debate in the House this year. Last term, lottery legislation failed to reach the floor of either chamber.

‘‘In the past it was known that it was not going to pass the House because the speaker did not support it,’’ said Sen. Betsy Cochrane, R-Davie.

Sen. Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, introduced the first lottery bill of the session. Rand’s proposal allocates 20 percent of lottery revenue, after prize money and administrative costs, to clean water projects. The remaining money would go toward building and technology improvements in public education and higher education scholarships.

Rep. Ted Kinney, D-Cumberland, filed an identical bill in the House.

Also competing for attention in the House is a bill filed by Reps. William Owens, D-Camden, and Howard Hunter, D-Bertie. The Owens-Hunter plan calls for an even split of revenues for scholarships, technology in the public schools, water and sewer improvements at the county level and repayment of the state’s bond debt.

Education is the sole benefactor in a bill from Rep. Milton Fitch, D-Edgecombe. Fitch’s bill earmarks 50 percent of revenues for scholarships, an annual transfer of $1 million to local schools and the rest for early childhood development programs.

All the lottery bills require a pubic referendum after the bills pass the General Assembly.

This time around, the lottery, in whichever form, should receive more support from legislators, said Rep. Eugene McCombs, R-Rowan.

‘‘I think it would probably have a better chance to pass the House this year,’’ he said.

The difference in attitude stems from a potential budget shortfall in the state’s budget and the fact that South Carolina appears to be edging closer to a lottery referendum of its own, said Sen. Fletcher Hartsell, R-Cabarrus.

‘‘We have the lottery on those border communities in Virginia and Georgia,’’ he said. ‘‘South Carolina would add to that.’’

But even these reasons were not enough to compel several local legislators to support any of the lottery bills.

‘‘I’ve always said if the funding goes to the right place, which is education, then let the public vote on it,’’ McCombs said. ‘‘In Sen. Rand’s bill, some is for clean water, some for schools and some for higher education, but I would not vote for it without knowing it wasn’t going to reduce existing funding.’’

Hartsell said the lottery is not useful for bringing money to the state.

‘‘It’s an extraordinarily inefficient way of raising funds,’’ he said. ‘‘There is the tendency to substitute funds from the existing budget.’’

And lottery money could warp the public’s attitude about the amount of available money, Hartsell said.

‘‘What impact does a lottery have on local bond referendums if the public perception is that there’s already money?’’ he said. ‘‘Does that erode support? I just don’t think it’s a way the state should handle its business.’’

Cochrane does not support the lottery as a means to raise education revenue either.

‘‘It puts an added bureaucracy there that we will have to advertise a few years down the road,’’ she said.

Sen. Jim Phillips, D-Davidson, said he would remain open to the possible benefits of a lottery and has paid close attention to the polls showing public support for a lottery.

But Phillips said he wants to see more debate on the current bills.

‘‘Right now if you said we’re going to have a lottey, I’d have a problem with it,’’ he said. ‘‘If you’re just going to use it to offset other money, I would have a problem. I want to know where the money is going to go.’’