Casinos discussed at Statehouse
Friday, Jul 13, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Gaming expansion is back on the table…
Senate Democrats offered Thursday to retool a major gambling package — that nose-dived in the House — by letting communities throughout the state vie for up to four new casinos.
The plan that narrowly passed the Senate in late May but died in the House specified casinos for Chicago, the south suburbs, Waukegan and a location near O’Hare Airport. But some towns outside those geographic boundaries, such as Country Club Hills and Rockford, complained about being excluded.
“We’re opening it up to every city in the state of Illinois, and I think that’s a good thing,” said Sen. Rickey Hendon (D-Chicago). “You get more people [in the Legislature] maybe to vote for it if they got a chance to participate.”
A multibillion-dollar gambling expansion could help build new schools and roads and provide a major infusion of dollars into the state’s under-funded public education system, its supporters said.
* But Bethany Carson has a good piece that points out the many pitfalls ahead…
But the gaming meeting didn’t advance any new legislation, and there’s a long way to go. For years, a slew of hang-ups have stymied efforts to expand gaming for state revenue. The horseracing industry wants subsidies from the state so it can compete with expansion of other gaming. But there’s debate about the subsidy level and the mechanism — slots at racetracks or an “impact fee” charged on casinos. And there’s a trust issue about whether the state will simply change the law after the first wave of cash flows in, said Rep. Bob Molaro, a Chicago Democrat in the meeting. Other sticking points include the number of new boats and their locations. Lang said in early June that his version of gaming legislation spelled out nine Chicago-area communities in need of economic development that would qualify for one of the new gaming licenses.
Two other complications were raised after the meeting. One was by House Minority Leader Tom Cross of Oswego: “I think for everyone, one of the central questions here is, when would this money become available, assuming you bought into any of these concepts? We’re into July, and to get any of these things up and running, if you bought into that, you’d have to be pretty aggressive [for it] to be in the ’08 fiscal year.”
The other was mentioned by Sen. James DeLeo, another Chicago Democrat in the meeting. The priority of using gaming revenue for road and school construction projects might be more complicated. “We were warned by the budget director that casino revenues, gaming revenues are very hard to sell bonds on,” DeLeo said. “There’s a lot of if, if, ifs in gaming.” […]
- The governor and Jones have said they support four new casinos in the Chicago area, and Jones has said he wants the money to go to education.
- Cross and House Speaker Michael Madigan said their caucuses still support expansion of gaming only at existing casinos, with the money going toward road and school construction projects.
- And Watson said Thursday the Senate GOP Caucus is open and flexible but would prefer the revenue fund a capital program.
* More…
One irony is the gambling negotiations were held in the governor’s Capitol office-without the governor, who was holding a press conference in Chicago.
Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson (R-Greenville) said the advantage of working without Blagojevich is that a meeting can be held absent the governor’s nearly automated efforts to stay on his talking points: “Press 4 for this speech, and press 12 for this one.”
In Chicago, Blagojevich said he would “hold my nose” and support gambling revenues as a way to pay for an infusion of funds into education and his proposal for state-supported health care.
Thoughts?
- downhereforyears - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 9:49 am:
It seems to me that this is the first thing that they ( the 4 tops and elvis) almost agreed on. Keep going boys there is a way to do this.
- Anon - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 9:59 am:
I heard yesterday that Monk was hired by the tracks at a HUGE amount. Some called it Y200K.
- Walter Sobchak - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 10:05 am:
Rather than give the casinos or racetracks ‘gambling positions’ why not either auction them off competitively or set a price and sell them? Each new position will positively affect stock prices and will generate short term and long term revenue for casino licensees or track owners. In the case of a race track there is an existing track (pardon the pun) record of the kinds of profits available. If competitively bid between tracks and casinos the sales price per position could reach a natural market level far above $100K. And, the state would generate income immediately.
- Truthful James - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 10:59 am:
I see no reason to set up casinos — and even to extend the license of existing ones, other than under a series of public bodies, with each casino having professional management. That will maximize the public sector take.
We have a set of “Metropolitan Exposition and Convention Center Authorities” in existence.
The Indians have ownership and professional management of their gamblig facilities. Are we more dumb than them?
