 |
| 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-
No comments:
Post a Comment