31 Comments - Been There - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:35 pm: Bid it as is. There is nothing stopping Chicago from using its share of the tax money to the casino. A casino operator can put options in their bid in many different fashions. On another matter I don’t think the Gaming Board should be involving themselves in legislative policy unless asked or if there are legal problems with language, etc. They are there to regulate what the law says. - Nagidam - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:38 pm: I say lower the rate. The GA is going to have to clean up the gaming proposal on a few other fronts so it probably is easier to get the votes if everyone gets something. On a side note I think they should penalize Churchill Downs for their about face on the Arlington Casino. Lets see how much power they truly have. - Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:40 pm: I didnt vote because i need to know if all casinos in Illinois are taxed at the same rate. - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:49 pm: Bid as-is. This is becoming paralysis by analysis. - OutOfState - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:51 pm: I voted bid it as is. If a casino operator will bid the project at the favorable rate, try that first. The city could probably also utilize TIF funds to lower the effective tax burden on the casino without reopening the issue in the GA. - placeyourbets - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:56 pm: Adjust the rates. If a study performed by an industry expert says it doesnt work, the IGB says the rates need revisited, what sense then would it make to bid it at that point? Go back, get it right, and move on. - Louis G Atsaves - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:01 pm: Bid as is. If no bids are received, then bring it up any changes at a later date. - SSL - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:02 pm: Voted lower the rate. I think you want the best run casino operators to be part of the process. If it is well run it will be more successful, which should result in more for the city. There is a risk that some of the best operators opt out if they view it as a poor use of their resources. - Montrose - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:03 pm: Lower the rate. You can still get a big revenue bump by making some minor adjustments to the rate. If my math is right, no casino brings in less revenue than a casino with slightly lower tax rates. - lakeside - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:03 pm: I voted bid as-is, but they’ve also negotiated against themselves so much in public, who knows if it’ll get taken. But if I’m a casino operator and you told me I could pick up (the gambling subset of) everybody coming to Chicago for conventions. I’m only a little kidding about this next part: tell them the tax rate stays but the operator of the downtown casino can also access a pot dispensary license for the location (see other post about dispensary restrictions downtown). Now you’re the sole casino and sole dispensary downtown. They’ll roll in money and so will the city and state. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:04 pm: ===they’ve also negotiated against themselves so much in public=== They do that a lot. See: CTU - muon - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:05 pm: I voted lower the rate, but there’s no reason that part of the rate couldn’t be negotiable as part of the contract. Set a maximum and minimum rate, and let the bidders help determine what the real value of a Chicago casino is to them. - Simple Simon - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:06 pm: Bid as is. How can you know if you don’t actually try? They would have more ammunition for a later change if no bids arise. Big business will bad mouth this no matter what the rate actually is. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:09 pm: Maybe I am wrong (I often am), but I thought the tax/fee structure for a Chicago casino assumed the city built the casino and hired a firm to operate it on its behalf. If the city can build this on its own land, then leave the tax structure as-is. If the city isn’t willing to do that, why would the state consider re-writing the bill? For years Chicago has been begging for its own casino, and now it has everything it needs to move forward. The best time to amend a bill is before it passes, not after. - Reality Check - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:12 pm: Third option, cut out the middleman. The city should own the casino and split the profits with the state. - Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:16 pm: Note this day. I agree with Louis. Bid as is. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:18 pm: ===Note this day. I agree with Louis. Bid as is.=== Same. Bid as-is. My thoughts are similar to those and their rationale, I’d also add that if the thinking and math says no one will bid, we’ll soon see. Tough to see everyone taking a walk on the opportunity. - DuPage Bard - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:25 pm: Don’t change the rate but re-do the study and have a downtown location be on the table. Right next to McCormick Place. You have that big new arena, plus a giant hotel with one of the largest convention spaces in the country. Your a quick walk to Soldier Field and Northerly Island. It just make sense to put there. - Red Ketcher - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:42 pm: Bid It= As Is Most Arms Lenghth Method - Steve - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:46 pm: Bid as is. But, allow a downtown casino. - Former State Worker - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:53 pm: =Bid as is. But, allow a downtown casino.= There’s nothing in the bill preventing them from putting a casino downtown. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:55 pm: Bid as is, because I’m not convinced a downtown location can’t be profitable even with the high combined taxes, and suspect a casino developer would bite (less confident but hopeful for McCormick Place. The rest would be a mistake). - Nanker Phelge - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:56 pm: The problem is the special City of Chicago privilege tax on AGR. I don’t know what flexibility the GA gave Chicago with that tax, but it ought to change the law to give all locals the opportunity to add on their own privilege tax or not and decide what the rate should be. The GA can put a cap on that rate, but give Chicago (and other cities) the flexibility to set the rate. - Thurston Howell - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:56 pm: Look, we did social equity on Marijuana. The gaming law is the most billionaire-centric in the nation. Let’s just leave it alone so it all evens out. - Glengarry - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 3:01 pm: Bid it as-is. We’ll find out in short time if anyone wants a lucrative opportunity at Chicago casino. - Annonin' - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 3:46 pm: Guessin’ other casino and sites and additional gaming interests will have their hands out too. Like we said last nite let dig out the words to “Movin’ To Rosemont” - Annonin' - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 4:54 pm: Vary surprised more Capt Fax voters sense a scam and support “bid as is” Must be newcomers to the gaming saga - Enviro - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 5:20 pm: Bid as is. The casino industry will be anxious to get their hands on the millions of dollars possible with a Chicago casino. - 7Stones - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 8:35 pm: Cut both the Chicago tax rate as well as the Illinois tax rate in half. Don’t waste time bidding it out. The only person with the brains to run a casino in Illinois is Neil Bluhm. Pick a site, cut a deal with Neil and start construction. - GC - Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 9:00 pm: Neither. Allow Chicago to own the casino and select its operator. Need to get creative? Make it an asset of the Chicago pension funds like the Guv’s been talking about. I figure constructing new assets for the fund looks less less a financial trick for ratings than transferring existing assets. Not sure how the State’s share plays. Death of the Arlington racino means there’s a revenue hole. Probably can’t squeeze more money here. Good luck Guv. - Troutmask23 - Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 7:37 am: Illinois and Chicago are a joke. Bid as is. The consultants report also makes no sense. Michael Reese is the only location. If you can’t make a casino work next to the largest convention center in the Western Hemisphere (MPEA claim?) then don’t bid on it. The billionaires will figure it out. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.