No Bidders Show at Auction of Casino Licenses in Small Cities
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board received no bidders Sept. 4 in a casino license auction ordered by lawmakers as part of an aggressive gambling expansion launched in 2017 by a cash-hungry state government.
September 06, 2019 at 01:00 PM
4 minute read
Lack of interest has thwarted Pennsylvania's latest casino expansion attempt.
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board received no bidders Sept. 4 in a casino license auction ordered by lawmakers as part of an aggressive gambling expansion launched in 2017 by a cash-hungry state government.
It was Pennsylvania's second failed effort to auction a sixth mini-casino license, after the first five auctions raised $127 million last year. Auctions were limited to the owners of
Pennsylvania's 12 larger casinos and a 13th that is under construction in Philadelphia, and many of them never even bid in the auctions.
Minimum bids were set at $7.5 million, and the state tax rate on casino revenue is among the nation's highest.
Meanwhile, exclusion zones around 18 existing and proposed casino sites had rendered Pennsylvania's largest metropolitan areas off-limits. That left bidders with a choice of rural northern Pennsylvania and a handful of smaller cities, including Altoona, Williamsport and State College.
Joe Weinert, the executive vice president of Spectrum Gaming Group, a consultancy based in Atlantic City, New Jersey, said he's sure casino owners gave the locations a close look, and decided that revenue potential, license fees and taxes would not produce the gross operating profit return of at least 20% that many are looking for.
"You have to look at the constraints posed by the regulating jurisdictions, you have to look at what can be built in what area, what's the tax rate, what's the licensing fee and you have to put all those ingredients into a big pot of stew and see whether it'll turn into a palatable product," Weinert said.
The gambling landscape is also increasingly competitive, with 1,000 casinos of some type in 43 states that ensure that no gambler has a very long drive to reach a slot machine or a blackjack table, Weinert said.
"Existing gaming companies or would-be gaming companies are growing increasingly leery or skeptical of expansion opportunities," Weinert said.
Pennsylvania is already the nation's No. 2 state for commercial casino revenue, behind Nevada, at $3.2 billion last year, according to American Gaming Association figures. It is No. 1 in tax revenue from casino gambling at nearly $1.5 billion.
The gaming board had stopped the auctions in April 2018 after it received no bids in the first auction for a sixth license. But lawmakers ordered the gaming board to restart the auctions under a provision slipped into a budget-related bill signed by Gov. Tom Wolf in June.
House Gaming Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Marshall, R-Beaver, had said at the time that lawmakers wanted to see what kind of appetite was out there for a casino in untapped parts of central and northern Pennsylvania.
The budget provision said the auctions would end, once and for all, if there were no bidders for a license, but Marshall said Wednesday that he would keep an open mind about allowing another auction if a casino entity expressed interest in a license.
Still, Marshall said he had not received any feedback from casinos about why they didn't bid, and he had not heard complaints from casinos about wanting to relax the limitations of the mini-casino license being auctioned.
"I haven't heard from casinos on that, I haven't heard from stakeholders, lobbyists, developers, no one has come to me and said, 'Hey, if it were this and not that,'" Marshall said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Denies DA Krasner's Bid to Stop Musk PAC's Million-Dollar Voter Giveaway
3 minute readKrasner Calls for Heightened Security for Upcoming Courtroom Fight Against Musk
2 minute readCampaign Finance Records Show Lawyers Have a Clear Favorite in Pa. Attorney General Race
4 minute readPhiladelphia District Attorney Alleges Elon Musk's Voter Sweepstakes Is an Illegal Lottery
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250