Question of the day
Monday, Jun 20, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From Mark Brown’s column…
In the two years since video gambling was legalized in Illinois, some 80 different jurisdictions in the state have “opted out” of the law by approving local ordinances banning the gambling devices in their communities — mostly in Chicago’s suburbs.
That leaves more than 1,100 cities, towns, villages and counties where video gambling operators are still welcome to set up shop — if the state Supreme Court ever clears the way by signing off on the constitutionality of the multi-pronged law that was intended to help pay for a state construction program.
Now there’s discussion of flip-flopping the law so that towns that want to allow video poker machines and the like will have to approve local ordinances specifically legalizing them, instead of the other way around. […]
It was Quinn who I’m told brought up the idea during a meeting this past Thursday with legislative leaders who were trying to convince him to sign the gambling bill
Quinn did mention the idea, but Rep. Lou Lang said today that he told the governor it was a “non-starter.”
Also, you may recall, “opt-out” was Quinn’s idea in the first place. Now he apparently wants to change that to “opt-in.”
* The Question: Should the video gaming law’s “opt-out” provision be changed to “opt-in”? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Robert - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 11:36 am:
I voted no simply b/c the state needs the revenue - opt-in would mean fewer are in.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 11:41 am:
Opt-in?
What a pathetic idea.
How can we expect any direction regarding state laws when we have a governor unwilling to support them?
Bad precedent, bad leadership.
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 11:43 am:
We should allow localities to opt-in on other state-passed laws.
The elephant in the room few talk about is the pocket-veto of the law taken by the IGC. How much longer will it take for them to get things in order so the video gaming bill can be implemented?
- Plutocrat03 - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 11:55 am:
Opt in makes as much sense as opt out. As long as local authorities retain the power to include/exclude various activities, it does not matter which the default position is.
Of course, if the default position is no gambling, then the gambling industry will have to spend some money to lubricate the machinery…….. the beast must be fed.
- Been There - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 11:56 am:
Even though I agree it would have been better if the law originally said opt-in, I voted no. Its not good public policy to keep flip flopping what the law is. I also don’t think he can successfully amendatory veto the gaming bill without the whole house of cards falling. A trailer bill has some merit but I dont think this issue should be included. As Cincinnatus notes, the Gaming Board has been doing a slow walk of its own and is stringing a lot of businesses out that have made investments or want to.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 11:57 am:
Opt-out is good enough. Plenty have done it already.
The folks who have been running the illegal machines all over the state for years are happy with the status quo. I don’t know who Quinn think’s he’s trying to protect here — unless it’s them.
I think Quinn is looking for some victory on the gambling issue after all the noise he made.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 12:00 pm:
Unless the City of Chicago opts in — current ordinance bans video gambling — the capital bill will likely need to be refinanced any way, won’t it?
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 12:05 pm:
I’m with Cincy, make the locals opt-in for other stuff, like the local share of the income tax.
Unless they cast a public vote endorsing state taxes, they shouldn’t get any of them.
- Beowulf - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 12:16 pm:
I believe that I like the idea of having to “opt in” with this bill. It, at least to me, seems to make local officials more accountable for their actions. It takes away elected officials “wiggle room” so that they are less able to say to their constituency that “I really didn’t want this ordinance but I haven’t had the support necessary to opt out of it. I also haven’t had the time that is required to submit a request to opt out of it”. Oh, yeah! It is for this reason alone that I think that “maybe” Quinn has finally come up with a good idea. I am a firm believer that elected public officials should have to vote either “yes” or “no” on public laws and issues rather than simply taking the cowards way out by voting “present” instead. Voting “present” actually turns out being the same as voting “yes” or in favor of an issue. However, it gives the elected official the ability to say that he did not vote in favor of the particular issue. He is, unfortunately, able to vote as his party’s leadership directed him to vote while at the same time he can still deny to his voters back home that he voted for an issue. The overriding issue to the elected official is self-preservation. Anything that tends to throw sunshine and transparency on politicians and “illuminates” cloaked or opaque actions will always get my support.
- What's in a name? - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 12:27 pm:
Opt in would have been a decent idea at the outset but its silly now. It makes the Gov. look like he can’t make up his mind.
- Levois - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 12:34 pm:
Excuse me for asking a dumb question but what difference does it make for such a bill is either opt-out or opt-in? I believe municipalities should have a choice as to whether or not they can allow or disallow video gambling. But why change the wording? Is it as if no municipalities have the ability to choose unless it’s opt-in?
- Das Man - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 12:42 pm:
Opt-in is my vote. I am not a supporter of video gaming, and I don’t think the votes would be there.
- Voice of Experience - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 12:44 pm:
It doesn’t matter. All the communities that are now opting out, will want back in once it goes into effect and their bar owners start complaining about losing customers to other towns.
- Shemp - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 12:54 pm:
Don’t care so long as the cities that don’t participate, don’t get the funds (which effectively becomes a transfer from downstate to the metro).
- doug dobmeyer - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 12:55 pm:
Opt in because it requires a proactive vote and allows better debate
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 1:04 pm:
===which effectively becomes a transfer from downstate to the metro===
I don’t understand your point.
- Just the Facts - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 1:17 pm:
Opt-out, but there should be also be a prohibition of IDOR licensing of any video poker machines (under the coin-operated amusement device licensing statute) in the opt-out jurisdictions and also zero tolerance for the presence of any machines in any establishment in an opt-out jurisdiction - in other words no permissible use of the machines “for amusement only.”
- steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 1:19 pm:
I generally oppose changing the rules of the game because I don’t like the score. If we had started with opt-in, fine.
