Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - House Democratic gaming proposal *** Updated several times ***
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Raw audio of this morning’s gaming press conference
Posted in:
* 11:59 am - The AP has a brief story up about the House Democrats’ new gaming proposal. Since the subscriber-only post is quite long, I’m going to leave it behind the firewall. However, the plan includes a $200 million price for a new Chicago casino (which will surely be seen by many as too low), 3,600 new slots at racetracks and a tough new ethics proposal. For the first time, Speaker Madigan has relented to pressure from the governor and the other leaders and agreed to a 70-30 split of the gaming proceeds between capital projects and education spending.
You can read the entire gaming proposal at this link [pdf file] or this link [txt file].
* 12:02 pm - As I told subscribers this morning, House GOP Leader Tom Cross is meeting with the governor and Senate President Jones at the moment to discuss the House Democrats’ gaming plan. I’ll pass along more when I know more, but the spending side of Madigan’s proposal could prove to be problemmatic, I’m told.
* 12:19 pm - Here’s the language on minority and female investment that we talked about the other day…
Once a license has been awarded, the winning bidder must allow for 25% of their equity interest to be put up for sale in $5,000 increments. The 25% shall be made available in the following manner: 20% for minority interests and 5% for female interests. If more applications are received than exist available shares, a lottery-based system shall be implemented with complete Gaming Board oversight.
This appears to apply only to the new private casinos, not Chicago’s publicly owned casino.
* 1:09 pm - The AP has a full story up now…
House Speaker Michael Madigan showed his hand in gambling negotiations Monday, proposing a major expansion that would raise $1 billion a year through two new casinos and thousands of slot machines at riverboats and horse tracks. […]
In a letter to lawmakers, Madigan said the House will meet next Monday to consider the proposal. […]
Blagojevich spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch said the governor’s office hadn’t seen details of the proposal and would need to compare them with what leaders had discussed in recent weeks.
[Emphasis added.]
* Daily Herald…
But one Republican familiar with ongoing talks cautioned that this should not yet be described as a “deal.” […]
The two Democratic state lawmakers who unveiled the gambling plan said they think a deal is close.
“We think it’s 99 percent there,” said state Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat.
* 1:45 pm - React from Senate President Jones’ spokesperson…
“We have not seen language of the legislation yet. There are issues that were described in the meeting that we could support, others still need work. Once we see the actual legislation, we can begin to move forward.”
* 3:56 pm - This is not exactly earth-shattering because of the other pre-existing suit in Cook County, but here’s part of the AP story…
A Sangamon County judge barred a lawsuit against Governor Rod Blagojevich’s expanded health care plan Monday. But that’s only because a similar one is proceeding in Cook County.
Circuit Judge Leo Zappa agreed with lawyers for Blagojevich that allowing the lawsuit would be unfairly duplicative because a similar suit in Cook County was OK’d Monday.
The Illinois Coalition for Jobs, Growth and Prosperity sued the governor last week to stop him from adding 147,000 parents to state-subsidized health insurance. Blagojevich announced plans to expand the program even though he didn’t have authority from legislators.
React from the governor’s office…
We’re pleased that Judge Zappa today barred the lawsuit filed by two Republican activists designed to take healthcare away from families. We will continue to fight any efforts that keep hardworking people from getting the healthcare coverage that they need.
* 3:59 pm - I’m hearing from two different sources that there will likely be no special session this week. The Senate may hold a hearing on Friday, but it looks like we’ll all be back at the grind on Monday.
* 4:17 pm - Good riddance.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:01 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - House Democratic gaming proposal *** Updated several times ***
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Raw audio of this morning’s gaming press conference
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
its actually three casinos, two new licenses and then seeling the old emerald license which has not been a finctioing casino in years.
Any information on how they calcualted this supposed 1 billion in money to the State from this expansion and sale of the new license? If the State spends this billion dollars and the State does not take in that much, we are in a even deeper mess then we are now.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:16 pm
Interesting little bit about the extra new license (not chicago) and the old emerald license..
