I don't believe that Chicago has any casinos at all.

Gambing is destructive in any form. If you recall, gambling is what started this whole economic mess we're in right now. Not only should Illinois not allow any more casinos to be built, Illinois should abolish its lottery.

many people are going to gamble , so why not keep the money close to home...

waukegan.

PUT IT IN WAUKEGAN, EASY EXCESS FROM THE NORTH---FROM THE SOUTH...RIGHT NEXT TO 43--41--94..BETWEEN WAUKEGAN AND GURNEE

I am with you J. Lyn Legalize marjuana, pack them up like cigaretts, and then tax them at a rate higher than cigaretts. Perhaps it would help slow down the street gangs, and the mexican maffia from selling them. Then the police could focus their attention on other crime.

Taxing them higher than cigarettes will only serve to create a black market, as the high taxes on cigarettes has already done.

Reasonable taxes, reasonable regulation (i.e., no driving while stoned, no under 18 sales), and stop arresting people for ingesting or smoking a plant.

MARIJUANA ??? I FAVOR LEGALIZING POT, WHY ?? PEOPLE WHO SMOKE POT ARE GOING TO BUY IT , LEGAL --OR--NOT...LEGALIZE IT AND TAX IT....IF WE DID THAT ? EVERY STATES DEBT WILL BE GONE AND THE MEXICANS CARTELS---GANGS WILL BE OUT OF BUSINESS...ALSO GROW THE POT IN THE U.S. ONLY SO THE STATES CAN REGULATED..

Last time I was at the track - it was about 17 years ago during some corporate outing. At the time, they had the local races, and a bunch of races relayed via video. This was pre-internet too, so I can only imagine that the need to travel to bet on or watch a horse race is even lower now.

David, the "need" to go to a concert or a ballgame is diminished with the advent of the internet, but people still like to attend live events. Witness the amount of people who attended the Preakness this past weekend - 121,300 even though people could place wagers and watch on the internet. Imagine if the Arlington Million purse was 2 million and the Beverly D was over a million. That day or racing alone, if done right could bring in huge numbers. Not to mention the amount of people who would attend on weekends with a competitive slate of racing.

To some extent, sure, people like to attend live events. But as the disadvantages of doing so increase, the interest wanes. Unfortunately, I don't see any of the disadvantages decreasing anytime too soon. Some disadvantages:

* Travel headaches-traffic, tolls, high gas prices, parking costs OR public transportation headaches such as high fares, undesirable elements causing problems, vehicles that aren't on time or break down, "security theater" delays, etc.

* Ticket costs:TicketMaster (or LiveNation) fees, surcharges, inability to get the tickets one wants for a particular day, having to deal with StubHub users

* Long lines:To get in, to leave. To go to the restroom. To get food.

* Food prices:High. Ridiculously high because every entity has their fingers in the pie and wants a cut of what's in your wallet.

* Restrooms-run the gamut from super clean, to well, let's just not talk about that giant trough...

* Crime: Pick pockets, thugs, panhandlers, street solicitors, thieves, gang bangers...

* Taxes: On tickets, soda, polystyrene carry-out items, etc.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that people will set aside these disadvantages for now and attend. That's great. What's it do for the local area or Governmental bodies that are expected to provide police/fire and infrastructure. Do they make money on the deal, or do they end up financing it for the venue owners as is so often the case? If these venues can't stand on their own, let them close.

David, the attendance at this past weekend's Preakness prove that people are willing to overlook all of those factors as much now as ever. Arlington can have that excitement. And yes, it will far more than pay for the small adjustment in added services from police, fire etc. It just needs to ability to compete at the level of other tracks that are permitted to have slots.
By the way, you seem to be a small government kind of guy. So am I. This is a case of smaller government being necessary. Let them get out of the way and allow Arlington to shape their revenue as they feel is best, which in this case is increased gaming. It's a win-win.

Perhaps, perhaps not. As those disadvantages grow, people are less and less apt to ignore them. However, the Preakness event seems to be more of a one-off situation, i.e., it's not happening every weekend.

Where are the other tracks that are permitted to have slot machines located? In Illinois or not?

Personally, I could care less if someone wants to gamble - that's generally their business, and unless it's having an effect on something funded by the government, the Government ought to keep their nose out of it. But those effects are varied: Criminal activity as a direct (people stealing to fund their gambling habit) or indirect (people robbing cars in the casino parking lot)result of the gambling, societal costs (people not feeding their kids because of their gambling habit - so they then go on welfare or food stamps - funded by the rest of us), quality of life (not everyone may want to live right next to a casino or have to deal with the traffic/public crazies caused by it). The games definitely need to be fair - otherwise you have a whole different slew of issues that come up.