- Alexander cut the knot. - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 1:27 pm:
Local elected officials should be on record of voting for gambling in the jurisdiction - opt-out does not provide any information to a community of the specific leanings of their elected officials.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 1:32 pm:
The opt-in happened when video gambling was legalized. Why change the rules now, when opt-out has been the choice of communities for decades with other laws?
- Shemp - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 1:47 pm:
===which effectively becomes a transfer from downstate to the metro===
==I don’t understand your point.==
The same point that was one of contention originally… a majority of the opt out cities were in the suburbs, yet they were still going to get the capital funding generated by other cities that did allow for the gambling.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 1:51 pm:
Shemp, considering the vast differences in population and wealth, and the reality of how road construction dollars are parceled out in Illinois, I really doubt that much cash will be exported to Northeastern Illinois.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 2:08 pm:
- opt-out does not provide any information to a community of the specific leanings of their elected officials.–
They voted to “opt-out.” That’s pretty specific.
- downstate hack - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 2:12 pm:
Just get the system up and running ASAP, so we can start gaining revenues from illegal operations currently going on. The opt out provision is the law and the way to go.
- Palatine - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 2:13 pm:
I’m all for opt in and opt out. No seriously, what are our leaders going to think of next. We elected them to do thier jobs and this seems to be another way of shrugging thier responsibility
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 2:17 pm:
I’m with Steve Schnorf on this one. What is the compelling reason we need to change this language? Why have we waited more than two years to ask this question?
At the rate the state is moving, we’ll have legal video poker sometime around 2020, if then. For the record, I think the entire video poker concept is a bad idea, especially in light of the new casino legislation. I’m all for getting rid of the illegal machines, but this was a dumb way to fund the capital bill.
- Mark - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 2:44 pm:
I like the change to opt-in. I think video gambling is a horrible thing to have at the community bar.
- muon - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 3:14 pm:
Here’s a thought on why opt-in could have a significant advantage at the local level.
Video gambling as currently enacted requires local government to permit it at all establishments that serve liquor. Those establishments have a number of different types of licenses with different fees attached. Some licenses may be for nightclubs and others for pizza parlors that only want to serve beer. The current law allows no distinction between these licenses.
A well crafted opt-in could allow the municipality to identify the specific types of liquor license that would qualify for video gambling. it would certainly increase local control, much as the underlying liquor law gives municipalities control over the types of license. This version might improve acceptance in some resistant communities because the gambling could be limited to select types of license. Finally this would allow the local license fee to reflect the value added by having video gambling as well as liquor.
There are often clean up bills after a major act is passed. This may be an example of one where a clean up could make the act significantly better.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 3:24 pm:
===I think video gambling is a horrible thing to have at the community bar. ===
Have you ever been to a “community bar”? The games are already there.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 3:32 pm:
– I think video gambling is a horrible thing to have at the community bar.–
So what do you call the bars, VFW, American Legion, Moose, Elks, Eagles, etc., that have them now?
I haven’t been, but I recall from previous commenters, that some Downstate places have more than 100 machines. Correct?
That’s not a club. That’s an illegal casino.
Let’s get real.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 3:38 pm:
===some Downstate places have more than 100 machines. Correct?===
Yeah. Big truck stops.
- Been There - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 3:40 pm:
muon @ 3:14 has an interesting point about letting the municipality have some say as to which liquor licensee gets to have video poker. Another example could allow Chicago to let the licenses at O’Hare and Midway to have the machines but not the rest of the city. There has to be at least 50 liquor licenses at O’Hare alone. They could then keep their 4000 positions from the Gaming bill downtown.
- Ahoy - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 4:06 pm:
I didn’t vote, because I do not have a strong opinion on the question. I do however believe that communities, who opt out of the video poker, should not receive any of the funds that come from them.
If you want to take some kind of moral high road, I’m ok with it, just don’t take the money.
- Wensicia - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 4:18 pm:
“If you want to take some kind of moral high road, I’m ok with it, just don’t take the money.”
But, are those who desperately need the money taking a moral low road if they feel they can’t opt out? This shouldn’t be a question of morality. There are other, completely practical reasons for turning down or accepting gambling options.
- Ahoy - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 4:26 pm:
Wensicia,
A community can turn down the gambling for whatever reason they want. The point still remains, that if you aren’t going to participate in collecting the revenue, you shouldn’t participate in spending the money others collect.
- Wensicia - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 4:32 pm:
@Ahoy
That’s not fair, they are many communities that benefit off taxation of other enterprises they don’t sponsor. Why should this be any different?
- Wensicia - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 4:33 pm:
Sorry, “there are”, not they are.
- Been There - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 4:35 pm:
===The point still remains, that if you aren’t going to participate in collecting the revenue, you shouldn’t participate in spending the money others collect. ===
Ahoy, I disagree strongly on this one. Some towns don’t even have any liquor licenses or very few (Hinsdale, Oak Park, Highland Park). What do you do about those towns? If Chicago stays opted out and Evergreen Park (surrounded 3 sides by Chicago)stays in, my guess is Evergreen is the winner anyway. The Chicago residents who want to play will be over in Evergreen Park bars spending thier money there and EP getting a cut of the vidoe gaming receipts. The Chicago residents will be the ones spending the money and under your proposal they wouldn’t be able to share the benefits.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 5:00 pm:
– I do however believe that communities, who opt out of the video poker, should not receive any of the funds that come from them.–
I don’t believe in that. It’s reasonable that some Central Illinoia roadhouse or West Suburban honky tonk wants the business, but others don,t.
That shouldn’t have anything to do with what the state does with its cut.
- x ace - Monday, Jun 20, 11 @ 5:02 pm:
Opt In / Opt Out appears of little consequence in the long run. But,if it’s a bargaining chip the Gov wants in the negotiation , give it to him. It don’t mean nothin.