NJ Casino Battle Continues: North Jersey Mayors Call Sweeney's Plan 'Wrong'

By ERIC KIEFER (Patch Staff)

If New Jersey voters decide to expand casinos outside of Atlantic City, how should the profits be divided?

In June, New Jersey lawmakers began to ruminate about creating legislation that could pave the way for the construction of three new casinos outside of Atlantic City, prompting municipal officials and developers across the state to make pitches for their towns and cities.

• See related article: State Could Pave Way For Building New Casinos

But opinions about the locations of the potential new casinos – as well as who gets to run them and how the tax money would be split – have been conflicting.

• See related article: Who Will Get Jersey’s New Casinos?

In December, State Sen. President Steve Sweeney wrote an op-ed article that reiterated his plan to “protect Atlantic City and minimize the cannibalization of profits between gambling regions” by requiring the new casinos to pay tax rates of 50 percent, half of which would “be spent to help Atlantic City recover and become a premiere tourist destination.”

In addition, Sweeney suggested that current Atlantic City owners should have the first opportunity to operate one of the new casinos, and jobless Atlantic City workersshould be given the first opportunity to work at the new North Jersey locations.

• See related article: Sweeney Proposes North Jersey Casino Referendum

In response to Sweeny’s suggestions, the mayors of the three largest cities in the Garden State - Ras Baraka of Newark, Steven Fulop of Jersey City and Joey Torres of Paterson – released the following statement:

“As the deadline for legislative action looms in Trenton, it is important that we voice support for Speaker Prieto’s casino legislation, which best addresses the needs of North Jersey. Senate President Sweeney’s bill takes half of the money raised by potential North Jersey casinos and sends it to one South Jersey municipality, while the other 564 municipalities in New Jersey split the remaining revenue. Under the Sweeney bill, North Jersey municipalities endure the infrastructure and public safety burdens that casinos invite, but the revenue is disproportionately given to Sweeney’s South Jersey constituents, saddling northern municipalities with additional burdens and less resources to address those burdens. Senate President Sweeney’s proposal is wrong for North Jersey.”

In its place, the mayors endorsed State Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto’s plan, which he reported in a December op-ed column with NJ.com.

According to Prieto:

• The Assembly first proposed three casinos; now it proposes two.
• The Assembly first proposed sending 35 percent of the new casino tax revenues to Atlantic City for 15 years; it now proposes 50 percent of the first $300 million in new money, then 35 percent of the rest, with some of that money also sent to the horse racing industry.
• The first Assembly bill didn’t provide for municipalities and counties that host new casinos, but now it would send them 4 percent of new revenue.

New Jersey voters would eventually have to approve the casino expansion via a public ballot question, and the state Assembly and Senate would need to approve a resolution before the legislative year ends on Jan. 11 for the referendum to appear on ballots in November, NJ.com reported.

File photo via flickr