Whatever else you may believe, you have to commend Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for trying to live up to her campaign promise of making sure that new economic development isn’t concentrated in the city’s downtown business district.
Her city casino proposal didn’t include a downtown location because she said she wanted the development benefits to target an outlying area. Her adult-use cannabis plan also forbids retail sales downtown, for partially the same reason: Let the neighborhoods benefit.
No Chicago mayor since perhaps Harold Washington has made such a public priority out of spreading the wealth into the city’s neighborhoods.
The problem is not the mayor’s stated intent. The problem is how these moves are being perceived by state legislators at a crucial time in the city’s history.
The Chicago casino legislation was supposed to help the city make its pension payments. The cannabis bill was seen, partially, as a potential boon for the city’s cash-strapped budget.
Both of those industries are consumer-driven, and both have great potential for attracting tourism and commuter dollars. It’s a generally accepted fact that the more money the city can extract out of fun-seeking visitors, the better.
So at a time when the mayor is asking the state for help filling its nearly billion-dollar budget hole, it’s probably not a good idea to look like it’s leaving money on the table.
I don’t think anyone would dispute that a downtown casino would rake in more money than one in a neighborhood — any neighborhood. And convincing tourists to leave the area near their hotels for the still-uncommon opportunity to purchase and consume legal cannabis products won’t be nearly as successful if the shopping experience is more inconvenient.
Not to mention that a casino would be of dubious economic value to a neighborhood except for its proximity to any employees who might live nearby. Gamblers don’t usually leave until they’ve spent their money, which means they won’t be spending money outside. A casino could have the opposite effect of the mayor’s intent.
And walling off downtown to cannabis sales is a good idea only if the mayor’s real intent is to wait until the social equity participants are eventually allowed to open their shops later next year and then give them the first crack at the lucrative downtown tourism market. But it’s impossible to tell for sure if that’s what’s happening, and Lightfoot probably couldn’t admit it even if it was her intent because she’d be inviting lawsuits.
To most eyes, though, it just looks like she’s once again passing up an opportunity to snatch up tourist dollars.
It’s not that legislators don’t necessarily want to help Chicago with its budget mess (although many, if not most, don’t want to help at all), it’s that they’ve already handed the city some potentially lucrative life rafts and many of them are sitting unused. It’s human nature to be skeptical of someone asking for help when the person hasn’t taken full advantage of the assistance already given.
”I really like her, but I feel like she needs to start taking more of what’s offered,” one suburban Democratic state senator told me last week.
”We shouldn’t,” said one prominent House Democrat when I asked him if the state should help the city when it isn’t apparently maximizing the existing help that’s been offered.
”The casino has to be somewhere where tourists can easily go,” insisted one top House Republican. “I completely do not understand anybody thinking otherwise.”
I’m told the mayor has a meeting with the House’s gaming point person, Rep. Bob Rita (D-Blue Island), in early October to talk about her veto session agenda. Among other things, she wants a lower tax rate on a casino, which is seen by some as yet another example of the city turning up its nose at revenue opportunities.
That may not be a fair assessment because the tax rate set by lawmakers is astoundingly high and a consultant hired by the state did say the rate would make it nearly impossible for an operator to earn a profit. But there’s little doubt that her stance feeds into the broader perception that the city is looking too many gift horses in the mouth.
Lightfoot’s people say she has not totally ruled out a downtown location. She should make that position better known.
Some of the criticisms may not be fair, and some may not even be accurate. But they’re impossible to escape. And you don’t want to give legislators easy excuses to vote against you.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 9:29 am:
Lightfoot should not rule out a downtown casino or recreational marijuana dispensaries. Neighborhood stores can thrive even with a few dispensaries downtown, as the market is huge. Why lose sales and tax revenue that could more easily be gained from tourists?
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 9:36 am:
I really don’t think tourists are going to go out to Austin, Englewood, or really any other neighborhood to buy pot. If anything, almost all will go to River North, Fulton Market, or the other border neighborhoods. Really, if a business in a far off neighborhood said in their business plan they are going to rely on attracting customers from downtown, anyone would be skeptical of that plan. I am for helping the social equity participants, but you’re not helping by having them rely on market that will never generate.
- Responsa - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 10:24 am:
Optimizing the generation of new dollars for Chicago from tourists and office workers downtown or near downtown seems so intuitive and patently obvious. It is sad and quite surprising that Lightfoot seems so oblivious to this reality. The casinos and dispensaries do not need to be located in the struggling neighborhoods to be able to supply good jobs for workers from the struggling neighborhoods.
- Shevek - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 10:30 am:
As a resident of Chicago, and someone who voted for the Mayor, these two announcements have really shaken my confidence in her. They just seem completely out of left field. I am sure the concepts are popular with some City dwellers, but there are so many other ways to bring economic development to the neighborhoods without throwing out such huge economic engines.
- @misterjayem - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 10:41 am:
“The problem is not the mayor’s stated intent. The problem is how these moves are being perceived by state legislators at a crucial time in the city’s history.”
Early months of the Lightfoot administration give the impression that she sees her role as strictly adversarial — fighting for Chicago? — and that she doesn’t make alliances because she doesn’t recognize the strategic and tactical value of such alliances.
I desperately hope she will soon prove me wrong, but I’m not holding my breath.
– MrJM
- Anon but Social Knows me - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 10:44 am:
To unpack this. Downtown - to Chicago residents, is the area south of Oak street, east of Orleans and north of Ida B. Wells. It’s what most visitors to Chicago think Chicago is. Sure there are outliers like the museums, Lincoln Park and even River North - but frankly most visitors we have had (US and international) only see that small bit.
