IBJNews

Bills in General Assembly would ease costs for casinos

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

The Indiana General Assembly is taking its first steps toward restructuring Hoosier gambling law. State Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary, announced she will introduce a bill in the 2010 session to address the findings of the Legislature’s Interim Gaming Study Committee, which investigated the threat of increased casino competition from border states and the differences between riverboat and racino taxes. State Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, plans to file a companion bill in the Indiana House.

Rogers’ proposal would allow any existing riverboat casino to move to land and end the requirement that they maintain marine navigation systems. Riverboats that convert to land-based casinos would be required to stay in the same city, and would be charged a relocation fee.

The bill would also allow one of Gary’s riverboats to move inland and the license for its second to be returned to the Indiana Gaming Commission.

State Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, added a provision to Rogers’ bill that would assist Indiana’s two racinos by no longer requiring them to pay wagering tax on money set aside to bolster the state’s horse racing industry. Indianapolis-based Centaur Inc., owner of Anderson’s Hoosier Park racino, has been struggling with its tax burden. In late October, Centaur defaulted on a $13.4 million interest payment on its more than $400 million in outstanding debt, which the company is attempting to restructure.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT