Where, oh where, will casinos go?

It seems we’re destined to get several more gambling casinos erected in both Chicago and the nearby suburbs.

Will this become political battleground in war of casinos?

We’ll be able to take our pick of just where we want to go on the occasion we feel the need to throw some money away on the off-chance we can hit a big jackpot and become instantly wealthy.

BUT THERE’S ONE factor that has been popping up in my brain – the way in which the siting of a city-based casino will also impact the way the so-called south suburban casino will be located.

There are several municipalities scattered throughout southern Cook County, all of which are insistent that they’re the only local place to erect one of those tacky, flashy, gaudy structures that promise instant wealth (and downplay the chances you’ll walk out of there flat-broke, instead).

It seems there is one line of thought that a south suburban casino ought to be placed in a community fairly close to the Illinois/Indiana border. Almost as though its existence would stand in the way of people who otherwise would try to fulfill their gambling “jones” by venturing to those casinos in Indiana (Hammond, East Chicago and Gary, to be specific).

Why cross over State Line Road to the land of Hoosiers if you can gamble closer to home?

SO IF THE notion of a casino being located near the Lincoln Highway right by Interstate 394 (just barely in suburban Ford Heights) becomes reality, does that impact the idea of a city-based casino by making it more likely that such a facility would be located in the heart of downtown – to take advantage of the nearby presence of out-of-town tourists?

Or does the concept of putting a city-based gambling complex down around the 10^th Ward (as far southeast as one can go and still be in Chicago proper) become the big boost to the people who think a suburban casino ought to be at a site on Interstate 80 at Halsted Street?

I should make one confession. I have a step-mother who enjoys the environs of a casino (playing the slot machines is her big kick), and that latter location would put a casino about a five-minute drive away from her home.

It intrigues me the way these varying proposals for more gambling are going to impact each other – even though the political people tend to act as though the city-based and suburban-based casinos will exist in differing worlds.

ALMOST AS THOUGH they’re Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

Rather than the idea of an East Side neighborhood in Chicago casino being only about a 15-minute drive down the Bishop Ford Freeway to the would-be Ford Heights site.

Which may also suffer from the general reputation that suburb suffers in the public eye. I already can envision the notion that many people will have in thinking a Ford Heights site is too decrepit to want to go to.

Or it could also turn out to be like when Ford Motor Co. decided to build an auto plant in that area, and actually picked a site right on the municipality’s border. What was then East Chicago Heights, Ill., went so far as to rename their town to try to make Ford Motor think they were special.

ONLY TO HAVE the company choose to annex into Chicago Heights proper. Would a casino feel the need to claim they’re in another town (Sauk Village or Lynwood?) to escape the perceived stigma?

For all those people who already are calculating how much of a cut their municipality will receive in tax revenues from a proposed casino, we ought to consider that just because the Illinois General Assembly has given authority to allowing a few more casinos does not mean anybody’s ready to open for business anytime soon.

If anything, the real political infighting will now begin – with village vs. village being pitted against each other to argue the merits of who’s most worthy of having a casino with over-priced buffet where one can gorge themselves in between black jack hands operating within their boundaries.

Because let’s not forget – the operating premises of many casinos is that they want to keep customers inside at all times. They certainly don’t want them spending money at any surrounding businesses in the community – spending that would generate true economic development.

  -30-

Does video poker, slots have potential to become the “blob” that ate Illinois?

I felt a bit of relief this week when I read the reports that the Illinois Gaming Board rejected the desire of officials in suburban Hometown to establish a strip mall filled entirely with businesses that have video poker machines on the premises.

Gamble, or eat?

We’re talking about the laws from a couple of years ago that permitted businesses such as restaurants and taverns to install up to five gambling machines so as to help bring in more business.

PERSONALLY, I THINK they’re gaudy. I know of a half-dozen such businesses within a half-mile of where I live – including one Mexican restaurant just one block from home.

It’s not a place I regularly ate at (I know of other places where I can get better Mexican edibles). But the sight of those machines and the flashy lights and noises they emanate can make eating there a more tacky experience.

Although I am aware there are people who feel exactly the opposite – to the point that they go to that restaurant and other businesses SPECIFICALLY SO THEY CAN spend some time playing the slots.

They want to gamble, and like the idea of not having to make the trip to a casino.

WHAT INSPIRED THE idea of a gambling strip mall was the idea of expanding on the idea of legal gambling taking place within walking distance of home – at least if you happen to live in Hometown or its neighboring suburb of Oak Lawn.

