ShareThis Page
How not to award a slots license |

How not to award a slots license

| Sunday, December 17, 2006 12:00 a.m

People increasingly are excited over what they will be getting. The anticipation, the anxiousness are nearly unbearable as the long-awaited day at last draws near.

Christmas• Oh yeah. That’s coming too, I suppose.

But I was referring to the awarding of Pittsburgh’s sole slot machine casino license.

The state Gaming Control Board on Wednesday will decide which of the three finalists gets to plop down a big ol’ slots-filled building — and all its ancillary problems — in the Hill District, North Shore or South Side.

Today, nearly 30 months after slots were legalized in Pennsylvania, let us ponder the arduous process that has brought us to this festive point and pose a question:

Might a better approach have been taken?

The answer lies in a thorough comparison of the steps leading to the awarding of the Pittsburgh license with an alternative method used in many other states and favored by numerous gaming experts.

THE INSANE APPROACH (the one that was used)

1. Gov. Ed Rendell and the state Legislature suppress the license value by agreeing to sell it for $50 million instead of auctioning it off.

2. Rendell and state legislators invite widespread speculation that the license is undervalued so it can be awarded relatively inexpensively to cronies of, and contributors to, those who undervalued it.

3. Casino operators risk serious injury falling over themselves in their rush to apply for the bargain-basement license.

4. Three finalists for the license offer varying community incentives, from a Red Ryder BB gun to a free hockey arena, to make their casino proposal more enticing.

5. Panic-stricken Penguins fans voice needless concern the team will relocate if the applicant promising the franchise a new arena doesn’t obtain the license.

(In reality, the team’s relocation option pretty much is limited to a small frozen pond adjacent to a sewage treatment facility on the outskirts of Kitchener, Ontario.)

6. Three finalists degrade their rivals’ plans in lengthy hearings before the gaming board that fail to determine conclusively the best casino proposal.

7. The license is awarded without conclusively determining the best casino proposal (pending).

8. Multimillion-dollar lawsuits are filed by the two jilted applicants who didn’t get the license because the gaming board made a completely subjective and eminently challengeable decision (also pending).

Boy, that was some fun, eh?

Now let’s compare the Insane Approach to:


1. Take the advice of various gambling experts who estimate a Pittsburgh gambling license could fetch $300 million to $500 million if auctioned off.

2. Award the license to the highest responsible bidder.

3. Begin counting the highest responsible bidder’s money.

Not to get all idiomatic on you this close to the holidays, but in looking for a quick, uncomplicated and profitable means to a casino end, the sensible approach probably would have been better.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.