A few weeks ago I asked:
Do you think it really makes sense to require a casino operator to have 200 hotel rooms in order to acquire an unlimited gaming license?
The results are in:
| No | 44.4% |
| In some instances | 27.7% |
| Yes | 27.7% |
| I couldn't care less | 0% |
These numbers are interesting. "In some instances" is a wildcard answer on a poll like this: I give half of its votes to yes, and half to no. Thus, "Yes" comes out with 41.44%, and "No" comes out with 58.25%.
This poll was totally unscientific with all its 18 respondents. I was pleased that everyone who voted cared, and that some were able to see nuance on the issue. If you voted, I'd be interested in a comment to this post, anonymous or not doesn't matter, to explain your vote.
My vote is: "No."
This regulation was implemented during the first true mega-property boom in the late '80s. You couldn't pick up a copy of Nevada Magazine without seeing something about the Mirage or Luxor and it really was a pretty exciting time for Nevada. It was deemed that "image" would be hard to maintain with a bunch of little mom-and-pop casinos, but of course the era of such a casino had ended years before when the corporate operators snatched them up.
I believe the regulation was intended solely to close up shop in Reno's downtown, which was dependent on full-service casinos without hotels attached to them. Once the regulatory framework excluded any growth in the sector, it was natural for all venture capital available to the operators to dry up.
Comments