Separate Chicago for gambling? Legislators don’t trust enough to do it

I’m sure there are some people who heard what Illinois Gaming Board Chairman Aaron Jaffe said about a Chicago-based casino and think he makes total sense.


QUINN: Soon to be in his hands

That is, to put the concept of creating a new Chicago casino in one bill, and have completely separate legislation for the General Assembly to approve with regards to expanded gambling opportunities in the rest of the state.

IT WOULD OVERCOME, in a sense, the idea that there is too much crammed into one bill. What with five new casinos, along with more slot machine opportunities and gambling benefits for the racetracks – which can’t seem to survive financially just by offering horseracing.

The so-called Sport of Kings is nothing more than a racket for guys who don’t want to work for a living. Think of the late actor John Candy’s “Uncle Buck” character – without the adorable kids at his side.

It’s bad enough that even they want a piece of the casino action.

Which adds to the interests that want a share! Which makes the bill bigger and bigger and bigger.

SO WHEN JAFFE told the Associated Press this week that he’d like to see all this activity split up into separate bills, I’m sure he was well-meaning. He may even have been sincere.

Although I’d like to think he’s been around the Chicago political scene to know there’s no way this issue will ever be split up. Perhaps this is his way of trying to drive a political stake through its heart.

For Jaffe has made it known before that he’s not too enthused about all the expanded gambling talk. His board already oversees the 10 casinos located in outer suburbs and rural towns across Illinois. He thinks they have enough to do already.

Horseplayers wish they were this cute

Although the people who want a Chicago casino don’t want to add to his workload. They’re the ones who want any city-based casino to be put into a different category – one that would be regulated by the city itself.

WHETHER YOU TRUST that depends on whether you believe that Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his successors would be inclined to appoint a serious regulatory authority of their own to ensure no funky stuff takes place at a Chicago casino.

Or perhaps you’re more the cynical type who views this as an attempt to get pesky regulators away from a Chicago casino – thereby allowing it to operate in a “business-friendly” manner.

In circumstances like this, I’m inclined to think of “business-friendly” as synonymous with no regulation whatsoever. So count me amongst the critics!

Which puts me in the same category as Pat Quinn, since the governor has used this “too much on one bill” logic to justify his two vetoes of the issue. Without any significant change in approach, he’s likely to issue Veto Number Three. But it won’t happen – because the reason things get lumped together in Springfield is because nobody trusts anybody else to vote to support something, unless it’s all part of a package. Everybody would fear the double-cross if there were separate bills.

QUINN ALSO HAS said he considers other issues before the General Assembly to be just a tad bit more important this year – meaning he’s threatening to reject more gambling outright if those issues (pension funding reform?) are not addressed.

Personally, I’m inclined to think this is a non-issue for now. There is just too much in the way of other business that needs to be taken care of. Ignoring all that stuff (concealed carry, gay marriage, to name a couple) while obsessing over the idea of a lakefront casino would just make the Legislature look too out-of-touch.

EMANUEL: He really, really wants that casino

Although if the casino were to be considered for the area south of the Loop, perhaps near the McCormick Place convention center, then the whole idea of building a 10,000-seat arena to draw more sports events to Chicago almost starts to make sense.

It makes me wonder what the people at DePaul University will think, if their men’s basketball program winds up becoming nothing more than bait to lure even more people to the area, and it’s casino, to lose their money!

  -30-

Political brawl over gambling has no end in sight, and maybe that’s good

I must confess to being interested in seeing what, if anything will happen Friday at the Statehouse in Springfield.

QUINN: A pair of twos?



For that is the day that Mayor Rahm Emanuel has implied we will see a revised bill for the expansion of gambling across Illinois.

FOR THERE NOW has to be a revised bill, and the process must start all over again. Unless we want to believe that Gov. Pat Quinn is bluffing big time, and the political powers-that-be decide they want to call him on his bluff – thinking he has nothing more than the political equivalent of a pair of twos in his hand.

For Quinn managed to shake up the political debate over gambling expansion earlier this week when he came out and said he will veto the bill that was approved during the spring months by the General Assembly to add five new casinos – along with a lot of expanded slot machines at race tracks and Chicago airports.

The only reason he hasn’t already vetoed it is because Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, did the political equivalent of sticking the approved bill in a drawer.

After all, if it’s not on Quinn’s desk, he can’t reject it. And the legislators who are particularly eager to have more legal gambling opportunities in this state had hopes that they could twist Quinn’s arm this summer into going along with the pack. Giving his approval.

BEING ONE OF the boys, for a change.

It didn’t quite work out that way. Quinn this week said he’s not willing to approve this bill, even if there is some sort of follow-up measure that makes some changes in the more egregious portions of the main bill.

EMANUEL: Will Rahm-bo go after Quinn?



So it looks like we’re going to have to start the process all over again, particularly since Quinn made it clear that he hates all the portions of the bill that don’t specifically relate to the creation of casinos proper.

He doesn’t want slot machines at the race tracks – even though for some rural Illinois legislators, that was the only reason they supported the thing in the first place. The last thing they want is a Chicago-based casino that likely would suck the life out of all the other Illinois casinos AND those in surrounding states.

I COULDN’T HELP but notice one Springfield radio announcer say that Quinn had sold out the capital city, throwing it under the bus, so to speak, because one of the places that would have been permitted to install slot machines would have been the racetrack that is part of the Illinois State Fairgrounds.

Even though Quinn made it clear from the beginning that his priority on this issue was letting Chicago have some sort of casino.

Which is why I don’t see Quinn’s rhetoric from earlier this week as being contradictory. He said all along he didn’t like the bill and was inclined to reject it. Now he says he will reject it.

In fact, I find his statement that “It cannot be some kind of bill that passes to appease every single lobbyist in Springfield,” to be a noble one.

SOME PEOPLE ARE incapable of distinguishing political distinctions from practical ones, and automatically assume that the slimy parts of deals that are done to gain political support somehow benefit the public good.

If it truly takes the presence of legislators voting their self-interest for slot machines at racetracks (which are necessary these days because few people care about the “sport of Kings” rhetoric and are just interested in placing a bet, any bet, on anything), then perhaps it is best that we acknowledge that there just isn’t enough political support for casino expansions.

Not for a Chicago facility, or for casinos near the state borders in Rock City or the south suburbs, or in Rockford or Danville.

Perhaps we need to start over. Dismiss this current bill, and just come up with a new one. It means the process will drag on for another few years, if not decades. But when one considers how many decades this issue has already existed, what difference does another day make?

THAT IS, OF course, unless Quinn decides to flop about a bit more.

For there have been points during the summer months when I heard that Quinn approved of a Chicago casino, but hated the idea of a south suburban one as being too close to the city. I had also heard that the governor might allow for slot machines at a racetrack in the south suburbs, so as to compensate those local political people for not getting a full-fledged casino in a place like Country Club Hills or Ford Heights.

So is this latest Quinn pronouncement another change? Is it possible that political people could still wind up pressuring him into going along? Is Quinn going to have to face the Emanuel persona that helped turn Congress Democrat back in 2006, or was put to use during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

At the very least, the rhetoric will be entertaining.

AND ONE FINAL thought. Reports are coming out that some legislators think they have enough support to override Quinn’s veto of a bill that would have allowed for “Smart Grid” technology to be implemented by Commonwealth Edison – with consumers getting hit with near-automatic rate hikes to pay for it.

How many legislators will be motivated to override Quinn on this issue, as punishment for the governor killing the casino or slot machines they had hoped would be built near their homes?

  -30-