Capitol Fax: Maybe one day

You know I sympathize with libertarians on some issues. The philosophy of libertarianism is to let things be. This post by Rich Miller (probably a long way from libertarian) makes sense to me. He writes about those people who are vehemently opposed to video gaming then turns to talking about drugs.

Basic argument with both, if you legalize video gambling and illegal drugs you may well take away the danger illegal element. The organized crime won't be as interested in video gambling when it's legal because while it's illegal they'll want a cut of the money. The same goes for drugs organized crime will do what it takes to makes its money.

Alas when either of these "vices" were legalized you have those who will insist it's bad. If video gambling is legal organized crime will really have a field day. If illegal drugs are now legal to consume it will be a public health nightmare.

Well I don't know about video gambling. As for legalizing those drugs that are currently illegal I do support legalizing the sale and consumption of some drugs. For example I have little issue with legalizing marihuana. And Miller is right when he says that "it’s a pretty darned safe bet that Walgreen’s and CVS employees aren’t going to be shooting at each other if their employers are the ones selling pot".

Perhaps the sale of marihuana is safer in a store than on a street corner. At that it's also safer if grown by a reputable producer of marihuana. If an honest producer wants to become weathly - and legally - quality control would have to be the key, right?

One day the public will understand the lessons of the prohibition era of the 1920s.

Board rejects 24-hour casinos

Well this is what happens when the state is allowed to regulate what a business can do on their property. Not only can they allow smokers on their property but they also aren't allowed to extend their hours to offset the loss of business because of a state mandated smoking ban. Crain's..

The Illinois Gaming Board turned down a request from casino operators to allow casinos in the state to remain open 24 hours a day.

The casinos asked for longer hours to offset a steep decline in gambling revenue recently that the casinos attribute to a weak economy and a new state law that prohibits smoking in public places. The state’s nine casinos are required to close for at least two hours a day, and some opt to close longer.

Casinos’ hours are set by the board’s administrative staff. When the casinos petitioned to operate around the clock, Administrator Mark Ostrowski asked for direction from the five-member gaming board.

Chairman Aaron Jaffe said gambling opponents who registered intense opposition to the idea during a public hearing April 8 persuaded board members to leave the hours unchanged.

Religious leaders, addiction counselors and others opposed to casino gambling argued that around-the-clock casinos would cater to gambling addicts. They predicted that 24-hour casinos would make it easier for gamblers to engage in binges where they forsake food and sleep for days while they try to recover huge losses.

“They made a better case than the casino industry did,” Mr. Jaffe said earlier this week. “I felt the industry didn’t make a case for (longer hours).”

I share the opposition many might make towards casino operations. However I'm of the belief that you can't engage in social engineering which is what I believe they are doing by attempting to regulate the operations of these businesses. Unfortunately there is a catch-22 when gambling casinos are seen as revenue generators for the state.

Quinn Calls for Statewide Gambling Referendum

This sounds good to me just doesn't seem very likely. Looking at some Illinois politicians talking about something to this effect they don't seem to be very gung ho for it.

Chicagoist blogged about this yesterday and the Illinois Channel blog posted a an open letter to Governor Blagojevich as well.

Hoped-for casino boost faces long odds

From Crain's. Here's one good reason not to be under any illusion that casino gambling will be a panacea for providing more revenue for capital needs. Capitol needs being building roads, schools, public transportation and things like that.

So let's take a look...

As a downtown Chicago casino inches closer to reality, results from gambling forays in Detroit and other Midwestern cities suggest a limited payout here for the convention and tourism industries.

Three casinos near downtown Detroit, the first of which opened in 1999, have done little to attract more visitors or otherwise boost the city's struggling economy, according to Donald Holecek, a Michigan State University professor emeritus of tourism development. "People would come in for a day and stay in the casino," he says.

Chicago casino boosters cite a potential impact of as much as $950 million a year in annual revenue and 2,500 new jobs from a casino with 4,000 gambling positions, figures that could grow to $1.2 billion and 3,200 jobs for the hospitality industry as a whole. But critics say much of that would not be new money.

"The good thing (about casinos) is they make a lot of money," says William Thompson, a University of Nevada at Las Vegas professor of public administration. Casinos "pay a lot of taxes. The bad thing is they make the money off local residents. It's a zero-sum game."

A 'zero-sum game'? Ah, so these tourists who come in don't spend their money at these casinos? They're not gambling. That or there are no tourists.

Detroit may not be a good example only because I can only imagine that they aren't getting much tourism up there in the "Motor City". Might Chicago's attempt at gaming prove my theory correct that conventioneers and tourist won't spend at a casino? And yes, I do mean gambling.

Casino debate in Springfield

State Senators Bill Brady and Lou Lang talking about gambling expansion this morning on Channel 2's Eye on Chicago. Have a watch.

Daley: No Casino In 'My Beautiful Park'

This is a bit disappointing. From Channel 2...

Squabbling among lawmakers could derail plans to bring a casino to Chicago.