===Once a license has been awarded, the winning bidder must allow for 25% of their equity interest to be
put up for sale in $5,000 increments. The 25% shall be made available in the following manner: 20%
for minority interests and 5% for female interests. If more applications are received than exist available shares, a lottery-based system shall be implemented with complete Gaming Board oversight.==
I wonder why the Chicago licesne does not have to do this as well.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:20 pm
I wonder - is this a compromise?
Chicago gets to do the set-aside version. The others have to do the lottery version?
I wonder if this will move things along.
Comment by JohnR Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:26 pm
The real question, Rich, is this:
What in here will achieve Madigan’s goal of delaying any capital projects starting until January 2011?
Where are the poison pills and the grinders?
Comment by JohnR Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:28 pm
I don’t think Madigan wants to delay capital projects, even for his daughter. He does think these things should be paid for with taxes rather than gambling.
Any poison pill is inherent in the casino concept itself — if it yields enough money to do what its backers claim it will, I’ll be stunned. I think Ghost’s scenario is more realistic.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:32 pm
Chicago owning a casino? I don’t like the sound of that!
Comment by Levois Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:33 pm
Chicago has completre discretion over 30% of what they take in…BUT 20% of what is earned by the state as a whole from the other licenses and slots goes to Cook County for education!!!! Enought with giving donwstaters the shaft. Require cook county to spend that 30% on education before shorting the rest of the schools in the state!!!
Comment by Ghost Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:35 pm
You have to be crazy to trust Daley and Stroger with a casino. The state needs to make sure that new ethics law has some teeth and some real oversite.That being said I still think if your going to increase gambling putting slots and video poker at theairports would make for a nice revenue source.
Comment by FED UP Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:41 pm
JOHNR
Where did you come up with the opinion that Madigan wanted to delay capital projects until 2011?
It was always my opinion that Madigan was afraid Blago would try to divert money from any capital program to other uses such as health care, or, send the money to “Blago’s friends” for capital programs that enrich them rather than distributing the money on a need basis. In other words, treat the capital program similar to the legislative initiative programs.
Comment by MOON Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:41 pm
Well, alcohol is a well established, taxed vice. Ditto tobacco. Now, gambling is expanding. I wonder when they’re going to try and legalize (and tax, of course) prostitution and drugs? This “let anybody do whatever they want to kill themselves, as long as we get our cut” approach to “government” is pathetically irresponsible, in my opinion.
Comment by Forked Tongue Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 12:53 pm
Oh, I forgot MOON, Madigan is the pure one ™.
Madigan’s interest is the exact same interest the Republicans had during his first term - delay delay delay.
Just as the Republicans didn’t want a capital bill for the Governor to get great press around in the run-up to the 2006 elections, Madigan doesn’t want the Governor to go around getting great press in the run-up to his face-off against Lisa in 2010.
The day Madigan cares about anything other than himself and his own power is the day he retires and turns the keys over to his daughter.
You can’t honestly believe this is actually about ethics and health care. It is about power.
Comment by JohnR Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 1:01 pm
OK, so if Rod, Emil and the Republicans say we are 99% there, and the House Democrats say:
“We think it’s 99 percent there,” said state Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat.”
What’s the remaining 1%?
What’s that old adage? 99% inspiration. 1% perspiration?
Let’s get some sweating going on!
Comment by JohnR Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 1:13 pm
Discretionary? They have to be kidding! Just how dangerous would that be? I suspect that the citizens of Chicago have seen enough of how the City Council has exercised its discretion to spend their tax dollars.
Enough is enough already. I would like to offer an amendment right now that would require the 30% discretionary funds be apportioned equally to all existing Chicago TIF Districts on an annual basis in order to pay them down sooner and allow the other taxing bodies to gain the benefit of the incrementally increase in the assessed valuation of the improved property within each TIF.
This would create a double bonus for the city and the taxpayers, as well as the other taxing bodies, and perhaps reduce (or eliminate-incredibly wishful thinking) the need for increased tax levies from all parties, and all levels of government.