So a certain amount of governmental regulation is likely always going to be needed when we're talking about gambling.

As for Arlington - let's assume that there's no other racetracks in IL with slot machines, and the whole reason for their declining revenues is because horse racing just isn't that attractive to people any longer. So we bring in Slot Machines to Arlington as an attractant - what if the horse racing continues to decline? Do we then end up with a de facto casino full of slot machines at Arlington and no horses? What happens in that scenario?

If they want to give up on the horse racing and have a slot machine hall, ok fine - let's have that conversation. Maybe that's something the surrounding community is willing to have, maybe not. Maybe the Racetrack gets replaced by something else entirely...

But it seems to me that they're suffering from a declining business model, and they're trying to prop it up (and perhaps eventually replace it) with slot machines...

As for small government - I'm in favor of right-sizing the government so it takes care of the "gotta haves", and leaves the nice-to-haves to the private sector.

A CASINO IN CHICAGO ?? MANY PEOPLE WON'T GO TO CHICAGO..MANY ARE AFRAID TO EVEN DRIVE TO CHICAGO...I'M A U.S. MARINE AND I WON'T DRIVE TO CHICAGO ....I ONLY DRIVE TO A CUBS GAME...
WENT TO CHICAGO FOOD FEST I WAS STOPPED AND ASK FOR MONEY ABOUT 5 TIMES AND I TOOK THE TRAIN TO AVOID DRIVING AND GETTING LOST....THERE MANY CASINOS CLOSE TO CHICAGO, BUT NO CASINOS AROUND GURNEE AREA.

I'd argue that it has less to do with casinos, and more to do with the fact that we have insanely high taxes, and crime driven by the fact that the criminals know they have de facto concealed carry, while the law abiding citizens of this once Great State go essentially defenseless.

You want businesses and individuals to locate here? Solve the above. You want tourists to come here? Solve the above so someone will want to run a business here and hire people...

Not really. It has a great ripple effect on surrounding areas - this is rightly something that is handled by the State and not the City. Besides, IF a casino were to be located in Chicago, would you trust the City of Chicago to police its own gaming? HA! I'd hardly trust our broke State to be up to the job, but chances are it'd be somewhat better than the fox guarding the henhouse...

HOW ABOUT A CASINO FOR CHICAGO AND ONE FOR WAUKEGAN...I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY NO IS A BAD IDEA...DO YOU WANT YOUR PROPERTY TAXES TO CONTINUE TO GO UP ???

If you want your property taxes to go down, then the individual taxing bodies need to learn how to SPEND LESS, DO LESS, OFFER LESS. Focus on the "gotta have's", cut those costs as much as possible, forget the rest. Let the private sector deal with the "nice to haves".

A casino isn't going to solve the problem of property taxes. We were sold a similar story when Illinois started the Lottery - it's solve all our educational funding problems, blah blah blah. We've seen how well that's worked out *cough* NOT! *cough*.

Should one's morality dictate others? What happened to choice and freedom?

If you feel gambling is immoral, that's fine with me, so long as you don't try to impose your feelings on me and others who do not share in that feeling.

Gambling isn't immoral per se. Some of the side effects of it may be, but with few exceptions, it's not really the government's business.

Bonnie if gambling isa morality issue. WHY DO CHURCHES DO IT?

Bonnie, I believe in personal freedom. I own me and you own you. One person's "good" is another person's evil. When we start legislating each others' "good" that's when we run into problems.

No, killing infringes on the rights of others. I own me and you own you. Killing takes that ownership away. I believe in the whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing. Now tell where my right to gamble my own money infringes on your rights stated above.

I think you are on the right track. If you are a Vegan, you should not be allowed to ban stores from selling meat, Fish and Fowl. See how extreme arguments easily fail?

Bonnie, this is a specious argument and you know it. Killing does not equal gambling - two completely different issues as Matt has said. If someone wants to gamble, let them. If they're harming their family or kids - I think the government should have something to say about it because those persons haven't made the choice to gamble away their lives. But if they're on their own - big whoop. So long as they're not asking for governmental healthcare, food, or assistance - we should stay out of their decision. If some group doesn't agree with that position, then they're perfectly free to create a foundation, and offer assistance to those they consider in need of it - but they can fund that foundation with their own or solicited donations and leave the rest of us out of it.