It seems to me that this is the first thing that they ( the 4 tops and elvis) almost agreed on. Keep going boys there is a way to do this.
Anon
· 2 years ago
I heard yesterday that Monk was hired by the tracks at a HUGE amount. Some called it Y200K.
Walter Sobchak
· 2 years ago
Rather than give the casinos or racetracks 'gambling positions' why not either auction them off competitively or set a price and sell them? Each new position will positively affect stock prices and will generate short term and long term revenue for casino licensees or track owners. In the case of a race track there is an existing track (pardon the pun) record of the kinds of profits available. If competitively bid between tracks and casinos the sales price per position could reach a natural market level far above $100K. And, the state would generate income immediately.
Truthful James
· 2 years ago
I see no reason to set up casinos -- and even to extend the license of existing ones, other than under a series of public bodies, with each casino having professional management. That will maximize the public sector take.
We have a set of "Metropolitan Exposition and Convention Center Authorities" in existence.
The Indians have ownership and professional management of their gamblig facilities. Are we more dumb than them?
BLAH
· 2 years ago
I was doing some researcch on gaming and found this Capitol Fax blog from last year about Topinka's gaming proposal -
Senate President Jones has doubts that JBT can pass her casino idea.
A top Democrat from Chicago says it’d be difficult to get enough votes in the Illinois Legislature for a possible casino in the city.
State Treasurer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka has proposed a plan to license a casino in Chicago to generate billions of dollars for Illinois.
State Senate President Emil Jones says some legislators from downstate won’t take kindly to that idea.
“It’s very difficult because you got several areas that want it, you know. So, it’d be very difficult. Very difficult,†he says.
Then Filan goes on to say how JBT's estimates (which are pretty much in line with the estimates right now) were too high because she wasn't taking into account loss of revenue at other casinos.
One thing about the internet - you can find everything!
Squideshi
· 2 years ago
Gambling is a net looser in terms of social costs--organized crime, broken families, and generally ruined lives. It's not sustainable.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
The Family Secrets trial has shown that poker machines are a very lucrative field that the Outfit has gone into. Why not legalize them for use in areas that are controlled for age (i.e. bars) and have the state take a cut of the profits? That would serve 2 purposes, 1. deprive the Outfit of a revenue source and 2. raise revenue for the state of IL.
Yes, gambling does have social costs, but the folks who are compulsive gamblers will find a way to self-destruct one way or another.
Truthful James
· 2 years ago
They are legal -- but not as gambling machines. The City, and the State, I think, collects license fees for each machine. They are located in taverns.
The fiction is that people will come into a bar and play just for funsies. Legally, there can be no money payout. In many taverns they make the difference between income and loss.
The Commission sends undercover agents into the bars, and sipping slowly on their drinks, they watch the people play the machines, and if the bartender actually hands over money to winners. If he does, they close the place down.
If he didn't nobody would play the machines. The Outfit places the machines, pays the license fees and splits the take with the tavern.
A single tavern might have three machines, which might net fifty dollars a day after the split.
This is small potatoes for the individual tavern owner, but the Outfit might have three thousand machines under their control in many locations, netting therefore fifty thousand a day.
Tough to measure the cash flows, therefore the revenue take is tough to tax.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
Yes, I know their legal for "entertainment purposes only." I am also familiar with the law edging that goes on to do payoffs. I guess what I meant by make them legal is allow bars to have a few licenses to actually have machines that make payoffs and give the state a cut of the proceeds and keep the Commission busy doing more important things.
Fact is these machines can be found all over the place and really are a major help to keeping Ma & Pa bars profitable. And I'd rather the state made the $$$ than the Outfit because the Outfit just uses their proceeds to further their illegal operations.
Plutocrat03
· 2 years ago
While I am not a supporter of gambling expansion in Illinois, John Kass had a brilliant suggestion about a Chicago casino.
Breake the casino into 3 or 4 subunits and allow the existing major hotels to devote a floor of their existing buildings into casino operations. No new buildings, no parking lots AND I bet they could start ripping off (oops, I mean start gambling operations) within 120 days.
No fuss no muss
FED UP
· 2 years ago
how about the best idea put casinos in ohare and midway aiport for all the out of state travelers and buisness people.
Fulton Gal
· 2 years ago
Go to an Illinois town that borders one of the Iowa casino towns and you will discover the heartbreak that casino gambling brings to the community. Our little town of Fulton, Illinois (across from the Clinton, Iowa gamblin boats) has seen numerous area small businesses go under when their proprietors became addicted to gambling. That problem never existed when the opportunity was not in their backyard.
This problem is never measured by those who count the benefits of legalized gambling. It is rarely seen in larger cities because people don't know their neighbors and their local bankers well enough to spot the pattern. Yet the entire community and the taxpayers of Illinois pay the price when these persons, their families - their children - end up on welfare and food programs. Once they lose everything, they rarely regain their foothold to become econommically independant again.
All Comments
We have a set of "Metropolitan Exposition and Convention Center Authorities" in existence.
The Indians have ownership and professional management of their gamblig facilities. Are we more dumb than them?
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2006/08/
Here is Jones' quote:
Senate President Jones has doubts that JBT can pass her casino idea.
A top Democrat from Chicago says it’d be difficult to get enough votes in the Illinois Legislature for a possible casino in the city.
State Treasurer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka has proposed a plan to license a casino in Chicago to generate billions of dollars for Illinois.
State Senate President Emil Jones says some legislators from downstate won’t take kindly to that idea.
“It’s very difficult because you got several areas that want it, you know. So, it’d be very difficult. Very difficult,†he says.
Then Filan goes on to say how JBT's estimates (which are pretty much in line with the estimates right now) were too high because she wasn't taking into account loss of revenue at other casinos.
One thing about the internet - you can find everything!
Yes, gambling does have social costs, but the folks who are compulsive gamblers will find a way to self-destruct one way or another.
The City, and the State, I think, collects license fees for each machine. They are located in taverns.
The fiction is that people will come into a bar and play just for funsies. Legally, there can be no money payout. In many taverns they make the difference between income and loss.
The Commission sends undercover agents into the bars, and sipping slowly on their drinks, they watch the people play the machines, and if the bartender actually hands over money to winners. If he does, they close the place down.
If he didn't nobody would play the machines. The Outfit places the machines, pays the license fees and splits the take with the tavern.
A single tavern might have three machines, which might net fifty dollars a day after the split.
This is small potatoes for the individual tavern owner, but the Outfit might have three thousand machines under their control in many locations, netting therefore fifty thousand a day.
Tough to measure the cash flows, therefore the revenue take is tough to tax.
Fact is these machines can be found all over the place and really are a major help to keeping Ma & Pa bars profitable. And I'd rather the state made the $$$ than the Outfit because the Outfit just uses their proceeds to further their illegal operations.
Breake the casino into 3 or 4 subunits and allow the existing major hotels to devote a floor of their existing buildings into casino operations. No new buildings, no parking lots AND I bet they could start ripping off (oops, I mean start gambling operations) within 120 days.
No fuss no muss
This problem is never measured by those who count the benefits of legalized gambling. It is rarely seen in larger cities because people don't know their neighbors and their local bankers well enough to spot the pattern. Yet the entire community and the taxpayers of Illinois pay the price when these persons, their families - their children - end up on welfare and food programs. Once they lose everything, they rarely regain their foothold to become econommically independant again.