Court case? What court case?
Though an appeal still is to come on the election procedure by which the Arkansas legislature opened the door to video poker at Oaklawn Park in Hot Springs and Southland Greyhound Park in West Memphis, Southland, for one, isn't letting any grass grow. (We still wonder if anybody is willing to legally challenge the notion that the expanded gambling is truly a legal "game of skill," given that the house take will be set by the house at the maximum it thinks it can get away with and still draw gamblers.)
Roby Brock's Talk Business today writes about a Commercial Appeal article that says the Tunica-wracked dog track is about to go casino in a $40 million way. Unless still more loopholes are planned, it won't be able to offer table games and pure "slots" as the Tunica casinos do, but it's apparently betting the speedy Interstate 40 connection will send many Memphians over to their poker slots instead of winding down the Mississippi Delta to the Horsehoe, Grand, etc.. At the newly renamed Southland Park Gaming and Racing, says Brock:
Apparently, Southland is opening up a nightclub and bar with live entertainment, a 280-seat casino-style mega-buffet, special events centers that will cater to 450, and an electronic gaming room thanks to a new state law and recent special election by local voters. Also, expect more improvements such as extensive landscaping, a new facade, bright neon signage and valet parking.
Comments
why do we even allow gambling? i thought that gambling was a sin?
the answer is probably, well, because it brings in money.
okay, so now we have put money above god, where it belongs, by the way.
Posted by: why? | July 28, 2006 11:40 AM
gambling rules.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 28, 2006 11:48 AM
"(We still wonder if anybody is willing to legally challenge the notion that the expanded gambling is truly a legal "game of skill," given that the house take will be set by the house at the maximum it thinks it can get away with and still draw gamblers.)"
Max, who would have "legal standing" to bring such a law suit?
Posted by: Jim | July 28, 2006 02:29 PM
Sorry for the breach, but where's the Lt Gov race poll data?
Posted by: Ready For The Fall-Out | July 28, 2006 03:01 PM
Southland is also bringing 200 much needed new jobs along with its' expansion.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 28, 2006 03:09 PM
This seems to be along the lines of build now ask for permission later
Posted by: HeyO! | July 28, 2006 03:19 PM
Permission has been given by the voters.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 28, 2006 03:35 PM
Dear Mr. To Scared to Post a Name-
I understand that the voters approved it, however there seems to be a legit chance that this will be challenged in court. And if Southland goes ahead and builds its great hall and then loses, well then West Memphis.....we might have a problem.
And since you can't read and understand a little subtle language, notice I said it seems to be along the same lines, not it was the same lines, the post was also a reference to a article in the Times last week.
Posted by: HeyO! | July 28, 2006 03:58 PM
I suppose "HeyO!" is your real name. It has already been challenged in court and upheld by two different circuit judges. It is being appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. There is a very, very small chance it will overturn those rulings. Make no mistake, Southland has taken all of these matters into consideration, Mr. O!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 28, 2006 04:23 PM
Actually, the Southland decision was not appealed. The plaintiffs' attorneys only filed a notice of appeal on the Oaklawn decision, but it is my understanding that they have not yet lodged the record with the Supreme Court. Southland filed a motion to intervene in that case and it was granted. As for there being a "legit chance" of overturning the decision, you obviously have not followed these cases, HeyO. I read the briefs, the case law, and heard the arguments. The plaintiffs were forced to dismiss half of the defendants they sued before they even got in front of the judge. Then they got killed, I mean slaughtered, at the hearings. It was actually kind of sad.
There may be other suits filed to challenge the type of machines the tracks put in, but this lawsuit was DOA when it was filed.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 28, 2006 09:10 PM