Jones says Blagojevich backs casino for Chicago

[Khephra]

November 9, 2004 (Chicago) — Senate President Emil Jones said Gov. Rod Blagojevich supports a Chicago-owned casino, but aides to the governor insisted he has not yet made up his mind on the issue.

Asked Monday whether Blagojevich has indicated support for a city-owned casino, Jones told the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, "Yes, yes, he has."

Blagojevich said in the past that he would veto any bill allowing a Chicago casino, and has said gambling was legalized to help economically troubled communities -- not the state's largest city.

But the governor recently said he would consider any proposals that are put forward. A proposal that included four new casinos -- including one in Chicago -- stalled in the Senate the last legislative session.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/110904_ap_ns_casino.html

[Inland]

1. About time.

Casino gambling should be available to tourists and travellers, whiche means Chicago. Gambling is a net positive for Chicago when it is out of towners being stripped of their cash. Plus, casinos could add to Chicago as a destination--for conventions, trade shows, and the like, which we have been losing to Las Vegas and Orlando and other such lesser cities.

[AP]

3. When there's a casino within 1 hour of most of the population of America,

people will no longer think of gambling as a tourist activity.

Within three years, 85% of the regulars at a Chicago casino will be people who live within an hour of it. It will take a lot of money out of the Chicago working and middle class and give it to a gambling corporation.

That'll be a net negative for the Chicago economy.

[TheIdiot]

4. That is absolutely the truth!

Take a look inside the new government-owned casino on the Canadian side at Niagara Falls on any day before 10am or after 10pm... all local losers.

[Inland]

8. Luckily, most the population isn't interested in a casino, and when they

are, Chicago would have to be stupid not to have a casino, wouldn't it?

By the way, 85% of Chicago is within an hour of a casino now. If not two. They just happen to be in places where people go ONLY to gamble. The only people who are not convienient to gambling are the conventioneers and vacationers who can't drive to Indiana or Elgin or Aurora or Joliet.

[AP]

10. Chicago would be stupid to put a wealth transfer mechanism like a casino

in the heart of Chicago.

[Inland]

12. Its a wealth transfer *from the out of towners.* And they like it!

That's what we do here. Sure beats taking quarters from Joliet natives.

[AP]

13. We're all better off when we're all better off. I'd rather make people...

...want to move to Chicago because it offered good jobs and an opportunity for middle and working class people to accumulate wealth, than I'd want people to come to Chicago to lose their shirts.

[Inland]

15. People are just passing through, or attending conventions or shows.

They eat. They drink. They see shows. Or they just pay the O'Hare Airport's tax. That, in part, provides taxes for the city, jobs for the residents with the money from out of towners. Gambling would be one more way to separate the out of towners from their money, with their kind permission. Sure beats setting up casinos that are just for Illinois residents, as the state has done in the past.

[AP]

16. Unless they pass a law that no Chicagoan can gamble in Chicago's casinos..

...you're going to see a lot of wealth sapped out of communities that can't stand to lose that money.

[htuttle]

5. We would much rather Chicagoans come up to our casinos in Wisconsin

And then go back home after they've lost all their money, of course.

:D

[AP]

6. But you'd be doing the best if the working and middle class in WI and IL

got to save more of their money, had more options, could get good educations for their children, and had decent REAL jobs (ie, jobs that didn't involve serving drinks are dealing cards).

[htuttle]

7. Of course

But barring that, keep in mind that tribal revenue generated by casinos was what enabled the buy-out (and shutdown) of the Crandon Mine this last year.

There's some good, and some bad, with everything.

[Inland]

9. And I would rather wisconsinites play slots while waiting at O'Hare.

[AP]

2. Next up: opium dens?

[Rich Hunt]

11. not so far off!

Did you see the stories about the pot fines?

[Logansquare]

14. Every day the casino bus comes to our low-income neighborhood

and picks up mostly older ladies and takes them to Elgin to gamble. I hate that gambling has become such an accepted leisure activity, but since that barn door has been open a long time, we might as well keep the dollars (or quarters, in this case) in the city.

[AP]

17. You're not keeping them in the city. You're transferring them from

people who can't afford to lose those dollars into the pockets of very large entertainment companies which are providing an activity that creates a net negative social cost.

[Logansquare]

18. Yes, but that debate happened 20 years ago.

The toothpaste is out of the tube, and it can't be put back in. I think Lotto is a regressive tax, because poor people buy shitloads of tickets with worse odds than a casino slot--but Lotto ain't going away either.

[AP]

19. That's no excuse for being complacent about such a destructive industry.