May 19, 2005

Casino move legislation expected to pass House today

Rep. Pat Vershoores measure to sidestep the obstacle posed by a legal opinion from Attorney General Lisa Madigan is expected to pass the Illinois House today, Vershoore said.
Sen. Mike Jacobs apparently dosn't have any idea if there are enough votes to pass the measure in the Senate, but he assures us, ""I won't say whether we have enough votes. But I will say I have an excellent relationship with both Republicans and Democrats. But I'm hopeful that I will be able to work with them to get enough votes." That excellent relationship ought to assure passage one would think.

> MORE <

4 Comments:

At 5/21/2005 7:37 PM, Blogger demdinosaur said...

Congrats to State Rep. Pat Verschoore for maneuvering this bill though the House. Now, it's time for the Illinois Senate to step up to the plate for jobs and common sense and helping our QC-economy.

Best wishes to State Sen. Mike Jacobs as he now has the burden of getting this through the Senate.
I am confident that he will succed, and we sure could use this win.

 
At 5/22/2005 9:40 AM, Blogger Dave Barrett said...

I have grown used to the fact that no opposition to riverboat gambling will be allowed to appear in the news media. The news media has a vested interest in the gambling industry and journalism ceases on subjects in which in the owning corporation has a vested interest. But I was surprised to read this blog in which the blogger and the only comment took it for granted that what was good for the riverboat casinos was good for the entire community in which the casino was located. The assumption is that the casinos bring jobs and tax base to the community and the state mandated local grants awarded by the casinos is found money. All up-side, no down-side.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The casinos could be bringing money into the community only if some of their customers are people from outside the area who would not be comming into the area and spending money here if the casinos were not here. The studies which have been done show that this is not the case. Those tour buses in the casino parking lots are not coming from far away. Almost all of the casinos customers would be spending their entertainment dollars in the local area if the casinos did not exist. How many locally owned restaurants, race tracks, night clubs, etc. have folded since the casinos came? Those casino jobs are not new jobs for the community, but rather transferred, often from locally owned business to the non-locally owned casino.
How many people have you heard about who were decent law-abiding family people who became gambling addicts and embezzled money after the riverboat casinos came? There were a number of cases in the media the first few years of riverboat gambling. Lately I have seen a number of embezzlement cases reported in the paper that curiously did not report on what the embezzler did with the money. Have the news media decided not to report that the motivation for the embezzlment because that might lessen support for the riverboat casinos?

 
At 5/22/2005 11:01 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Dave,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I would beg to differ with your characterization of my views. I don't know where you came to the conclusion that I somehow assume that what is good for the casinos is good for the area. At no time have I suggested this.

I do know that in previous posts on this subject, I've mentioned that there are compelling arguments on the other side as to why the casino shouldn't be allowed to move.

Of course, it's perfectly fine to argue that gambling should be eliminated completely, but at this point, it seems irrational to think that will happen anytime soon, and likely never.

I'm certainly aware of the many downsides of gambling and the real social damage it does wherever it's established. Though the gambling interests give large amounts of money for gambling recovery programs etc. it still is irresponsible to ignore the real damage gambling does to those who are sucked into gambling addiction.

Of course, the same argument can be used even moreso for alcohol, so it's a slippery slope. Do you want total prohibition on every activity which has the potential for abuse and damage?

The only upside to gambling is the revenue it generates and jobs it provides. I have never bought the false promise that it would somehow revive the economy of the areas around it. This is plain to see from experience. The greedy and cash rich casino companies make sure that they suck up every dime of the visitor, from restaurants to hotels to parking.
The entire operations are designed specifically so that the gambler never has to leave the property until they're tapped out and ready to go home.
It doesn't do a thing for surrounding areas, and never has. Look at Atlantic City.

 
At 5/29/2005 10:56 AM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Dave and Dope - yes, I must agree with Dave on the fact we don't get outside money. We may have for a short time because we were one of the first boats up and running when it was novel.

However, soon Chicago (which was where we actually got some of the outside gamblers in the early days) soon will have their own gamble central built up very soon - likely near their millenium park area that Daley has invested billions into since about 1999 or so.

Kiss any outside money goodbye when that gets up and running because Chicago will become the new hot place to go and spin the dice etc -- and RI will be rusty and dusty then....

And to think we will ruin those wetlands for this money scheme. Is there still a fed law about mandatory replacement of wetlands or did George Bush do away with that too??

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home