Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: DCFS communication “probably the worst it’s been”
Next Post: You were expecting good news?
Posted in:
* Capitol News Illinois…
The Illinois Gaming Board said Monday that state lawmakers need to change a law they enacted earlier this year if they ever hope to see a casino developed in the city of Chicago.
That vote came in response to a feasibility study released in August that said such a casino would not be feasible given the “onerous tax and fee structure” that lawmakers imposed.
At its regular monthly meeting in Chicago, the board voted unanimously to adopt a resolution stating that, “based on results of the study as required by the Illinois Gambling Act, the board recommends that the General Assembly consider making modifications to the terms of the Chicago casino license authorized under the Illinois Gambling Act.”
* The Question: Should the Illinois General Assembly lower the tax rate for the Chicago casino or should the city try to bid out the license with the current rates? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:29 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: DCFS communication “probably the worst it’s been”
Next Post: You were expecting good news?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Bid it as is. There is nothing stopping Chicago from using its share of the tax money to the casino. A casino operator can put options in their bid in many different fashions.
On another matter I don’t think the Gaming Board should be involving themselves in legislative policy unless asked or if there are legal problems with language, etc. They are there to regulate what the law says.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:35 pm
I say lower the rate. The GA is going to have to clean up the gaming proposal on a few other fronts so it probably is easier to get the votes if everyone gets something. On a side note I think they should penalize Churchill Downs for their about face on the Arlington Casino. Lets see how much power they truly have.
Comment by Nagidam Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:38 pm
I didnt vote because i need to know if all casinos in Illinois are taxed at the same rate.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:40 pm
Bid as-is.
This is becoming paralysis by analysis.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:49 pm
I voted bid it as is. If a casino operator will bid the project at the favorable rate, try that first. The city could probably also utilize TIF funds to lower the effective tax burden on the casino without reopening the issue in the GA.
Comment by OutOfState Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:51 pm
Adjust the rates. If a study performed by an industry expert says it doesnt work, the IGB says the rates need revisited, what sense then would it make to bid it at that point? Go back, get it right, and move on.
Comment by placeyourbets Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 1:56 pm
Bid as is. If no bids are received, then bring it up any changes at a later date.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:01 pm
Voted lower the rate. I think you want the best run casino operators to be part of the process. If it is well run it will be more successful, which should result in more for the city.
There is a risk that some of the best operators opt out if they view it as a poor use of their resources.
Comment by SSL Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:02 pm
Lower the rate. You can still get a big revenue bump by making some minor adjustments to the rate. If my math is right, no casino brings in less revenue than a casino with slightly lower tax rates.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:03 pm
I voted bid as-is, but they’ve also negotiated against themselves so much in public, who knows if it’ll get taken. But if I’m a casino operator and you told me I could pick up (the gambling subset of) everybody coming to Chicago for conventions.
I’m only a little kidding about this next part: tell them the tax rate stays but the operator of the downtown casino can also access a pot dispensary license for the location (see other post about dispensary restrictions downtown). Now you’re the sole casino and sole dispensary downtown. They’ll roll in money and so will the city and state.
Comment by lakeside Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:03 pm
===they’ve also negotiated against themselves so much in public===
They do that a lot. See: CTU
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:04 pm
I voted lower the rate, but there’s no reason that part of the rate couldn’t be negotiable as part of the contract. Set a maximum and minimum rate, and let the bidders help determine what the real value of a Chicago casino is to them.
Comment by muon Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:05 pm
Bid as is. How can you know if you don’t actually try? They would have more ammunition for a later change if no bids arise. Big business will bad mouth this no matter what the rate actually is.
Comment by Simple Simon Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:06 pm
Maybe I am wrong (I often am), but I thought the tax/fee structure for a Chicago casino assumed the city built the casino and hired a firm to operate it on its behalf.
If the city can build this on its own land, then leave the tax structure as-is. If the city isn’t willing to do that, why would the state consider re-writing the bill? For years Chicago has been begging for its own casino, and now it has everything it needs to move forward.
The best time to amend a bill is before it passes, not after.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:09 pm
Third option, cut out the middleman. The city should own the casino and split the profits with the state.
Comment by Reality Check Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:12 pm
Note this day. I agree with Louis. Bid as is.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:16 pm
===Note this day. I agree with Louis. Bid as is.===
Same. Bid as-is.
My thoughts are similar to those and their rationale, I’d also add that if the thinking and math says no one will bid, we’ll soon see. Tough to see everyone taking a walk on the opportunity.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:18 pm
Don’t change the rate but re-do the study and have a downtown location be on the table. Right next to McCormick Place. You have that big new arena, plus a giant hotel with one of the largest convention spaces in the country. Your a quick walk to Soldier Field and Northerly Island. It just make sense to put there.
Comment by DuPage Bard Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:25 pm
Bid It= As Is
Most Arms Lenghth Method
Comment by Red Ketcher Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:42 pm
Bid as is. But, allow a downtown casino.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:46 pm
=Bid as is. But, allow a downtown casino.=
There’s nothing in the bill preventing them from putting a casino downtown.
Comment by Former State Worker Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:53 pm
Bid as is, because I’m not convinced a downtown location can’t be profitable even with the high combined taxes, and suspect a casino developer would bite (less confident but hopeful for McCormick Place. The rest would be a mistake).
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:55 pm
The problem is the special City of Chicago privilege tax on AGR. I don’t know what flexibility the GA gave Chicago with that tax, but it ought to change the law to give all locals the opportunity to add on their own privilege tax or not and decide what the rate should be. The GA can put a cap on that rate, but give Chicago (and other cities) the flexibility to set the rate.
Comment by Nanker Phelge Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:56 pm
Look, we did social equity on Marijuana. The gaming law is the most billionaire-centric in the nation. Let’s just leave it alone so it all evens out.
Comment by Thurston Howell Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 2:56 pm
Bid it as-is. We’ll find out in short time if anyone wants a lucrative opportunity at Chicago casino.
Comment by Glengarry Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 3:01 pm
Guessin’ other casino and sites and additional gaming interests will have their hands out too.
Like we said last nite let dig out the words to “Movin’ To Rosemont”
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 3:46 pm
Vary surprised more Capt Fax voters sense a scam and support “bid as is” Must be newcomers to the gaming saga
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 4:54 pm
Bid as is. The casino industry will be anxious to get their hands on the millions of dollars possible with a Chicago casino.
Comment by Enviro Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 5:20 pm
Cut both the Chicago tax rate as well as the Illinois tax rate in half. Don’t waste time bidding it out. The only person with the brains to run a casino in Illinois is Neil Bluhm. Pick a site, cut a deal with Neil and start construction.
Comment by 7Stones Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 8:35 pm
Neither. Allow Chicago to own the casino and select its operator.
Need to get creative? Make it an asset of the Chicago pension funds like the Guv’s been talking about. I figure constructing new assets for the fund looks less less a financial trick for ratings than transferring existing assets.
Not sure how the State’s share plays. Death of the Arlington racino means there’s a revenue hole. Probably can’t squeeze more money here. Good luck Guv.
Comment by GC Tuesday, Sep 17, 19 @ 9:00 pm
Illinois and Chicago are a joke. Bid as is. The consultants report also makes no sense. Michael Reese is the only location. If you can’t make a casino work next to the largest convention center in the Western Hemisphere (MPEA claim?) then don’t bid on it. The billionaires will figure it out.
Comment by Troutmask23 Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 7:37 am