- BLAH - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 11:24 am:
I was doing some researcch on gaming and found this Capitol Fax blog from last year about Topinka’s gaming proposal -
https://capitolfax.com/2006/08/
Here is Jones’ quote:
Senate President Jones has doubts that JBT can pass her casino idea.
A top Democrat from Chicago says it’d be difficult to get enough votes in the Illinois Legislature for a possible casino in the city.
State Treasurer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka has proposed a plan to license a casino in Chicago to generate billions of dollars for Illinois.
State Senate President Emil Jones says some legislators from downstate won’t take kindly to that idea.
“It’s very difficult because you got several areas that want it, you know. So, it’d be very difficult. Very difficult,” he says.
Then Filan goes on to say how JBT’s estimates (which are pretty much in line with the estimates right now) were too high because she wasn’t taking into account loss of revenue at other casinos.
One thing about the internet - you can find everything!
- Squideshi - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 1:39 pm:
Gambling is a net looser in terms of social costs–organized crime, broken families, and generally ruined lives. It’s not sustainable.
- cermak_rd - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 3:21 pm:
The Family Secrets trial has shown that poker machines are a very lucrative field that the Outfit has gone into. Why not legalize them for use in areas that are controlled for age (i.e. bars) and have the state take a cut of the profits? That would serve 2 purposes, 1. deprive the Outfit of a revenue source and 2. raise revenue for the state of IL.
Yes, gambling does have social costs, but the folks who are compulsive gamblers will find a way to self-destruct one way or another.
- Truthful James - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 3:35 pm:
They are legal — but not as gambling machines.
The City, and the State, I think, collects license fees for each machine. They are located in taverns.
The fiction is that people will come into a bar and play just for funsies. Legally, there can be no money payout. In many taverns they make the difference between income and loss.
The Commission sends undercover agents into the bars, and sipping slowly on their drinks, they watch the people play the machines, and if the bartender actually hands over money to winners. If he does, they close the place down.
If he didn’t nobody would play the machines. The Outfit places the machines, pays the license fees and splits the take with the tavern.
A single tavern might have three machines, which might net fifty dollars a day after the split.
This is small potatoes for the individual tavern owner, but the Outfit might have three thousand machines under their control in many locations, netting therefore fifty thousand a day.
Tough to measure the cash flows, therefore the revenue take is tough to tax.
- cermak_rd - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 3:40 pm:
Yes, I know their legal for “entertainment purposes only.” I am also familiar with the law edging that goes on to do payoffs. I guess what I meant by make them legal is allow bars to have a few licenses to actually have machines that make payoffs and give the state a cut of the proceeds and keep the Commission busy doing more important things.
Fact is these machines can be found all over the place and really are a major help to keeping Ma & Pa bars profitable. And I’d rather the state made the $$$ than the Outfit because the Outfit just uses their proceeds to further their illegal operations.
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 5:19 pm:
While I am not a supporter of gambling expansion in Illinois, John Kass had a brilliant suggestion about a Chicago casino.
Breake the casino into 3 or 4 subunits and allow the existing major hotels to devote a floor of their existing buildings into casino operations. No new buildings, no parking lots AND I bet they could start ripping off (oops, I mean start gambling operations) within 120 days.
No fuss no muss
- FED UP - Friday, Jul 13, 07 @ 9:06 pm:
how about the best idea put casinos in ohare and midway aiport for all the out of state travelers and buisness people.
- Fulton Gal - Saturday, Jul 14, 07 @ 10:15 am:
Go to an Illinois town that borders one of the Iowa casino towns and you will discover the heartbreak that casino gambling brings to the community. Our little town of Fulton, Illinois (across from the Clinton, Iowa gamblin boats) has seen numerous area small businesses go under when their proprietors became addicted to gambling. That problem never existed when the opportunity was not in their backyard.
This problem is never measured by those who count the benefits of legalized gambling. It is rarely seen in larger cities because people don’t know their neighbors and their local bankers well enough to spot the pattern. Yet the entire community and the taxpayers of Illinois pay the price when these persons, their families - their children - end up on welfare and food programs. Once they lose everything, they rarely regain their foothold to become econommically independant again.