The requirement for TIF apportionment would not subside until all TIF’s have been disolved, and it would be re-instituted for any newly created TIF’s going forward, such that the incentivized development could occur immediately but the broader based benefits could be enjoyed more quickly by all taxing bodies, and once the current TIF’s are laid to rest, new one’s might last 2-5 years, rather than the current 23 years.
Absent this TIF provision, I would negotiate for an alternative amendment that would require the 30% discretionary amount to be apportioned across all municpal pension funds (CTA excluded, they’ll get thiers in the bailout bill) on a priority basis determined by the percentage levels of actuarial under-funding for each pension fund. This requirement would remain in place for until such time as all funds have attained an 85% current funded ratio based on the existing benefit plan, and then require maintenance of this funding level through a combination of participant and employer contributions for these existing plans based on a projected three year rolling average, using conservative estimates of investment returns promulgated by the Illinois E&F Commission, or whatever they are calling that agency today.
This amendment would also require all participating pension funds, as a condition of a receipt of funding from this source, to prohibit increased enrollment in their plan for all future and perhaps current but non vested employees. As a condition of receipt of funds from this source, each employing municipal entity/agency would required to initiate a Defined Contribution Plan for all future employees, as opposed to the current Defined Benefit Pension Plans. Alternatively, and perhaps better would be for the the municpal agencies/entities to simply offer a generous matching contribution to only those participants that elect to contribute themselves into a 457 or 403(b) deferred compensation plan.
Failure to enact something along the lines of either of these amendments would be an egregious breach of the public trust (not that this would be anything new) by legislators (especially those downstate)if they were to allow this kind of booty to accumulate each year and be doled out in some “discretionary” fashion by the Chicago City (rubber stamp) Council, and would border on malfeasance for such a breach of their fiduciary duty to taxpayers.
Comment by SNAKE EYES Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 1:28 pm
JOHNR
I’am not suggesting that “Madigan is the pure one”. What I’am saying is Madigan and the rest of the legislatures are tired of getting screwed by this Gov.
Comment by MOON Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 1:29 pm
I’m not trying to be mean and inflamatory.
Given the fact, the Emil Jones and Rod Blagojevich and/or thier familes have made a fortune in business and/or government contracts, what safegaurds are in place to keep them and/or thier families and contributers from making big bucks on this?
Comment by Golly Ggee Wilakers Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 1:39 pm
I just don’t get this line of thinking. So what if Blago gets to announce project money release and maybe gets a few ribbon cutting cheesy moments? I can’t imagine the average citizen buying into Blago is ’so wonderful, look what’s he done now’, that they’d run right out and vote for him again. It’s not like Blago personally did anything except release funding. He’s got a page full of funding releases all the time plastered on the front page of the state home site, does anybody much notice.
Comment by Princeville Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 1:48 pm
Madigan put this out there to try and show that he is not holding up a capital program and this bill in intended to fail.
I mean, does he really expect the leader to agree to let Jesse White oversee all capital projects? Does he really expect the leaders to only be able to choose madigan cronies to serve on the board?
Emil says there are issues to work out. Um, yah, BIG ISSUES. Madigan knows he cant pass this. Let the games continue.
Comment by EL SALSA Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 1:50 pm
Why would the House approve a capitol plan if there is nothing to prevent the Gov. from directing all of the projects to his friends & supporters? That is his track record. If you want to see what Blagojevich would do to the capitol plan, look at the line item vetoes & reductions from August. On top of that, his recent move against JCAR is another indication that he plans to do as he pleases whether or not anyone else approves.
Skepticism amongst legislators is well founded.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 2:01 pm
Each caucus gets a lump sum amount, so its not like the gov can say who gets what anyway. If you are Cross or Watson, why would you have your members vote for a proposal that gives Jesse White control?
The Sec of State can barely keep the Capitol Building and Stratton Building up… Id hate to see what they do with roads! That belongs to the engineers and other professionals at IDOT and CDB.
Comment by EL SALSA Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 2:14 pm
Auctioning off the ‘gaming positions’ is a major step in the right direction. $50K seems low but we’ll see what the market says. It is a little unclear what $5000 buys in terms of an increment but if you are a minority or a woman put your bid in…limited distribution and high demand (albeit from a small percentage of the adult population) will ensure the success of the new casino licenses. I would say that Madigan has put some thought into this and in comparison with previous gaming initiatives this one is much more on the side of benefiting the state as a whole not government insiders.
