Question of the day
Friday, Jan 20, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Kristen McQueary reports that a gaming bill breakthrough might be on the horizon…
Representatives of the state’s casinos, the horse racing industry and the offices of Governor Pat Quinn and Mayor Rahm Emanuel met Wednesday in Springfield to seek common ground on a gambling bill. Their negotiations, which began last month, may result in a deal that does not include slot machines at racetracks, the final hurdle to getting a bill signed into law.
Talks are continuing, and racetrack executives say they still want slots, but they are discussing options that would instead give the racing industry a more stable and accessible revenue stream enforceable by the courts, participants in the negotiations said. […]
On Wednesday, about 35 lobbyists and lawyers met in a private conference room in the Capitol with another meeting scheduled for next month. One idea being discussed is a contractual “impact fee” from the casinos to the racing industry that avoids the Legislature altogether.
Tim Carey, president of Hawthorne Racecourse, a thoroughbred track in Cicero, said he would prefer to come to an agreement directly with the casinos because it would be more enforceable. “Let’s do it by contract,” he said. “What do we need the Legislature for?”
* The Question: Do you support slots at tracks? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks much.
- tubbfan - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:16 pm:
If you allow gambling, why limit the means by which people gamble?
- anon - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:17 pm:
What difference does it make?It’s gambling either way.
- Lil' Enchilada - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:20 pm:
I agree. Gambling is gambling. I can “gamble” and get a lottery ticket at any gas station.
- Stones - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:22 pm:
Yes. Pandora’s Box was opened a long time ago.
- just sayin' - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:27 pm:
No. Nothing but corporate welfare for the Jim Edgars of the world.
Where is Mitt Romney and Bain Capital to put these dead industries out of their misery when you need them?
“I’m not a destroyer of companies, I’m a liberator of them!” — Mitt Romney, oops I mean Gordon Gekko.
- Dirt Digger - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:28 pm:
What everyone else said.
- Peter - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:29 pm:
The way the state has eased into gaming is eye-rolling and funny. Just boats that sail…okay, now they don’t have to sail…okay, let’s put them in a moat. Now just on the water. NOW EVERYBODY GAMBLE EVERYWHERE. It’s been a neat two decades.
I don’t care if they’re at tracks or not, but I vote “yes” because if you’re going to expand gaming, why does it matter? I don’t understand the obsession with saving the industry - I know it’s been perhaps mortally wounded by expansion, but I’m not sure it’s the state’s job to ensure private businesses can survive competition - but I don’t see an issue with cutting them in besides the larger issue of allowing gaming to expand so widespread that no one can make a decent go of it. And that has nothing to do with tracks in particular.
- Peter - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:29 pm:
(That should be “Now just NEXT to the water.” Don’t comment while you work, kids.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:39 pm:
Sure, no skin off my nose.
The tracks would be in a lot better shape if they marketed themselves as an entertainment destination.
The only ad I’ve seen in years for the tracks is a billboard at Lake-Cook Metra for the Arlington Million. That was last summer. It’s still up.
- Democratic Yoda - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:40 pm:
Yes - for the exact same reasons that tubbfan,anon, and Lil Enchilada said.
- Dirty Red - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:44 pm:
Bigger purses means more interest in Illinois races. New opportunities and better competitors should lead to increased attendence at the tracks, which includes the State Fair. I can be pulled either direction on new casinos, but these are already casinos that need to stay competitive.
- sk hicks - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:50 pm:
I think slots could help revive venues like Fairmount Park with a wider customer base. I don’t believe this would harm casinos.
- interesting - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:57 pm:
This poll should provide an interesting demographic breakdown of capfax readers.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:00 pm:
Let them have it. Hopefully save the racing industry in Illinois. Casinos should have the same competition as any other business has.
- OneMan - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:09 pm:
Yes, for the same reasons stated above… They already have gambling.
- zatoichi - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:14 pm:
It’s all gambling. Bet on horses, spin a wheel, or cards. What is the difference? The glut will even out the crowd. Personally, I have not been to a track in years and have no interest in casinos. Holding back slots is like saying no poker games at a casino. Please. Jump in the pool, you are already wet.
- Ahoy - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:20 pm:
Yes. The idea of not allowing a form of gambling at a gambling facility does not make sense. The only logical explanation for being opposed to this would be if you were opposed to gambling. Since the Governor has already expanded gambling (video poker) and is interested in further gambling expansion, this is not the case. The Governor is simply acting illogical and in my opinion bizarre.
This would make the horse racing industry sustainable and self sufficient instead of implementing a subsidy paid for by someone else. It’s a smart and logical solution to help the agricultural industry and provide the State with additional Revenue.
Dear Governor, stop the stupid games with the gaming bill and allow slots at tracks and gaming at the State Fairgrounds. Again, would allow the State to save money on infrastructure investment that is needed at the Fairgrounds.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:36 pm:
Duh, let people waste their money however they want.
“You can waste it here on horses– but only over there on slots– oh, and almost anywhere on our own Lottery..!”
Stupid.
- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:37 pm:
Quit ringing our hands and treat it like a business. That’s one thing we can learn from Indiana. They prey on neighboring states’ moral dilema on the issue and rake in the cash.
- Wensicia - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:39 pm:
Can anyone explain to me how slot machines are wrong for racetracks, when the sole reason the tracks still exist is the gambling component?
- Highland, IL - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:43 pm:
Yes, there is already gambling at the tracks. Why allow some gambling & not slots?
- Tommydanger - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:44 pm:
-Michele Flaherty-
They may “ring” their hands in Indiana, but here in Illinois we wring necks!
- Irish - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:47 pm:
I don’t really understand all of the issues in this and I read the comments before I voted to see if I could gain any insights. Then I voted yes using the following rationale.
The horse racing industry in the State is not as strong as it used to be. I don’t know the reasons for this except I expect that some of it has to do with the allowance of gambling in other areas such as casinos. I think that the state subsidizes the tracks because the creation of casinos affected track profits. I believe this comes out of the State’s share of the casino money.
I have not ever been to a horse racing track but I have gone and enjoyed a couple of days at different dog tracks. We were on vacation and we decided to check out the track. We had our kids with us and it was an enjoyable day. They enjoyed trying to guess which dog would win and they competed with each other in the number of times their dog came in ahead of their siblings. They could not bet and I did not bet for them. Had we driven by a casino I know I would not have taken them in there.
There seems to be a bit of old world elegance, history, tradition, tied to horse racing that one does not find with casinos. The picture of crowds at places like Churchill Downs or the Derby; or the picture of thoroughbreds grazing on Kentucky or Tennessee green pastures with white board fences projects a feeling that a line of people on a gangplank waiting to enter a casino can’t match.
So if putting slot machines at tracks frees up the money that is being spent on the subsidies, and if slot machines at tracks allows this bit of culture to continue then why not?
Once again, where is the famous line “everybody in no one left out.”? PQ doesn’t seem to mind gambling when he announces the new games being offered by the lottery. Where is his concern there?
- Lucky - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:53 pm:
No, because all slots, by their nature, are intended to take your money and give you nothing in return.
- Left Out - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:53 pm:
“Hopefully save the racing industry in Illinois.”
Saving the racing industry is the argument that the tracks have used as a reason to add slots to the tracks. That is a way of saying “Few people today want to bet on the horses. Give us money from the slots, which people want to bet on, so we can continue to operate (aka a subsiday).”
People have choices where they want to gamble. A good capitalist should tell the tracks that the market has spoken. The track owners bet on the horses and won their bets for many many years. However, it appears that the tracks are now running ‘out of the money’ and it is now time to retire the horses and lock the barn door (let the tracks close). If there is a need for more slots in Illinois they should be at the casinos where people want to gamble.
- Robert - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 2:00 pm:
While I’m not sure I understand why the horse racing industry should get the special privilege of having slots since the horse racing industry already has the special privilege of gambling. I voted yes, as I’m in favor of gambling expansion most anywhere, believing it a lesser evil than more taxes, more social service cuts, or more debt.
- Cheryl44 - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 2:10 pm:
I’m in favor of slots everywhere except possibly schools and churches. And if a church wants them I’d be willing to listen to their argument.
- steve schnorf - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 2:12 pm:
Just get the deal done. As Casey said, “doesn’t anyone….”
- Jechislo - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 2:23 pm:
It’s a no-brainer. Man, does Illinois have to be backwards at everything? Florida has them and a horse racing/slots combo is an evening of great fun.
- Bluefish - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 2:31 pm:
I voted yes because I’d hate to not be able to take my kids to see the ponies race at Arlington. If slots save the industry - let ‘em roll.
- Esquire - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 2:42 pm:
I am in favor of the idea if the slots are limited to airports and race tracks. Recently returned from Louisiana where every filling station and lunch counter has a casino license and video gambling machines. I would not that
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 3:11 pm:
“- Lucky - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:53 pm:
No, because all slots, by their nature, are intended to take your money and give you nothing in return. ”
Hmm… sounds familiar… kinda like the state lottery. LOL
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 3:13 pm:
Yes, because it is the only hope for the Illinois racing industry
- mark walker - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 3:16 pm:
If we are to expand gambling at all, the first move should be to racetracks, not the last.
- SO IL M - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 3:21 pm:
Yes, for all the same reasons above. Nobody is forced to play the slots, but if they want to, let them at the tracks as well as casinos
- Quizzical - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 3:26 pm:
Yes, for the practical reason that it’s the only way to get the bill passed. Gambling isn’ t my first choice of ways to fund government, and I have serious concerns, but we need the money. This seems to me the epitome of a Cook County/downstate compromise.
On a personal level, the only gambling I enjoy is horse racing, so if slots are needed to keep the tracks open, that’s OK with me.
- mokenavince - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 3:34 pm:
Of course let it ride. They gamble there anyway
so whats the big deal.If it gets the bill passed who cares the state needs the money.Enough of Quinns hand wringing. Game on.