The bright, shiny ball is discussed in Chicago
Thursday, Oct 18, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The city laid out its hardball position yesterday…
Mayor Daley would love to have a casino in Chicago, but the $800 million it would cost for a license makes it all but impossible, the city’s finance chief said Wednesday.
Pending legislation would require the city to pay the $800 million to the state for a gambling license. But Chief Financial Officer Paul Volpe said the price would prevent a Chicago casino from turning enough of a profit.
“The city will only go forward with a casino that is profitable,” Volpe told the House Gaming Committee at the Thompson Center. “Eight hundred million dollars, quite simply, does not work.” […]
“Even one dollar is too much,” Volpe said at the hearing. “Because every dollar paid for a license fee is less funding available for what we envision as a substantial capital program to improve our city.”
* The governor is reportedly willing to settle for much less than $800 million, but I doubt he’d go all the way down to zero. And Speaker Madigan’s spokesman did his best to throw cold water on the whole idea…
The likelihood of a Chicago casino curing the state’s financial woes edged a little further from reality Wednesday after Mayor Richard Daley’s administration asked for a sizable cut of casino revenues and considerable control. […]
While the committee’s chairman still expressed optimism that a casino deal could be negotiated, a spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) said the city’s demands did little to move things toward that end.
“It sounds to me that there needs to be a lot more clarity before anything happens with gambling expansion in Illinois, so that’s par for the course,” Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said after the hearing. “It sounds like it was a good idea to have this hearing, and it sounds like we need a couple more.”
* And there are other problems with the Senate’s version of the bill, as Mark Brown notes…
Gaming Board officials noted Wednesday that the gambling bill makes provisions to fund the Chicago Casino Development Authority, the agency that would control the city casino, but none to fund the Gaming Board, which would be charged with overseeing the city agency. […]
Left unclarified by Wednesday’s presentation by Paul Volpe, the city’s chief financial officer, was whether employees of the Chicago Casino Development Authority would be subject to background investigations by the Gaming Board.
Volpe told legislators the city has no interest in playing a role in filling the jobs that would be created by a casino, and Volpe probably doesn’t.
But somebody does.
- DC - Thursday, Oct 18, 07 @ 10:34 am:
Although it is a very small part of the story, I found it intriguing that Senator Jones would dictate a percentage of gambling profits be redistributed to Chicago State University. I know it’s his little pet project, but c’mon … it really begs the question — does someone at CSU have something on Jones and the largesse is simply a way to keep things quiet? Or, could he simply be serving as a strong voice for higher education, fighting to bring back state tax dollars to his district? I’m a bit cynical and maybe a tad jaded, but it strikes me as a little odd and invites further discussion and digging a little deeper into the weeds to find the root. Seems to me that the other colleges and universities should also get a portion of that pie if, God forbid, a decision is made to reallocate gambling profits from their intended purpose.
- Leroy - Thursday, Oct 18, 07 @ 10:46 am:
Chicago business mentality at its finest:
Salesman: ‘I have a machine that is basically a license to print money. The cost? $800 million’
Chicago: ‘Sorry, we can’t afford it’
(Funny, any private company probably could)
Call their damn bluff. They can hock Lake Shore Drive or Belmont Harbor or something to come up with the money.
- Doug Dobmeyer - Thursday, Oct 18, 07 @ 10:59 am:
I sat through six and half hours of boring, but sometimes interesting hearing yesterday on a Chicago casino. I came away with the same impression I had earlier - greed and power were the driving force and the reason to reject a casino.
Even little Todd Stroger and Larry Walsh came in w/their hands out looking for 1-5 percent of the money. They cited all the social and police problems that critics like myself have been saying for years.
I don’t mind that Lou Lang made the critics wait to the very last when practically everyone had left as long as he loses in the end. It would be disheartening to see Lang get his casino to play in.
It also became very clear how much mainstream thinking has moved to support this seemingly easy money. If a Chgo casino does appear, think Potterville as a real place.
Doug Dobmeyer
- Leroy - Thursday, Oct 18, 07 @ 11:12 am:
Another simple solution: make Texas Hold ‘em an Olympic event for the summer 2016 games.
Use some of that free ‘Olympic’ money to buy the license and build the casino.
Problem solved.
- Ghost - Thursday, Oct 18, 07 @ 11:16 am:
I still say the obvious solution is to just allow every school in Illinois to double as a casino. After all, the existance of a casino magically creates new money for the State, then the more the merrier. With so many casionos we could remodel or build new schools and cover the State in Capital projects. viv la gameing!
Heck we could start selling drugs on the street. Just think what Illinois could generate in revenue if the State took up the sale of meth, cocaine, meth etc. Look at all the lost revenues going only to dealers and criminals.
- Truthful James - Thursday, Oct 18, 07 @ 11:34 am:
If a casino is a must, then it should be “owned by a public body with the authority to fund capital improvements only, and those for which the requesting school, municipality, County, etc can demonstrate that there is funding currently and forever to pay the operating and maintenance (including repair and replacement) expenses.
Thus I earlier suggested that something along the lines of the Metropolital Pier, Office Building and Exposition Authority be used — with authority extending over the MSA. For Chicago, that means thje six county area. Of couse there could be a Waukegan and a Country Club Hills “boat” as well.
No as to the license price. An up front fee to another public body is ridiculous. That is just commission money on a bond issue for Bankers and lawyers.
There will be a levy every year to pay the present value of that fee over the term of the license.
Limiting the uses to capital expenditures ahouls free up the budget money now being used and permit a lowering of other taxes as well — or am I dreaming.
The governing body would then — like the Indians lease out the Management,
- GettingJonesed - Thursday, Oct 18, 07 @ 11:45 am:
Hmmm
Sock Puppet sez three casinos too much.
Mayor’s guy sez $800 million too much.
Crime Commission sez city not best choice for casino ownership.
And Brown’s suggests some clarity is needed
Capt. Fax, who clearly has had too many spins on the roulette wheel, sez Brown is pouring the cold water.
Methinks the good Capt. needs to go back to smkin’ name brands
- respectful - Thursday, Oct 18, 07 @ 12:43 pm:
Here’s another reason the Senate bill won’t fly: It provides that the Chicago casino license shall never be suspended or revoked. Unlike all the other casino licenses.