They all leave saying Chicago is clean, safe, has lots of shopping and eating options and is beautiful. They never stepped into Austin, or even areas like Wicker Park and Logan Square that have been gentrified (but still have some issues). They see the glitz and glory of the amazing shops, beautiful streetscapes and pristine streets.
Putting a casino there serves no purpose. If someone is visiting Chicago, they aren’t coming for the gambling (once it’s there so to speak)… would they visit if it were? maybe though unlikely. Is there a chance that a casino in this highbrow area could diminish the perceived lux value of the area? likely.
Pot dispensaries on the other hand do make sense in the general area. But again, they could tarnish the image. Putting them in River North makes perfect sense. Not only is Chicago’s biggest pot business located there (one of biggest in the industry at that), but the area has the vibe and feel fitting to the industry. Not to generalize, but imagine Michigan Avenue… Gucci, Burberry, Cartier and HighRU all in line. Just doesn’t add up. But park it in the midst of bars and restaurants of RN, I can see that.
The pot question and casinos need to be treated in different lines of thinking. Both are new and both are a huge potential for income generation. But the casino equation is more for residents whereas the cannabis can create a draw of outsiders.
- OutOfState - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 10:50 am:
===Early months of the Lightfoot administration give the impression that she sees her role as strictly adversarial===
I agree, although I think this is a function of the administration swinging at too much. Lightfoot is used to being on the outside looking in and doesn’t realize that silence or non-answers along the lines of “we’re committed to finding a fair solution that prioritizes social justice and mending the city’s finances.” will serve her better now than fighting anyone and everyone. She has three and a half years to her next election and plenty of opportunities to be successful. A major obstacle now is her admin being campaign mode and not govern mode. That’s why she keeps making enemies, and that’s why we keep talking about the process and not the results. It’s time to stop campaigning and start governing.
- 37B - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 10:51 am:
How about applying a variation on the State of Illinois model?
The Chicago metro area is the main economic engine in the State and generates the most tax revenue in the state. Downstate then receives more in state spending than it generates in tax revenues.
So let the areas which maximize casino/cannabis revenues get in first but channel a significant/substantial portion of those revenues into neighborhood infrastructure or other improvements, social and job programs etc.
Just a thought.
- Rod - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 11:13 am:
Between Rich’s article and the comments most of the bases have been covered. As a property tax payer living in the City I think all additional revenue can’t help but slow the increases to the rates in Chicago so restricting options for the loop tax generation will be a problem for the Mayor. I do not believe that cannabis sales will generate the revenue projected because illegal sales like in LA will cut into them. Because police know that possession unless in large amounts will not be thrown out of court there will be little or no enforcement in Cook County. The illegal sales in LA are even being advertised as delivery services on the internet, the situation is pretty much out of control.
- Dotnonymous - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 11:54 am:
The moment Illinois legalized marijuana …our image improved worldwide.
Come January 1…just watch cash bearing tourists flood our “tarnished” state…in droves.
Hide the product they seek to purchase?…is shortsighted to vision impaired.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 1:11 pm:
===it’s that they’ve already handed the city some potentially lucrative life rafts and many of them are sitting unused.===
To that, and to the Post,
Lightfoot’s polling versus her demonstrated effectiveness as a mayor are very much at polar opposites.
There is a lacking to understanding her own options at her disposal and this need to haphazardly try to think she has this leverage to things that she doesn’t.
The town halls poll great, but are an utter trainwreck to trying to grasp her real options that she has, and what exactly is she asking that can get the votes and signature in Springfield.
Wasting sunlight. Get that money.
- Lurker - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 1:18 pm:
==she doesn’t recognize the strategic and tactical value of such alliances==
Exactly this. Politicians gonna politic. If your instinct is that alliances are “corrupt” or part of the “Chicago Way” or just “icky”…well…you’re not always wrong… but this is the business you’re in. Please start being good at it.
- Southwest Sider - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 2:02 pm:
== her demonstrated effectiveness as a mayor ==
Give her some time to get her bearings.
The casino needs to be downtown, as a tourist attraction and to get out of state gamblers. Else I’d agree with her.
- Waguespacked - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 2:52 pm:
Reminds me of Lori’s biggest ally Scott Waguespack. Scott can never get to a yes or compromise because it means the fight is over. Lori and Scott need a permanent fight and enemy for their brand to work.
- Pundent - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 3:02 pm:
=Not to generalize, but imagine Michigan Avenue… Gucci, Burberry, Cartier and HighRU all in line.=
So go a block east or west and put it next to a Subway or 7-11. You’ve reduced “downtown” to Michigan avenue. Would anybody’s sensibilities be offended if there was a dispensary occupying one of the vacant storefronts on Wabash?
With regards to a casino the objective for the city should be maximizing revenue based on convenience. Putting one in a neighborhood provides limited economic benefit particularly if it’s a location that people would have to travel into. A downtown location would be increase the take particularly given the convention business the city generates.
- PublicServant - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 4:01 pm:
Fight with your enemies, not with your friends.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 4:13 pm:
Lightfoot’s adamant about keeping recreational dispensaries out of downtown, saying they’re distasteful, won’t bring in enough revenue to make it worthwhile and the focus should be on neighborhood business.
- Anonymous - Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 5:03 pm:
“”The casino has to be somewhere where tourists can easily go.”
In that case, put them in the airports and train stations.