Wow. I am really, really confused. Check out this story about the Gaming Board's recent hearings. Sounds to me like the board spent a good deal of time discussing a hockey arena:
Gaming Control Board members also pressed Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. on its $290 million pledge for a new arena and whether an alternative plan would keep the Penguins in Pittsburgh.
New Penguins owner Jim Balsillie testified on behalf of the Isle of Capri plan, saying it would tie the team to Pittsburgh, but he was not around to answer questions about the team's future under Plan B, angering gaming board member Mary DiGiacomo Colins.
"Frankly, this is a very crucial point," she said.
Well, is it supposed to be a crucial point? Does anyone recall this?
Gaming Board spokesman Nick Hays said three main factors would be considered in awarding the stand alone license.
One is safety -- whether the operator is qualified to operate a casino, has a clean criminal record, has run a business properly and is current on taxes. Another is whether the bidder has the financial wherewithal to operate a casino. The third involves how customer-friendly the facility would be, including issues such as access.
So traffic would be an appropriate thing to discuss here, right? That counts as access. But I don't see anything about a hockey arena. (I discussed that a bit here.) I don't see anything about redevelopment. But that's what the Board is talking about anyway. That kind of stuff might fit into one of the lesser categories such as "public reaction," I suppose, but the main thrust of it is supposed to be tax relief and the three things mentioned above. Honestly, though, did anyone think it would/could go down any other way?
Comments