Jon Delano's "inside scoop" Gaming board priority

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Jon Delano's "inside scoop" Gaming board priority

Postby td_ice on Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:29 pm

This is under the, take it for what it is worth category.

I just heard an interview with Jon Delano, political analyst for KDKA, who is pretty wired in with the PA political scene.

He said that he has an inside scoop as to what the gaming board will look at. And that the only thing they are going to consider, will be what they believe will be the highest revenue generating casino.

That the IOC's pledge to build an arena is fairly meaningless.

"All things being equal, they would take the IOC plan because of what it means to the community. But that alone will not trump the other factors."

That is not to say the IOC won't be deemed the best revenue generator, but according to Delano, the gaming board won't put any stock into the IOC arena pledge, except as a "tie breaker" (my word, not Delano's).

I think that a PLAN B is looking more and more like a necessity. Because the choosing of a what will be the highest revenue generator will be, to a degree, subjective. The IOC "community give back" portion of their plan is definitely a tangible thing. That along with their locaction are their best attributes of their plan. To have that not considered as a strength, is not good.

Delano also mentioned the heat that Rendell and O'Connor were taking. But he did not take that heat seriously. "that is coming from Penguin fans on the sports talk shows. That in no way is the majority opinion."
td_ice
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:09 pm

Postby bill from turtle creek on Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:38 pm

Given that Delano is an old Democratic operative, he is not without bias in his views. He fits OK into KDKA, though, because this area is all Democratic.

I would guess that he got this from someone Democratic and in the know. It also directly conforms to what Rendell and O'Connor have been alluding to, so it's clearly within the party line.

I've always believed that IoC was dead in the water. Since it is so clear and obvious that FC is the preferred victor, it WILL happen. Our noise will not change that, but rather will only provide the impetus to a Plan B. The whole Plan B thing has gained momentum precisely BECAUSE O and O both know that Capri isn't going to get the license, and they need an alternative plan.

Onorato knows that this is a fait accompli, hence he is trying to force FC to give funds to an arena. Otherwise he'd be throwing his weight behind Capri as well.
bill from turtle creek
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,686
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Serenity Now, Serenity Now.

Postby Draftnik on Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:30 pm

Here is Delano's "inside source"

http://kdka.com/local/local_story_055202357.html

The proposal that generates the most revenue will generate the most property tax relief.
Draftnik
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,011
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:52 pm
Location: Peters Twp.

Postby Bowser on Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:38 pm

Fajt is just another Rendell "henchmen" trying to smother the flames brought about by the IOC/Pens and Barden public comments questioning local politicians.

If Rendell, Fajt, O'Connor, and Onorato believe this is about property tax relief, then why are they not releasing the economic impact reports? What is there to hide for Harrah's?

I've heard Eddie, Bo and Danny Boy spout this $119 million yearly tax advantage of the Harrah's plan, if it is about tax relief then why haven't they supported the plan.
Bowser
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 7,963
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:08 am

Postby spi on Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:51 pm

Talk about selling your soul to the devil. Obviously having the highest generating revenue casino should be right at the top, but the only thing they consider???????????? What about the impact on a community that Gambling will have.
spi
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,135
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:11 pm

Postby td_ice on Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:07 pm

spi wrote:Talk about selling your soul to the devil. Obviously having the highest generating revenue casino should be right at the top, but the only thing they consider???????????? What about the impact on a community that Gambling will have.

Exactly, that is where the local leaders ARE SUPPOSED to come in and represent THIS AREA.

Here is what the legislation says.

3) THE AUTHORIZATION OF LIMITED GAMING IS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF NEW REVENUE TO THE
COMMONWEALTH TO SUPPORT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF, WAGE TAX
REDUCTION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND OTHER
SIMILAR INITIATIVES.

That money is going to be spread over 4 different spending areas.

1) Property tax relief
2) wage tax relief
3) Economic Dev. oppt.
4) Other similar initiatives.

There is no set formula for how this money will be appropriated. And the language is VERY BROAD. Look at 3 & 4. Good lord, who knows what "similar initiatives" will be to a politician.

Also, it is not as if the Pittsburgh parlor will be the ONLY source of slots revenue for the state. It will be "one bucket" out of 14 buckets, that will be emptied into the slots revenue "pool".

There will be a small (2% believed to be according to Mark Belko PG writer, giveback to the City and County) to this area, but EVERYTHING ELSE is going statewide.

It is up to the local officials to fight for this area. And it is up to us, let them know what we want them to fight for. And so far, I believe people certainly are doing that.

Keep up the good work.
td_ice
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:09 pm

Postby MKRA on Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:05 am

Yet, I ask still: Bogus estimates aside, with a fixed number of slots machines and no direct competition, how can the revenues generated vary so drastically from applicant to applicant (assuming either gets a license)? Those folks who will want to play slots are going to play, regardless of the setting/plan for a parlor. I'll make some allowance for marketing, and other draws, but how different realistically would revenues (given the absence of competition)? I'm not a gaming expert or a ecnomist, so please, somebody enlighten me. It would seem to me that the third and fourth categories would/should be the difference makers. And, isn't this what our ******* Governor had in mind when he said a number of months ago that slots were the Penguins only chance for an arena?

And, by the way, FINALLY, the Philadelphia Inquirer prints a front page article in today's (Sunday's) paper regarding the contributions made by slots applicants.
MKRA
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:26 pm

Postby bill from turtle creek on Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:14 am

Here are the links to the Inquirer:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13965757.htm

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13965689.htm

Man, I always knew I hated politics, but this whole slots thing is so f'ing sleazy.
bill from turtle creek
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,686
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Serenity Now, Serenity Now.


Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CERV96, KingPen66 and 8 guests

e-mail