Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorioles
I said it wrong. Of course it isn't hard to argue for racing getting the money. I just don't think there is a chance in hell they will keep it no matter how hard it is argued or how right the argument is.
Since the state was in on the agreement, why can't they opt to try to change it?
|
The state was a third party to the agreement that doesn't actually provide anything. Legally they can change the agreement just as they can change any law but should we feel comfortable with deals like this where an entire industry will be crippled irreparably? The issue certainly isnt that they can do it but should they be allowed to do it without a fight?
Everyone expected racing to eventually take a haircut and in most states huge mistakes have been made in not trying to preempt them by growing handle to better prepare for the inevitable AND use that growth as proof for keeping the funds. However that doesnt mean (regardless of your feelings about the takeout or other ancillary issues in play here) that politicians can just swoop in and take ALL the money that funds a pretty large industry based on lies and bullshit.
What about the people who have bought farms in the state where PA breds suddenly are worthless? What about the farms that grow hay and straw to sell to these other farms and racetracks and training centers? What about the employees of those people? Racing and breeding has a huge economic impact beyond the backstretch that will for the most part go away. The facts are that the 250 million going to racing interests has a far greater impact into the states economic interests than 250 million taken from the tracks. Why doesnt anyone ask why the tracks are exempted from giving money back?