Despite being at the epicenter of Florida‘s gaming industry, the Miami Herald has come out against Gov. Rick Scott‘s compact with the Seminole Tribe, wringing its hands and seeing a slot machine under every 
bed. “This is a major expansion of gambling in Florida, with serious implications for Miami-Dade County,” frets the editorial board, although you’d think the “serious [economic] implications” would be good for the county. But no, the Herald is greatly distressed, especially about the fact that under the terms of the compact the Seminoles could have as many as 6,000 slots at one of their casinos. Horrors!
In addition to the predictable objections to banked casino games at the Seminole-owned properties, the Herald balks at provisions like the decoupling of dog races from slot machines at racinos, where you have to run the former in order to have the latter. Voters in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties would also be permitted to legalize new parimutuels, if they so wish. Have they no shame? The Herald evidently thinks not, practically going into a fainting spell at the thought of blackjack at Miami-Dade and Broward County‘s eight current parimutuels (another new wrinkle in the compact).
While conceding that the Scott compact is an improvement on Sheldon Adelson‘s old plan to pepper the state with megaresorts, the paper worries that “expansion begets more expansion.” Yes, that is the nature of the casino industry. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you’ll never get back in and will be hard-pressed to contain it, assuming that the latter is even desirable.
* As we covered yesterday, there are quite a few differences between the New Jersey Assembly and state Senate’s versions of a casino-expansion bill. There are so many, in fact, that it could keep the proposed referendum 
off the 2016 ballot. The two houses have to iron out their differences by Tuesday, which is asking a lot considering that each’s bill divvies up the anticipated new tax money in many different ways. And that’s precisely the sticking point. Senators say the Assemblyman bill, even after being amended to be more “george,” provides too little relief for Atlantic City, while assemblymen say the Senate wants too much. Given such wide differences, would a modest set-aside for the horseracing industry survive a conference committee?
Another bone of contention is a Senate-authored provision that would juice ownership of the northern casinos into existing Boardwalk operators (few of whom would have the capital to pull it off.) Besides, the bill has to be passed by a supermajority, giving it another high hurdle to clear.
Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D, below) said through a spokesman that he “has no plan to post the Senate bill.” Senate prexy Stephen Sweeney (D, 
above) seems keener on getting a deal done, saying, “If I wasn’t the Senate president, gaming would already be taking place in northern New Jersey.” (Well, he can always save it up as an issue for his anticipated gubernatorial campaign.) Plan B is for each house of the Legislature to approve the other’s bill — unlikely, Prieto’s stance — and iron out a compromise next summer.
Since casino expansion is a gift to northern New Jersey, legislators from the state’s southern tiers have little incentive to support it, making super-majority votes a stretch. One of the few people talking sense in Trenton is Assemblyman Christopher Brown (R), who stated what ought to be obvious: “There’s not all the sudden thousands of people who say, ‘I’ve never tried gambling. Let me start.’ It’s not a growth market.” And how much would the Legislature’s promised subsidies to Atlantic City really offset the losses caused by two megaresorts to the north, choking off the New York City market?
* East Boston casino opponents, fearing the prospect of a racino near Suffolk Downs, are filing a court challenge to a Massachusetts ballot question that would authorize slots at or near a single Bay State racetrack. Although state Attorney General Maura Healey has already decreed that the ballot language is wide enough to satisfy state law, veterans of No Eastie Casino see the referendum as a gift-wrapped package for Suffolk Downs. The plaintiffs contend that the only other sites that could qualify under the ballot language are Plainridge Park and Brockton Fairgrounds. The former already hosts a Penn National Gaming racino and the latter is the site of would-be casino being developed by Neil Bluhm. The smoking gun is that the petition’s father, Thailand-based Eugene McCain, owns property near Suffolk Downs. (Very clever, running a petition drive from halfway around the globe.)
Another, peripheral complaint is that this is a rerun of the 2014 constitutional question that tried to ban casinos — and you can’t submit “substantially the same” ballot initiatives in consecutive elections, under Bay 
State law. Considering that Suffolk Downs boss Chip Tuttle has disavowed any connection with the petition and McCain has ostensibly collected all the signatures without organizing a ballot committee, the odds for a successful court challenge appear long. If the referendum passes, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission will find itself having to vet a casino project that the Legislature never authorized, let alone imagined. If the Mashpee Wampanoag decide to pursue a federal casino compact and McCain’s slot parlor is approved, the MGC could find itself riding herd on much more gaming than lawmakers ever envisioned.
* If you’re at loose ends in Las Vegas over Christmas and (Heaven forbid) looking to drown your sorrows, here are 21 bars that will take care of you.
