Illinois lawmakers are considering plans to add more casinos as the state continues to grapple with budget woes.
The latest proposals would place casinos in Danville, Rockford and Waukegan. Another proposal would allow for slot machines to be operated at race tracks like Arlington Park, the Alton Daily News reported. The bills are sponsored by Terry Link (D-Waukegan) in the Senate and in the House.
Gov. Pat Quinn has called the legislation to, once again, expand gambling in Illinois "a distraction."
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has been pushing for a Chicago casino. A Chicago casino is something that officials in the city long have sought. As far back at 1993, Mayor Daley proposed an $800 million development that would have included five gambling boats on the Chicago River.
Critics of gambling expansion say that the are tremendous societal costs related to gambling addiction. A Chicago casino also could take business away from other area casinos in Illinois. Others point out that Illinois' state budget hasn't improved in the years since riverboat casinos first were approved in 1991 and that casino revenue tends to not keep pace with inflation.
"It's only short term. It's really not good fiscal policy," The Christian Sciene Monitor quoted Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability in May 2011.
Proponents of a Chicago casino argue that a casino in the city would attract tourists and convention goers, drawing money from outside of the state unlike many of the downstate and suburban casinos.
* Travel headaches-traffic, tolls, high gas prices, parking costs OR public transportation headaches such as high fares, undesirable elements causing problems, vehicles that aren't on time or break down, "security theater" delays, etc. * Ticket costs:TicketMaster (or LiveNation) fees, surcharges, inability to get the tickets one wants for a particular day, having to deal with StubHub users * Long lines:To get in, to leave. To go to the restroom. To get food. * Food prices:High. Ridiculously high because every entity has their fingers in the pie and wants a cut of what's in your wallet. * Restrooms-run the gamut from super clean, to well, let's just not talk about that giant trough... * Crime: Pick pockets, thugs, panhandlers, street solicitors, thieves, gang bangers... * Taxes: On tickets, soda, polystyrene carry-out items, etc. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that people will set aside these disadvantages for now and attend. That's great. What's it do for the local area or Governmental bodies that are expected to provide police/fire and infrastructure. Do they make money on the deal, or do they end up financing it for the venue owners as is so often the case? If these venues can't stand on their own, let them close.
WENT TO CHICAGO FOOD FEST I WAS STOPPED AND ASK FOR MONEY ABOUT 5 TIMES AND I TOOK THE TRAIN TO AVOID DRIVING AND GETTING LOST....THERE MANY CASINOS CLOSE TO CHICAGO, BUT NO CASINOS AROUND GURNEE AREA.
By the way, you seem to be a small government kind of guy. So am I. This is a case of smaller government being necessary. Let them get out of the way and allow Arlington to shape their revenue as they feel is best, which in this case is increased gaming. It's a win-win.
Where are the other tracks that are permitted to have slot machines located? In Illinois or not? Personally, I could care less if someone wants to gamble - that's generally their business, and unless it's having an effect on something funded by the government, the Government ought to keep their nose out of it. But those effects are varied: Criminal activity as a direct (people stealing to fund their gambling habit) or indirect (people robbing cars in the casino parking lot)result of the gambling, societal costs (people not feeding their kids because of their gambling habit - so they then go on welfare or food stamps - funded by the rest of us), quality of life (not everyone may want to live right next to a casino or have to deal with the traffic/public crazies caused by it). The games definitely need to be fair - otherwise you have a whole different slew of issues that come up. So a certain amount of governmental regulation is likely always going to be needed when we're talking about gambling.
If they want to give up on the horse racing and have a slot machine hall, ok fine - let's have that conversation. Maybe that's something the surrounding community is willing to have, maybe not. Maybe the Racetrack gets replaced by something else entirely... But it seems to me that they're suffering from a declining business model, and they're trying to prop it up (and perhaps eventually replace it) with slot machines... As for small government - I'm in favor of right-sizing the government so it takes care of the "gotta haves", and leaves the nice-to-haves to the private sector.
A casino isn't going to solve the problem of property taxes. We were sold a similar story when Illinois started the Lottery - it's solve all our educational funding problems, blah blah blah. We've seen how well that's worked out *cough* NOT! *cough*.