Jerri wrote:Everyone knows which plan is best for the city of Pittsburgh. The problem is the Governor/Gaming Board will argue that this is not relevant. They will justify giving the slots to SS because it has a bigger casino and claims it will produce more money for the state. As long as they have this as an excuse we are in trouble.
Isn't it true that the casinos are limited to 5,000 machines? If Pittsburgh has only one casino I don't see how one proposal can claim to generate so much more money than another based on an equal number of slot machines.
Any ideas on how to adress this?
Yes, the slots are limited to $5,000. The thing a bigger casino offers is more property tax revenue and more revenue from things like food, booze, etc. However, none of this is taxed at the 54% rate that the actual 'gaming' is taxed at. The governor can talk all he wants about the bigger casino, etc. The plans are the SAME for the total number of $ involved when you factor in the Pens revenue to the city, etc.!!! Only difference, one offers a tax-free new arena (that the City would OWN contrary to what the Gov. said on the radio today) and the other offers a $25 million grant to the historical society. Hmmmm...I am still confused as to which plan is better. (EXTREME sarcasm).