IBJNews

Legislature taking tight-fisted stance with casinos

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's casinos have pumped billions of dollars into state coffers since they first opened in the mid-1990s, growing so fast that gamblers spent more money there than any state but Nevada or New Jersey.

But with revenue declining rapidly because of out-of-state competition, some Indiana lawmakers say they're ready to let the casinos try to survive on their own. They cite concerns about expanded gambling and say they're willing to reduce the state's reliance on casino money at a time when other tax revenues are improving.

Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma said Indiana has "lived high on the hog" from casino money for the past two decades but now should be able to stand on principle and let go.

"I'm not prepared to engage in a massive expansion of gaming just to keep revenues up," Bosma said. "I don't want to see us get any deeper."

Proposals from casino advocates have included seeking some $100 million in tax reductions, allowing live table games at two horse-track casinos, and permission to move other operations along Lake Michigan and the Ohio River from boats onto land. They have largely stalled as the Legislature nears Friday's expected end of this year's session.

The state's budget planners are anticipating a 20-percent drop in casino tax revenue in the coming years. That loss has drawn little discussion in the Statehouse while legislators negotiate a state budget healthy enough to possibly include hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts for individual income tax rates and inheritance taxes.

Taxes from Indiana's 13 casinos made up nearly $680 million, or about 5.5 percent, of the state tax revenue in the 2010 budget year, according to state figures. That revenue already dropped to $632 million last year and is forecast to reach $506 million in 2015, making up about 3 percent of state revenue.

The casino bill approved by the House last week would grant less than a fifth of the tax breaks first proposed in the Senate. It also doesn't permit live table games, such as blackjack and roulette, at the horse track casinos in Anderson and Shelbyville where only electronic versions of those games are now allowed.

Republican Gov. Mike Pence also has resisted gambling expansion, as do many Republican leaders in the Legislature.

But Democratic Rep. Terri Austin, whose district includes Anderson's Hoosier Park casino, said legislative inaction could cripple an industry that has some 15,000 workers. Austin said the arguments about a gambling expansion ring hollow when the Hoosier Lottery is using a private company to boost its sales without any legislative oversight.

"There are a lot of jobs at stake," Austin said. "We need to find a way to make sure that the jobs that are still here have a chance to stay strong."

The newest competitor for Indiana's casinos came in March when Horseshoe Casino Cincinnati opened in that city's downtown. The two Indiana casinos closest to Cincinnati saw their business drop by about one-fourth during that month.

Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, said he believed more of the tax changes and other provisions that were in his original bill needed to win approval in order to truly help the Indiana casinos.

He said the big drop off from the Cincinnati casino's opening should be an eye-opener for the future since the state's most successful riverboats have been those closest to Chicago, Cincinnati and Louisville.

"I see that as a pre-courser for things to come if we don't do anything," Boots said.

Casino officials have argued that Indiana casinos face a severe tax disadvantage against some of their competitors, with the Indiana sites facing an effective state tax rate topping 30 percent, while a tribal casino just across the state line in Michigan pays less than 8 percent.

Scaling back the state taxes could lead to more capital investments and hiring at the Indiana casinos, said Mike Smith, president of the Casino Association of Indiana.

"It would be better if the whole idea shifted to jobs, opportunity, economic development and away from just how much government is going to take in the form of taxation," Smith said.

Rep. Bill Davis, R-Portland, is among the House and Senate negotiators working this week to reach a compromise version of the legislation, after the House Public Policy Committee he leads removed provisions construction of facilities on in-land sites near the current riverboats for the additional live table games.

Davis said he believed the state should deal with the casinos much as it does with other businesses.

"We all have to be able to withstand competition in our businesses and to find better ways to treat our customers and attract more business," Davis said. "I don't think this industry is that much different."

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT