* Phil Kadner on June 22nd…
A developer is apparently hoping to launch a unique concept, a sort of casino mall, in strip malls in Crestwood and Hometown.
The idea would be to lease storefronts to multiple owners of gambling cafes, with up to five video machines in each, to create more opportunities for patrons to gamble and to generate more foot traffic.
Crestwood Mayor Lou Presta and Hometown Mayor Kevin Casey said they were eager to embrace such an enterprise, while noting that the Illinois Gaming Board will ultimately decide whether it complies with the state’s video gambling law.
Presta said the Crestwood location — just south of Cal Sag Road and west of Cicero Avenue, across from an off-track betting parlor — could eventually be home to seven storefront gambling cafes, each owned by a different person or business.
* Kadner on July 1st…
There apparently is nothing in Illinois’ gambling law that prohibits video gambling malls — a concept that may place as many as nine independently operated “casino cafes” in one location in the Southland. […]
[Hometown Mayor Kevin Casey] said that while he doesn’t gamble, he made a tour of video cafes in neighboring suburbs and saw people often waiting for a video machine to become available. He said some of those people walked out because they didn’t want to sit around and drink or eat, they wanted to gamble.
Most of those people, the mayor said, looked like middle-aged suburban housewives. And Casey figured that this idea of creating a string of gambling shops, each owned independently, in one location might prove to be a pretty nice attraction for his city.
* Kadner on September 15th…
State Rep. Robert Rita, D-Blue Island, is trying to enlist the help of the Illinois Gaming Board to stop the development of “casino malls,” but the first two video gambling malls in the state are rapidly moving forward in Crestwood and Hometown. […]
There are already more video gambling machines (about 21,200) in restaurants, bars, truck stops and veterans halls than in all of Illinois’ casinos. In August, gamblers wagered nearly $75 million on video machines, bringing the total to $590 million for the first eight months of this year, according to the Gaming Board.
“The Illinois General Assembly did not allowing these types of (casino) malls in legalizing video gaming originally and is not interested in seeing this type of activity authorized in Illinois,” Rita states in a resolution that he plans to file this week. “While proponents argue these ‘casino malls’ could generate more economic activity and revenue, there are legitimate concerns about these malls shifting video gaming away from its intended purpose of main street community entertainment for bars, restaurants and other local businesses.”
* Kadner on September 17th…
Video gambling malls proposed for Hometown and Crestwood are “backdoor casinos,” according to the chairman of the Illinois Gaming Board, who said he’s “inclined to oppose them.”
Chairman Don Tracy made those statements at an August hearing of the board after the mayor of Hometown and a developer behind the concept of the casino mall in the suburb urged the board to approve license applications for three casino cafes in a strip mall that could eventually host as many as nine such businesses. […]
A spokeswoman for the Illinois Retail Gaming and Operators Association also appeared at the Gaming Board’s August hearing to oppose the Hometown casino mall. The association represents Dotty’s, one of the first innovators in the casino cafe industry; Loredo Hospitality Ventures, which owns Stall’s and Shelby’s cafe casinos; Gold Rush Amusements; Blackhawk Restaurant Group (which owns cafes under the names of Betty’s Bistro, Penny’s Place, Emma’s Eatery and Jena’s Eatery); Gold Rush Amusements; and Trident Partners, which owns Ruby’s.
She claimed that approving licenses for operators in Hometown Plaza would open the door for someone to buy an empty warehouse for the sole purpose of locating multiple video gambling operators under one roof.
“They simply don’t want any competition if they can stop it,” Casey said of the association. “That’s all that was about. The days of mom-and-pop stores, candle stores, Hallmark’s, (independent) pharmacies is over. Those are the sorts of places that used to operate in strip malls.
* Kadner last night…
Illinois Gaming Board members attempted to shut down the development of “casino malls” on Tuesday, voting unanimously to reject the video license applications of three operators who hoped to open in a Hometown strip mall.
Gaming board chairman Donald Tracy reiterated a statement he made at the board’s August meeting, saying he viewed such operations as “back-door casinos,” circumventing the oversight and regulation of traditional casinos under state law. […]
“All three of these locations relate to what have been called video gaming malls, mini-casinos, casino malls, and back-door casinos,” Tracy said before the vote. “I view gaming malls as back-door casinos, as I said at the last meeting, without the traditional safeguards of licensed casinos such as regulated security, on-site oversight, position limits, self-exclusion rules and internal controls.”
Tracy went on to say that he considers such casino malls “a threat to Illinois gaming integrity” and if the state had envisioned their creation, it would have specifically created riverboat, casino-like safeguards.
- The Captain - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 9:27 am:
We have decided that our state’s gambling policy is to be half pregnant and now we are going through all the absurdities to keep it that way.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 9:31 am:
How was this an oversight in the first place? And with the House in continuous session, I hope that Rep. Rita can get something muscled through soon.
- Pothole - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 9:42 am:
Seems like the gaming board decision is ripe for a lawsuit, but I don’t claim to be a lawyer.
