newarenanow wrote:What worries me however is he said that the main criteria for selection of the slots license is who will raise the most money for tax relief at the state level.
MKRA wrote:And how different, frankly, will tax revenues be accross the board? Same number of machinges, presumably. Is it the operator? The overall surroundings? Why, in theory, should one generate far more than the other? All of this I don't really understand.
bill from turtle creek wrote:Before it gets that far, we just need to have Onorato make sure that whomever wins, sends a large chunk of money towards an arena.
spi wrote: The time to make that law has come and gone.
MKRA wrote:ExPatriate Pen, I haven't been to LV. You sniffed me out. And you make a good point. My counter is that this is different than LV because (a) there'd be no competition, and (b) there will be only slots. If there were 10 slots parlors with a one mile radius, then presentation, amenities, etc. would be important, sure. But with no competition, I wonder still: How different will revenues ultimately be, regardless of the applicant/plan?
MKRA wrote: I don't doubt they could be different, I just don't know why. And I wonder whether the Gaming Board should/need rely on estimations set forth by applicants.
Users browsing this forum: IntangibleBeer and 7 guests