Comment by walter sobchak Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 2:17 pm
EL SALSA
Where have you been for the last couple of years?
You state “each caucus gets a lump sum amount”. Well, where is the Dem. house members portion? Where is the Rep. senate members portion?
Comment by MOON Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 2:20 pm
Right now they are predicitng the State’s tales from Casinos will DROP roughly 20% when the smoking ban goes into effect. Now we are predicting that in a fiscal downturn, with casionos which all ban smoking, we will generate and additional 1billion in revenue? I declare Shenanigans!!! (South Park Episode 26 “Cow Days”)
Comment by Ghost Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 2:30 pm
Again - time and time again, the real problem with the who casino lottery proposal is that it empowers the white male owners who will get 75% ownership.
The remaining 25% minority and women ownership becomes diluted with thousands of small investors that have 0% say.
This just further secures ownership power over the handful of owners that will make up 75% of casino.
It sounds like a good idea on its surface, but has this huge side effect of 0% minority representation that just won’t go away.
I say - put up the entire casino ownership up for a lottery, or do none.
Don’t give the minorities the sham ownership - where they have to buy in but get no power.
Comment by JohnR Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 2:31 pm
JOHNR
You do not understand the proposed legislation!
All of the casino licenses are up for auction to the highest bidder. Only after the licenses are awarded does it become mandatory that at least 25% of ownership be in the hands of women and minorities. Their is nothing in the proposal which would preclude one or all of the licenses being awarded to minorities and/or women, if they are the high bidders.
Comment by MOON Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 2:38 pm
It would be a mistake to think any Chgo casino will have smooth sailing - just because the Four Tops and the Governor say so.
In the near future you will see unveiled a plan to make any such plan accountable to the people of Chicago. The idea of the Illinois General Assembly in an effort led by a Skokie Democrat to impose a casino on this city is absurb. The people here will decide the matter.
Doug Dobmeyer
Spokesperson
Task Force to Oppose Gambling in Chicago
Comment by Doug Dobmeyer Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 2:50 pm
Last I heard, the Speaker said he wouldn’t be for any casino plan that didn’t have the support of da Mayor. Does this mean Daley in on board?
Comment by Jaded Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 2:56 pm
MOON
The last couple years? Well, you cant very well hand out a lump sum to a caucus without a capital bill. Hence, no, the caucuses have not recieved a lump sum.
Every proposal this year, Madigans, Cross’, or Blago’s, has had a lump sum amount dedignated for each caucus. Then, the Leadership (Madigan, etc) get to decide how to spend it.
Comment by EL SALSA Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 3:08 pm
EL SALSA
The Gov. will sign the bill and then shift the money around no matter what anyone thinks. That’s why no capitol bill has passed. They can split the money any way they like, but no one trusts the Gov. to implement the bill as passed. (And he says he doesn’t have to.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 3:16 pm
Where is Watson in all of this?
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 3:19 pm
I agree that an air of distrust in very prevelent. But it goes both ways… You think any of the leaders trust anyone?? Dont pin it on Blago because Madiganis just as slippery…
Anyway, back to the subject.
This all goes back to Madigan putting in unreasonable terms so that this will not pass, but publicly it looks like he tried. Madigan does not want a capital bill until Lisa is in office.
Comment by EL SALSA Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 3:20 pm
EL SALSA
You are incorrect. The legislative initiatives for the Dem. members in the house for the last budget specifically designated what the money would be used for and what legislative district they were in.
THe house Rep. and senate Dem. did get their lump sum initiatives……..without the capital plan!!!!
Comment by MOON Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 3:23 pm
Well, I don’t know…
How dependent do we want to be on gambling for state revenues of any kind.
Do gambling revenues track the overall state of the economy, Many are predicting at least a slowdown, even a recession. Haven’t gambling initiatives in other states produced far less cash than anticipated for government (as opposed to greedy pols and casino owners and pals, who always get rich off these things).
