 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
BACK TO HEADLINES |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| South Bend Tribune March 13, 2007 Legislation for Slots at Tracks is Still in the Running By Mike Smith INDIANAPOLIS -- It has a long way to go and might not cross the finish line, but legislation to authorize slot machines at Indiana's pari-mutuel horse tracks still appears to have better odds of passage than ever. Such bills have passed the House before, only to die in the Republican-controlled Senate. Former Senate Finance Chairman Larry Borst and former Senate President Pro Tem Robert Garton always found ways to kill them. Not only are they no longer serving, leaders in their place have at least given a House-passed slots bill some legs in the Senate. New Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, assigned the bill to the Senate Tax Committee, and its chairman, Republican Sen. Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said he will give the legislation a hearing and a vote that could advance it to the full Senate. "It definitely has its best chances in years," said Brian Vargus, a political science professor at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis.Kenley said he has personal reservations about allowing slots at the state's struggling pari-mutuel tracks -- one in Anderson and one in Shelbyville. In one sense, he said, the state would be expanding gambling with casinos to primarily benefit track owners and save "what is basically a failing industry." He also said it could siphon business from a flourishing, taxpaying riverboat casino industry in Indiana. And if the state helps the tracks by giving them slots, others will come begging for them too. But Kenley said the bill got a public hearing and full airing out in the House and deserved a hearing in the Senate. And he said there was more momentum behind the bill this year, in part because of leadership changes in the Legislature. Kenley said changes would be made to the bill in his committee, and even when it's in the shape he wants it in, he might not vote for it. But, he said, "We will try to put the bill in the best order that we can so if it does pass, it will be a good bill. I'm doing all those things because I'm afraid it will pass."The bill passed by the House would allow owners of the state's horse tracks to each pay $100 million in exchange for getting up to 2,500 slot machines each. Revenue from the slots would be taxed at a rate of 37.5 percent, with most of the money going to the state but some directed to the track counties and all counties that do not have casinos. Estimates vary on how much the machines could collect, but one researcher predicted 2,500 slots at each track would bring in $533 million a year. The state would take in about $185 million a year in taxes under that estimate by Massachusetts-based Cummings Associates. The tax revenue has always been touted as a selling point by proponents, and it is no different this year. Lawmakers are looking for extra money for this and that. Kenley said he needs to find more money to help fund his plan to reduce Indiana's reliance on property taxes. But there are other factors giving slots momentum. For one, it is not a partisan issue. The bill passed the House 54-39, with 16 Republicans joining 38 Democrats in support. Several Democrats who voted for the bill reside in counties with riverboat casinos, which could lose business if there are 5,000 slots in central Indiana.Vargus said if the tracks do not get slots and go out of business, it would give the state a black eye in economic development. And although many lawmakers and members of the public oppose expanded gambling on moral and other grounds, he said their arguments are not resonating as much as they have in the past given all the legalized gambling already in play. "Not that many people seem to care," Vargus said. "It's like we're already a little bit pregnant. We're there." Gov. Mitch Daniels has said he opposes expanded gambling, but he has not specifically defined what that means to him. Kenley said he had not sensed an attitude from Daniels that he would veto such a bill, nor had the governor asked him to kill it. Even if a slots bill does not pass the Senate, it is sure to be a big bargaining chip in late-session negotiations on big-ticket proposals. And big bargaining chips often find their way into law.  |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||
 |
|
 |
||||
 |
||||||
 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|