- Roamin' Numeral - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 9:44 am:
Can we please get slots at the horse tracks? There’s about 15 other states that have expanded gaming at their tracks. Why not Illinois?
- Beaner - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 9:47 am:
“Illinois gaming integrity”: hilarious, laugh out loud funny, a real thigh slapper. Thank you for the comic relief this morning. This blog is more fun than Doonsebury or Mallard Fillmore.
- so... - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:04 am:
==Seems like the gaming board decision is ripe for a lawsuit, but I don’t claim to be a lawyer.==
Unlikely. Gaming board has very broad discretion when it comes to awarding video gaming licenses.
- Benny - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:04 am:
I have no problem with further expansion of gaming, but it’s pretty clear these mini casinos are a violation of at least the spirit of the video poker law. The Gaming Board was right to reject it.
- Han Solo - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:13 am:
How is this even a possible consideration, yet online poker and sports betting is completely off limits?
- A guy - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:19 am:
Economic development sure has come to mean something vastly different than I ever understood.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:24 am:
A victory for actual watchdog journalism, something that Phil’s youthful colleagues at the Tribune and Sun-Times have forgotten how to do.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:33 am:
=Economic development sure has come to mean something vastly different than I ever understood.
=
As a result of on-line retailing, brick and mortar commercial property remains unused for longer and longer periods. Munis need to get creative to fill the storefronts and generate revenue. Hence………….
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:34 am:
This is going to eventually happen unless they tighten the language. There is too much money to be drained from these communities, and someone will wind up taking this to court if the statute remains as is. It’s surprising no one anticipated something like this when the expansion was drafted. Casinos, tracks and video gaming aren’t enough?
What a sad state of affairs when this is the best some towns can apparently do in opening new businesses in their communities.
- Any Mouse - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:41 am:
==Seems like the gaming board decision is ripe for a lawsuit, but I don’t claim to be a lawyer.==
==Unlikely. Gaming board has very broad discretion when it comes to awarding video gaming licenses.==
Lawsuit - Likely
Successful lawsuit - not so much.
To me this is a straightforward case of the board doing its job.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:49 am:
Pothole - Don Tracy is an attorney and he’s pretty with it, so I can’t imagine he would knowingly green light something that would be destined for failure in the courts.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 10:55 am:
A single casino can be controlled by the State.
Multiple gaming cafes located within a strip mall makes monitoring and controlling each one more difficult.
I understand that it is better to have multiple smaller players benefitting from legalized gambling than one super player, if your intention is to spread the income. However, the “smaller” café operators aren’t actually small - they are large chains presented as small operations.
Don Tracy’s decision was the right one to make at this time. However, the Board needs to begin building a means of handling multiple licensed operators, because these kinds of businesses will eventually happen.
Does anyone care about zoning anymore? We used to be concerned about where these places are located. Have we become so desperate for tax revenue that we are now willing to let gambling corporations tell us where they want to be located?
I love Hometown. I don’t want it to be Pottersville because we’ve decided that it is better to let people gamble to pay for our government services, than it is to pay more for our government services.
Bottom line - would we be doing this at all if we didn’t have a lot of people telling us that we need money? Isn’t that similar logic that street walkers use too?
At what point is something NOT for sale in our new world of “market ethics”?
- Enviro - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 11:50 am:
Video gambling is a very highly addictive form of gambling. Video gambling cafes are designed to attract women who do not feel comfortable gambling in bars. People are more likely to become addicted to gambling when they live close to video gambling locations. The Illinois Gaming Board made the right call on the casino mall issue.
- Anon - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 12:21 pm:
Good job gaming board and better job to Rep Rita. I see he actually cares about gaming unlike other legislators who used to carry gambling bills.
- CrookCounty60827 - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 2:45 pm:
If it’s good enough for a boat, it’s good enough for dry land. Illinois should end the charade and either allow all forms of “casino” gambling nor end them. That’s all we need in the South Suburbs, more ways for the average Joe and Jane to be relieved of their money, let alone the social ills…
- Strangerthings - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 5:58 pm:
We should legalize gambling on legislative voting. The state could make tons of money from people trying to predict outcomes.
- Strangerthings - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 6:01 pm:
Sorry I do have an additional comment for this. We need a coliseum gambling on the battles billions.
- bola tangkas - Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 8:02 am:
They’re not doing it themselves, they’re going to the Russians to do the same thing.
You are the one that controls your fate and the winning numbers are your fate.
For cash games, you should always sit down at the table with at least
20-25 buy-ins for the level you intend to play at.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 11:08 am:
I am a little confused. Did the Gaming Board reject the gambling mall due to the publicity from Kadner’s articles?
Also, the gaming parlor association’s opposition to the gambling mall concept is hilarious. Gambling malls may not have been what the Legislature intended, but gaming parlors sure as heck were not either. Even Lou Lang has acknowledged the parlors were not what they had in mind.
If the state is going to block gambling malls, then they have to get rid of the parlors as well. It is not fair to allow one, but not the other when they are essentially the same concept. The parlor association raised some good points at the IGB meeting. Unfortunately, their own arguments work equally well against them.