Comment by Cassandra Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 3:44 pm
MOON - you are not understand what EL SALSA is saying.
He/She is saying that every Capital plan this year has included a lump sum amount for each caucus. That is how every proposal has ever been structured.
Moon, you are referring to the operating budget passed in August. Not a capital budget.
Comment by JohnR Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 3:45 pm
The SJR just reported that Ron Gidwitz’s lawsuit against the gov has been halted, due to there being a similiar lawsuit already filed in Cook County, and the risk of conflicting rulings.
Comment by Crimefighter Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 3:51 pm
Moon doesn’t have a clue, as usual.
Comment by Bill Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:06 pm
Everyone should read the fine print on this one. This is a just a massive expansion of gaming. Thousands of new gaming positions at effectively three new casinos (Chicago plus licenses 10 & 11), at the 9 other existing casinos and at each of the race tracks. Arlington alone gets 1,100 positions, the size of a mid-sized casino. This is bad news for our state on so many levels that I could write an essay, not a short blog post. Whether Madigan’s plan is the final one is not even the point, the last barrier to the “casino” forces is now gone as I knew it would be. Here we come, Illinois, Land of the Dice.
Comment by Niles Township Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:08 pm
Niles - that isn’t the fine print. That is the headline.
Comment by JohnR Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:09 pm
Why wouldn’t the Republican members want Jesse White to control the capital spending? It’s not like they’ve had a ton of success with the Governor. They might as well give it a shot with another constitutional.
Comment by Lotta Liaison Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:18 pm
Would the governor just stop with his health care zeal. I seriously doubt that he really cares about that at this point.
Comment by Levois Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:19 pm
By the way, any thoughts as to the convenient holiday season timing for this deal? Now, we aren’t even going to see the first session on it until next week. By the time this gets done, everyone will be away from home on vacation or gatherign around a dinner table a few feet from a tree. We will all wake up in 2008 when it will be way too late.
Comment by Niles Township Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:19 pm
Rich. It looks like you are right about session. The House posted exec, gaming and approps committees for next Monday. Expect to be there at least through Weds or Thurs if things move forward. Not sure what timing the Senate will have.
Comment by Anon Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:20 pm
JOHNR
I understand what EL SALSA said. My point was , based upon past history, the Gov. doesn’t care what the legislation says. He just decides for himself where the money should be spent and act accordingly. The legislative initiatives is just an example. You cannot trust this Gov.
Bill
As usual you are your “pleasant self”.
Comment by MOON Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:43 pm
Wow I missed my own meeting. Too much Hannah Montana. That Wymatana got us great ducats.
Now on to the Rose Bowl
Geez. Will I really have to sign Madigan’s bill?
Comment by DumberThanYouThink Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:48 pm
I know I’m supposed to dislike the gambling expansion, but all I can say is: bring on the poker tables!
Seriously. Chicago needs some good poker — and it’d be nice to have a casino (or casinos) nearby where the wait for spot isn’t too long.
The government messed with online gambling, so the only way to play poker is in person these days — and if this expansion means more poker — then bring it on.
Slots and keno are inane — but poker (and even blackjack) would be (IMHO) very welcome.
Comment by Macbeth Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:49 pm
You could do a capital budget with money directed towards ceratin projects, just like an operations budget. They are both appropriations bills, there is no difference.
Comment by Lotta Liaison Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 4:50 pm
I would venture a guess that the legislature (at least Madagin’s part) will be writing expenditure approp bills in infinite detail to negate guv’s bent to misappropriate, in effect “boxing him in” to the legislative will and intent. I applaud that move - the JCAR experience was a valuable lesson for the legis. and a costly one for guv’s discretion.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 5:01 pm
Gaming bill is out. HB4194.
Comment by Anon Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 5:57 pm
Weather alone would probably prevent any session this week, what with freezing rain and sleet tomorrow and Wednesday for much of the state.
Comment by Bookworm Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 6:51 pm
Hey Dumber - why didn’t you show up to the meeting, either?
Comment by Mr. W T Rush? Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 9:19 pm