If anything, the storefronts in this strip mall would have been less concerned with having to maintain a restaurant or a tavern because it turns out the kind of people who go to gamble at these places aren’t the least bit interested.

They view the primary business as being a distraction; something that would cost them money they’d rather stick into the slot machine out of a deluded belief they’ll walk away with more money than they entered with.

 

More likely, those people will leave with less. Possibly nothing at all. Which is a concept I just don’t understand. I work too hard for what little cash I have to lose it to the appeal of spinning wheels, digital symbols or flashing lights.

IT WAS ENCOURAGING to see the Gaming Board take the attitude that such a strip mall amounts to a casino – which have their own sets of regulations that must be followed to be licensed by the state of Illinois.

Honestly, I think we have plenty of those riverboat casinos scattered around the state for those people who absolutely feel compelled to put their money at risk in exchange for a cheap thrill.

And I think those establishments made a serious concession when they pretty much gave up on the requirement that the gambling take place on board boats that sailed around bodies of navigable water – because the same people who just want to play a slot machine without the distraction of a restaurant also didn’t want to have to take a gambling “cruise” (not even one that was just a lap around a river of sorts).

Now I know that some people claim these places aren’t casino-related. They’re just slot machines – none of the other, more hard-core games of chance are being played. No black jack. No roulette wheels.

JUST A CHANCE to pull a rod or push a button and hope you can get something other than three lemons – followed by the sight and sound of flashing lights and sirens and a flow of coins spewing from the machine.

Sounds kind of lame to me. Particularly since I remember one time I went to that previously-mentioned Mexican restaurant to place a takeout order and had the cashier suggest I play some slot machines to try to win the money to pay for the meal.

Why do I think the end result would have been losing $50 or so, in addition to the $20 I spent on food?

And that going to a gambling-oriented strip mall would merely change that to a $70 loss from gambing, and nothing left to grab a bite to eat later on?

  -30-

Cart ahead of the horse as casino company touts plans for suburban site

Gambling expansion, particularly construction of casinos, is an issue that we have coped with for decades while apparently going nowhere.



Will this casino conceptual drawing ever become reality? Not if our political people continue to behave as they always have! Illustration provided by Millenium Gaming.



All we have are the 10 casinos permitted by the Illinois Gaming Board that are supposed to be cruises that offer a chance to gamble a bit – even though I’m sure 99.9999999 percent of the patrons could care less about the “cruise” portion and just want to play their “games of chance” in hopes of winning money.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, Gov. Pat Quinn rejected the latest attempt by the Legislature to try to expand casino gambling in Illinois – claiming the bill added on so much; much more than he was comfortable with.

So what do I think of the fact that the owner of a major casino in Las Vegas was within Cook County’s borders on Tuesday to say he wants to build a new casino here?

I don’t! As in think much of the idea.

For the record, the company that operates the Cannery Casino Resorts in the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area says it wants to have another casino – one to operate near suburban Country Club Hills. Specifically, at the northeastern corner of Cicero Avenue and 175^th Street!

WHICH IS A site I’m familiar with because my father and step-mother live in nearby Homewood, and they are the types who enjoy going to casinos. I’ve heard my step-mother, in particular, quip that a casino at that site would get her patronage nearly every day.

My point in bringing this up is to say that the idea of a casino at the site is not new. The mayor of Country Club Hills has touted the site for years as a place where his town could get rich off the taxes it would assess on casino proceeds.

So the idea that Millenium Gaming boss Bill Paulos came to visit our metropolitan area and say he wants to build a facility where he can profit from the gambling losses of our area residents isn’t a revelation.

In fact, it is just an idea that is going nowhere for the time being.

FOR THE FACT is that current Illinois law restricts “casinos” to the 10 gambling boats (that aren’t really boats any longer) already in existence.

Quinn isn’t about to change his mind any time soon, although it seems that he is willing to let Chicago have a casino and quite possibly the south suburbs as well. It was just all the other gambling (such as slots at race tracks and at the Illinois State Fairgrounds) that bothered him.

But for people who didn’t live in the Chicago-area, it was all those other gambling opportunities that mattered to them. They could care less about whether or not Mayor Rahm Emanuel ever gets that lakefront casino he dreams about (focusing his dreams on all the dollars that HE could derive from the taxes Chicago would assess on casino proceeds).

This move by Paulos and Country Club Hills is purely about one-upping the opposition for the day when the gambling expansion concept does move forward. Which could be the real significance of a veto-proof majority in the Illinois General Assembly – it cuts Quinn out of the political equation.