If it were to happen though, Mayor Richard M. Daley was emphatic Tuesday about where any city-owned casino would not be located.

"Well, it's not going to be near the lakefront, of course. It's not going to be in communities, it's not going to be I Navy Pier, it's not going to be in my beautiful park, Northerly Island," he said with a smile and added it would also not be at McCormick Place or Block 37.

The mayor did not mention Michigan avenue locations as among those on the outs. CBS 2 reported Monday night the old Congress Hotel is among those under consideration.

CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery also reported the plan could bring seven new casinos to the Chicago area.

Chicago would become the first American city to own a casino. In the suburbs, four existing riverboats would each get hundreds of new gambling positions. Two more boats would go to sites chosen by the Illinois Gaming Board, and four suburban Horse tracks would each get hundreds of slot machines.

I honestly am glad he's placing a line towards where a city casino would go. I think he's making a mistake by not putting casinos in the neighborhoods. Michigan Avenue isn't a bad place so long as the casino isn't downtown.

I would like to see a casino in a more impoverished neighborhood than I would see it anywhere near downtown. Though I understand that perhaps downtown is better since downtown is very easily accessible especially thru public transportation. Still why not let those communities who want a casino to have one. Why should this be a problem?

Madigan proposes major gambling expansion

While I'm not a big fan of gambling outside of Las Vegas and Atlantic City I suppose I wouldn't have a big problem with it if the City of Chicago or any other governmental entity has the opportunity to own and manage a casino. Keep government out of gaming and just let them reap the profits. And also why even pretend that gambling will be the panacea for funding public transportation the way the lottery was supposed to be for the public schools. Still it's only proposed as a solution to this problem I suppose that's all that counts yes.

From Crain's...

Many Downstate lawmakers refuse to support aid for Chicago transit unless it is accompanied by new construction projects across Illinois. That, in turn, requires a deal on the notoriously complex issue of gambling.

Two top House Democrats who introduced Madigan's plan at a Chicago news conference argued it was the catalyst for a resolution.

"This is the linchpin that's going to drive everything," said Rep. Bob Molaro, D-Chicago. "This is the real deal."

The House will meet next Monday to consider the proposal, Madigan said in a letter to lawmakers.

The new proposal includes many of the elements that already passed the Senate in September, including a huge, land-based casino in Chicago and thousands more slot machines at Illinois' nine existing riverboats.

Madigan's plan also calls for another new riverboat casino and reissuing Illinois' 10th casino license, which has been tied up in legal limbo since it was approved for Rosemont in 1999. The Senate-backed plan called for creating two new licenses.

The speaker also wants 3,600 gambling positions at the state's five horse racing tracks, something the Senate idea did not include.

Both the Senate and the Madigan proposals call for a 70-30 split of new gambling money between construction and education, but Cross said there is no agreement yet on how to divide up the education portion.

Other possible roadblocks include how many hundreds of millions of dollars to charge the city of Chicago for the right to own a mega-casino, how to divide up ownership for minorities and women in the new casino licenses and how to restructure the Illinois Gaming Board that regulates casinos.

Let's see what happens. I'm under absolutely no illusions that this will solve the problems of capital spending, transit funding or even education. I don't think you should be either.

Casinos in Chicago...

I was looking at the Capitol Fax Blog just now and there are stories about the possibility of a casino in the city. To be sure this is something I've never been big on. Why does Vegas and Atlantic City have to come closer to those areas without gambling instead of gamblers going to Vegas and Atlantic City?

Anyway gambling is a way to get in some revenue for government check this out...

Sources told CBS 2 Daley signed off on a tentative deal that could, after years of discussion, finally bring a casino to downtown Chicago, as well as to south suburban Cook County, north suburban Lake County and a site still to be determined within 8 miles of O’Hare Airport.

Chicago’s casino would have up to 5,000 positions for slot machines, card and dice games and roulette. City Hall’s tax take could be 20 percent of the anticipated $1 billion plus annual gross, or more than $200 million a year.

Nine existing casino boats would get thousands of new slot machines and other gambling positions. Horse tracks would share millions in new dollars from a so-called impact fee, tentatively 3 percent of gross receipts of all the new gambling.

Last month Illinois lost a politician who was the long time mayor of a Chicago suburb Rosemont. An issue that came up was a casino that just couldn't get off the ground no matter what they tried to do. You know I remember years ago that this proposed casino was to have some minority owners too, two of whom I'm somewhat familiar with (they're involved with a black owned bank). And charges came up that the mob had some influence in this proposed casino.

Still Rosemont might get their casino and if Daley gets his casino. How about some depressed minority communities like Roseland or Englewood or even the west side? Or how about some depressed south suburban city like Harvey, Dixmoor, Robbins, or even Phoenix? Areas like these could use some of this action if gambling is to be this cash cow it's supposed to be.

Look to be sure I read somewhere about proposals to put slot machines in race track. Thinking about it I'd say why not. At least instead of opening more casinos.