Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Get the money, mayor
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Posted in:
* August 21 Sun-Times story…
A coalition of mayors from mostly African American south suburbs are calling on Gov. J.B. Pritzker to reconsider a key portion of the state’s new gambling law, which they say gives the house edge to owners of a combination horse racetrack-casino over majority-black towns vying for a separate casino license nearby.
Not only would the two new full-blown gambling dens compete with one another for customers in a saturated suburban market, but the law also potentially allows the racino owners to block a traditional casino from setting up shop in the first place. That “11th hour” provision to the gaming bill only benefits “a wealthy, white track owner,” according to Matteson Village President Sheila Chalmers-Currin.
First of all, the south suburbs isn’t currently saturated with casinos. The south suburbs have been trying for years to get a casino, now they’re getting two and possibly a third in the form of a racino.
And as I told you then, this criticism was based on a misreading of the new state law. The statute only allows current track owners to veto the location of a new racino, not the south suburban casinos. The Matteson mayor even acknowledged her mistake to the Sun-Times in a follow-up article…
The Matteson mayor acknowledged the misreading, saying she and other south suburban leaders have since “gotten some clarification on that” from state Rep. Bob Rita, D-Blue Island, an architect of the casino expansion.
* And then the Matteson mayor and others held a press conference over the weekend to repeat their initially false claims…
A group of south suburban mayors claims the recently passed gaming bill has a bias against their communities.
Matteson Mayor Sheila Chalmers-Currin said south suburbs are being short-changed in their effort to build a casino. […]
Chalmers-Currin said the gaming bill gives the horse racing industry full control of where any future casino will be located.
“This proposed law appears to allow two casinos, but we know this will never happen and the favored track owner will have the only gaming property in Cook County.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 9:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Get the money, mayor
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I get why they’re concerned. Given that the racino’s ownership and location are largely (but not completely) finalized, it’s possible that it will be under construction while the gaming board is still deliberating over which town gets the South Suburban casino license. Might that make some gaming companies a little less excited about being the second casino in the market? Maybe.
But when the mayors repeatedly misrepresent what’s in the gaming bill, they don’t do themselves any favors. If they really want to beat the racino out of the gate, they should stop holding fact-free press conferences, agree among themselves on a location, and then going to the gaming board with one proposal. I suppose it’s easier to blame others.
Comment by Roman Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 10:11 am
“gambling dens? I’ve seen this term used a couple of times recently. Are these the same as dens of iniquity? Are they better or worse than a gaming location or a casino?
Comment by NoGifts Monday, Sep 23, 19 @ 11:39 am