BECAUSE OFFICIALS USUALLY talk about one casino in southern Cook County – yet there are several municipalities that are determined to believe they are the front-runners for the project that would seek to take money from the existing casinos in Indiana municipalities such as Hammond, East Chicago and Gary.

This is one suburban official telling his other suburban counterparts to take their casino dreams and stuff them. It’s nothing more.

So instead of watching the open field that separates Country Club Hills from Tinley Park to see if construction starts anytime soon, we ought to be watching our political people to see if they can put aside their political differences on this issue anytime soon. If they can’t, then we maintain the status quo that has been in place for decades.

If I were a betting man (personally, I find casinos to be tacky), I’d say that the status quo is about all our government officials are capable of achieving.

  -30-

Garbage? Or is it just politics at work?

“You can’t make perfume out of a pile of garbage” – Illinois Gaming Board Chairman Aaron Jaffe.

  -0-

That line, spoken by the head of the state agency that oversees casinos, is bound to become an immortal quotable one. Aaron Jaffe spouted his words of wisdom earlier this week in reaction to the idea of expanding the number of casinos in this state.

JAFFE: Speaking the truth on casinos?

He doesn’t like the idea.

JAFFE ISN’T SPOUTING any kind of moral rhetoric about the evils of gambling. He hates the idea that his board would have to go from overseeing 10 casinos to 15 without any assurance their budget would increase. He also hates the idea of significant gambling in the form of slot machines at racetracks and at O’Hare International Airport without any oversight by his board.

But the part of his argument that most caught my attention was his objection to the idea that the General Assembly, in creating five more casinos, picked specific sites.

The other 10 casino sites were chosen by the Gaming Board, with communities forced to compete against each other to show why they were the most logical site. “No one should get a license without being fully vetted,” Jaffe said, during his statement.

Under the measure approved by the General Assembly that eventually will be considered by Gov. Pat Quinn, the only such fight that will take place this time around is when the Gaming Board decides where a “south suburban” casino is located.

CONSIDERING THAT THE south suburbs is an area that the Gaming Board has consistently rejected in the past, I won’t be surprised if this fight becomes one where the least-weak proposal wins by default.

What hurts that particular area is the fact that there is so much gambling already in the area – both with the Joliet-area casinos and all those gambling “boats” in places like East Chicago, Hammond, Gary and Michigan City.

My father and step-mother live in the Cook County south suburbs AND also enjoy the casino experience (I already accept the fact that I’m NOT getting anything resembling an inheritance). They have about a half-dozen casinos within a half-hour drive of their home to choose from.

The only thing that a “south suburban” casino called for in the bill would do for them is quite possibly put a seventh casino – albeit one located 10 to 15 minutes from their home.

WHICH MEANS THAT a casino in that area isn’t essential. It’s about individual communities trying to “one-up” each other in local prominence. It’s about local politics.

The same goes for the casino bill as a whole. The fact is that this issue is about political concerns. Which means that Jaffe’s “pile of garbage” assessment may well be accurate.

The idea of putting casinos in Rockford and Danville, close to the Illinois/Wisconsin and Illinois/Indiana borders respectively, out of hopes that they will draw customers from the surrounding states to Illinois was more important than whether casinos would actually work there.

The fact that north suburban Park City was picked for a casino was because of the fact that state Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan, wants gambling and its tax revenues in his legislative district. He openly has said there is no way he would advance a casino expansion plan if his district didn’t get something.

AND ALL OF these casinos were included because they were seen as politically necessary to draw votes for what was the real purpose of an expansion bill – to locate a large-scale casino that will make all the existing casinos look puny and petty by comparison within the Chicago city limits.

Except that many legislators don’t want to be seen giving something to Chicago that is meant to give them an edge over the rest of the state. So they need the extras so they can say they brought something home.

Heck, to people who live in Springfield, this bill is about putting slot machines at the Illinois State Fairgrounds horseracing track.

Which is what constrains Quinn, who would love to use his amendatory veto powers to strip out everything except for the Chicago casino proper.

IF HE REALLY did that, it would be a sure thing that the General Assembly would use its veto session come October and November to override him and push the expanded plan into law.

A show as trashy as the casino bill?



Taking out anything is likely to cause the state Legislature to revolt and override – just to show Quinn who the boss really is (and no, it isn’t Tony Danza).

Which is why even though Quinn has offered up rhetoric hinting he’s prepared to alter the casino expansion measure in some form, I still believe he’s ultimately going to get stuck signing into law the entire measure.

And when he does, perhaps Jaffe can be on hand to give us his official pronouncement. “Garbage!” It will be the most-honest thing said that day.

  -30-