ToCasino.net Online Casino

In case you missed it, the state legislature is once again kicking around the idea of expanding casino gaming into the south suburbs and elsewhere in Illinois.

Note how I used the industry-friendly word gaming, which implies fun. Think happy young tourists laughing and smiling as they wine, dine and enjoy life's pleasures.

Of course, what we're really talking about is gambling, which means taking risks with money. (Think senior citizens on fixed incomes and other poor people frittering away what little money they have.)

Casinos tend to be profitable, which means gamblers lose most of the time.

I don't mean to get into a moral debate about the evils of gambling. We pretty much settled that issue when Illinois legalized riverboat gambling in 1990. The state has 10 casinos and a proliferation of video gaming machines, thanks to a 2009 law.

The question is whether Illinois should allow additional casinos. A bill introduced in the state Senate proposes to grant casino licenses for Chicago and five other locations: the south suburbs, Rockford, Lake County, Danville and Williamson County.

The legislation — Senate Bill 0007 — was introduced Jan. 11 by state Sen. Terry Link, a Democrat from Gurnee.

"The (gaming) board may issue one owners license authorizing the conduct of riverboat gambling in a municipality that is wholly or partially located in one of the following townships of Cook County: Bloom, Bremen, Calumet, Rich, Thornton, or Worth Township," the bill states.

The proposal is part of a "grand bargain" package of reforms, tax hikes and spending recently unveiled by Senate President John Cullerton and Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont. They said they'd like legislators and Gov. Bruce Rauner to agree on a deal by Feb. 1 to end the two-year-long state budget impasse.

While I'm all for a speedy resolution to the budget stalemate, I'd like to first hear what south suburban residents think about building a casino in these parts before state leaders try to strike a deal within the next two weeks.

Building a casino in the Southland is hardly a new idea. In 2012, then-Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed legislation that would have allowed licenses to operate casinos in Chicago and the south suburbs.

Regional leaders at the time characterized Quinn's veto as a missed opportunity.

"I'm disappointed to the extent we constantly see a long line of cars leaving Illinois and going to Indiana through the south suburbs," state Rep. Will Davis, a Democrat from Hazel Crest, said at the time. "The south suburbs get the shaft again."

Jim Garrett, president of the Chicago Southland Convention and Visitors Bureau, told the Southtown in 2012 the license for a casino in the south suburbs would have created jobs and generated tax revenue for communities.

I don't dispute that casinos can be part of economic redevelopment efforts. Personally, I believe Illinois has pretty much reached the saturation point with its many forms of legalized gambling. Allowing more casinos would, in my opinion, trigger the law of diminishing returns.

A casino in the south suburbs would undoubtedly siphon business from gaming operations across the border in Indiana. I believe it would also draw customers from other casinos in Illinois.

If approved, there's no question in my mind the Chicago casino would cannibalize revenues at Rivers Casino in Des Plaines, the state's most popular casino. In December, the Des Plaines casino posted gross revenue of $35.3 million, with a local share of tax revenue of more than $2 million for the month.

The state's second highest-grossing casino for the month was Harrah's Joliet with $14.7 million, according to the Illinois Gaming Board's monthly report.

The state's 10th casino license sat unused for nearly two decades but it now generates more than $400 million in annual gross revenue. The casino adds more than $9 million a year to the coffers of the city of Des Plaines, and that's after the town shares its spoils with the state and other communities.

You may recall that Des Plaines officials agreed to a revenue-sharing plan when the 10th license was granted, in 2008. Back then, several south suburbs were in the running for the license and towns were vying to put forth the best deal to win the lucrative operation.

Des Plaines pays the state $10 million a year for 30 years and gives 40 percent of the remainder to 10 economically disadvantaged communities in the south and southwest suburbs.

The 10 communities sharing the wealth with Des Plaines are Chicago Heights, Dixmoor, Ford Heights, Harvey, Hodgkins, Markham, Phoenix, Riverdale, Robbins and Summit.

Disbursements vary. In 2015, Chicago Heights received the most with more than $1.6 million. Hodgkins received the least, with just $103,666. Harvey received nearly $1.4 million, while Phoenix received $107,328.

This setup, in my opinion, represents the best of both worlds for the Southland. Communities are sharing in the revenue of an operation some 40 miles away. It's likely only a small percentage of customers losing money at the casino are from the south suburbs.

The revenue, in other words, isn't coming from south suburban residents gambling away their incomes.

Revenue-sharing among south suburban towns was advocated again in 2014, when the legislature considered increasing the number of casino licenses in the state.

At the time, Flossmoor Mayor Paul Braun, president of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association, testified before a House committee that any legislation to expand casinos should include revenue-sharing.

State Rep. Bob Rita, a Democrat from Blue Island, chaired the four-hour hearing at the Tinley Park Convention Center in 2014. Leaders of communities that receive a share of revenue from the Des Plaines casino testified their towns would forfeit the income if they agreed to accept revenue from another casino.

Multiple towns argued that their community would be the best site for a south suburban casino. There was no consensus about what would be best for the region.

Several leaders testified that if there was to be revenue sharing, it should be limited to the neediest communities. There was no need for towns like Tinley Park or Orland Park to share the wealth, they said.

Braun conceded there was little support for the revenue-sharing plan from among the very communities that would benefit. The towns, it seems, would rather compete for the chance to host a money-making casino that unite in supporting a single proposal to benefit the entire region.

Nothing has changed, as far as I can see. Towns can't agree on a revenue-sharing plan. Communities risk losing Des Plaines revenue. Illinois already has enough gambling. There's no need to make it easier for south suburban residents to gamble away their income by locating a casino in the Southland.

Given all these headwinds, I'd just as soon see the status quo preserved and keep the number of casino licenses in Illinois at 10. But if a license is issued to add a casino in the south suburbs, I believe revenue-sharing is the way to go.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Twitter @tedslowik