IBJNews

Ohio competition sends Indiana casino revenues down

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's riverboat casino revenues fell 4.4 percent in March, dragged down by declines at two southeastern Indiana venues that faced their first month of head-to-head competition with a Cincinnati casino, according to figures released Tuesday by the Indiana Gaming Commission.

Revenue at Hollywood Casino in Lawrenceburg, the state's second largest, fell 25 percent compared to the same month last year, and revenue at the Rising Star Casino in Rising Sun fell 23 percent, the figures showed.

The Hollywood decline amounted to $9.8 million, and Rising Star's revenues fell about $2 million, The Indianapolis Star reported.

In Ohio, the new $400 million Horseshoe Cincinnati casino opened March 4 and raked in $21 million during March, the Ohio Casino Control Commission reported Monday.

Steve Jimenez, general manager at Rising Star, attributed most of the decline at his operation to Horseshoe.

"Obviously when a casino opens, everyone goes and checks it out," he said. "Eventually they go back to the places they like to go to, but some don't."

Indiana lawmakers have a stake in the riverboats' fortunes because casino taxes account for the third largest source of revenue for state government, and they're trying to agree on legislation that would help Indiana casinos become more competitive.

A bill approved Tuesday by the Indiana House Ways and Means Committee would remove a tax on free-play coupons that casinos use to lure visitors. Ohio does not tax free play. The casino industry also wants to allow riverboat casinos to move ashore and to allow live table games at the state's two horse track-casinos in Anderson and Shelbyville. The racinos now have only slot and video machines.

Ways and Means Chairman Tim Brown said the bill likely will undergo changes when the House and Senate iron out the differences in their separate versions of the bill.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Interesting
    Seems to me that Hoosiers are better at handling free access to casinos than they are free access to McDonalds. A gambling addiction isn't going to kill you, but being obese is. If you want to create a nanny state, at least create a beneficial one.
  • Get out of Gambling
    Any one who has been to a horse racing track, or stood in line where lottery tickets are sold, knows that many people who gamble are the least able to pay for it. Being able to gamble is anyone's right and government should only step in when laws are being broken by the gamblers such as cheating. Should the State be the House though? It seems to me to be a contradiction to be both in business of taxing people to give to the poor, and in the business of helping people become poor. Maybe we should react to the gambiing in other states by opening gambling rehabilatation centers near the border where gambling establishments are in other states.
  • Subsidy!
    OH NO!!!!!! Now how are we going to subsidize vehicle ownership and highway expansions?!?!

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. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT