Все о стройматериалах

A public tender called by Venice’s city council to find a new management for the world’s oldest brick-and-mortar casino closed last Friday without a single offer, threatening the future of the room owned by the same council since 1946.

"It seems that the price asked for the 30-year old deal was too high," commented Venice’s casino director Vittorio Ravà to local newspaper La Nuova di Venezia e Mestre. According to Ravà, the council’s decision to ask investors to commit a sum of around 500 million Euros in 30 years discouraged all the potential tenderers from applying to manage the fascinating structure built in 1638.

"Before the tender started, some said that we were about to give the casino away for a too low price," said Venice’s major Giorgio Orsoni to Italy’s news agency Agimeg. "Truth is, we all have to realize that we instead asked for a too high price," Orsoni continued.

"Now we have to decide if to try to call for a new public tender or start some new private negotiations. What is sure however, is that we need private investments to avoid significant cuts in the casino workforce and a considerable restructuring of the casino’s operations," Venice’s major said.

According to the terms of the public tender, in order to manage the prestigious Ca’Vendramin Calergi casino and the modern Ca’ Noghera one, investors would have had to guarantee a down payment of about €140 million and a subsequent investment of at least €308 million to be paid throughout the 30-year contract. Also, the honor of managing both of Venice’s casinos came with a yearly €16 million gambling tax to be paid to the state.

As if this wasn’t enough, Italy’s infamous bureaucracy managed to complicate things by adding to the numbers above the fact that, starting from the seventh year of activities, the new management should have also paid a special tax of (at least) 5% on the Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) exceeding 140 million Euros.

"The game is not over yet, and I am confident that we will find a solution for the casino," mayor Orsoni said, explaining also how the poor result of the public tender might help starting some new talks with companies potentially interested in managing the casino – should a considerable "discount" be possible.

"We are open to start a roundtable with Venice city council and the current management of the casino," wrote the Slovenian gambling group Casino Hit in a note sent to the media. "We are open to discussing whether there is a possibility to find a way to meet the interests of all the parties involved."

Casino Hit, which already manages the brick-and-mortar rooms in Portorose and Nova Goriça, Slovenia, specified that it would be ready to take over Venice casinos in case of more convenient financial terms.

"The Group has put together a pool of investors, and some of them expressed concerns about the financial sustainability of the investment asked so far, as they consider it to be too high for the current dynamics of international gambling markets. Therefore, we are open to open a roundtable with authorities and discuss about the management of the casinos together with Venice’s city council."

I fully agree with Steve Duprey and Harold Janeway (Monitor Opinion page, April 24) that the casino issue should be settled now and that this annual legislative charade needs to stop.

But I feel casinos should be built ASAP.

Polls show that more than 60 percent of New Hampshire residents either want or don’t care about casinos. Why are at least 60 percent of legislators not voting for it?

Representatives may be under the influence of lobbyists from Connecticut casinos, while others are personally against gambling for religious or moral reasons.

I have no problem with someone being morally opposed to gambling, but that is no reason to throw their constituents’ desires into the trash heap.

Whether to legally gamble or not is an individual’s choice and should not be decided by the government.

As for bad economics and uncertain revenue, the casinos wouldn’t be spending big bucks if it was not going to be profitable for them. Profits from the casinos will mean income for the state treasury. How much? Who knows? But some is better than none.

And if a casino fails, so what? Another foreclosed building to be added to an already high inventory.

The addition of two casinos in New Hampshire would increase tourism and give those tourists something to do on a rainy week in July or a snowless winter.

People who like to gamble are going to whether it’s legal or not.

It’s time to put some of this revenue in our pockets.

Will some people abuse the opportunity? Sure, but they’re already doing it, and it’s their freedom of choice, right or wrong, not ours.

Will the character of New Hampshire change? Not much. The southern part of the state has already become Massachusetts North and a casino in Salem won’t change that, except to bring more money into town and help the tax rate. Up north? Maybe a few more tourists and surely more employment opportunities. What’s wrong with that? Casinos are just an addition to our tourist attractions.

We the people need relief. The real estate taxes have become excessive and our infrastructure is rapidly decaying.

Will a casino be a cure all? Of course not, but it’s a step in the right direction.

A few million here, a few million there, and it begins to add up.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission rejected a proposed $164 million Cedar Rapids casino Thursday, saying it would hurt existing casinos.

Supporters of the Cedar Crossing Casino development have said it would give an economic boost to Cedar Rapids and the region. They also argued it would be a catalyst for development in an area ravaged by a 2008 flood, create jobs and generate millions for tax revenue and charities.

But representatives of casinos in Riverside, Dubuque and Waterloo fought the plan, saying it would take business away from them.

The five-member commission voted 4 to 1 against the new casino during a meeting in Council Bluffs, with more than 300 people attending. The panel hasn't approved a new casino license since 2010, when it called for a three- to five-year moratorium due to concerns about market saturation.

The lone member who voted to approve the proposal, Dolores Mertz of Ankeny, said she didn't "want to put anyone out of business," but thinks industry — including Iowa's gaming industry —should be market driven.

"As a farmer, if I really believe that in agriculture, I'd be really remiss not to do that in gaming," she said.

Last month, more than 500 people packed the commission's hearing in Cedar Rapids on the proposed casino, which would be located near Interstate 380. The majority were supporters of the project, holding signs urging the commission to "vote yes" and cheering when speakers made key points.

The most vocal contingent opposing the development came from the Riverside Casino and Golf Resort in the small town of Riverside about 40 miles south of Cedar Rapids.

Riverside CEO Dan Kehl had said he likely would be forced to lay off about 250 of its 750 workers if the commission approved the Cedar Rapids project, which he said would take 30 percent or more of Riverside's business.

The Cedar Crossing Casino plan had called for a $138 million development that would include a casino, several restaurants and a 400-seat events center designed to attract touring entertainment acts, with most of the investors local business leaders. The city also would have built a $26 million parking ramp across the street.

More than 61 percent of voters in Linn County, which includes Cedar Rapids, supported the proposed casino during an election last year.

So how many bites of the apple do casino opponents get?

That tricky bit of business is now the question for the state’s highest court to answer. And judging from the direction of questioning by the justices — and, yes, it’s always a bit problematic to draw conclusions from that — there is a healthy skepticism that repeal belongs on the state ballot.

Noting that the Gaming Commission has already issued a five-year license for a slots parlor “at a great cost to the applicant, can that simply be taken away with a big never mind?” Justice Robert J. Cordy asked Thomas O. Bean, attorney for casino opponents.

“They can do this without compensation?” Cordy added.

Bean insisted, “We’re dealing with an extremely well-financed industry” that made its investments knowing full well that opponents could launch a repeal effort. “They followed the controversy.”

But they also depended on a 104-page law passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.

Chief Justice Roderick Ireland asked, “What about the chilling effect?”

What indeed! If the ballot can be used to cancel a legally binding contract — and an exceedingly expensive one at that — then whose business is safe?

And, of course, because the initiative petition process can’t be used to make appropriations, there would be no way to compensate those would-be casino operators who had won licenses and paid for the privilege. Although if it went on the ballot and passed, casino operators could certainly sue for compensation, Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks, arguing against the ballot question, told the court.

He also noted that there had been a way for casino opponents to get on the ballot legally with a simpler measure that would prohibit the Gaming Commission from issuing licenses. But they insisted on going full-throttle for a repeal of the gaming law and threw in repeal of dog racing simulcasts just for good measure.

They overreached. But beyond that they endanger the state’s already shaky reputation as a good place to do business. Let’s all hope the Supreme Judicial Court makes that clear too.

PHILADELPHIA, May 05, 2014 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Organizers of the Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic today announced that Novo Nordisk will serve as the Title Sponsor of the inaugural Walk the Wall event. As part of the event, members of the Philadelphia community are invited to walk or run up the iconic Manayunk Wall on Saturday, May 31, 2014 – the day before the Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic professional cycling race.

“As we continue to grow the Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic, our goal is to add opportunities like this that embrace the neighborhoods that support us and get more people to be active, even if it is not on a bike,” said Richard Adler of Liberty Sports Development, the event producer.

The Novo Nordisk Walk the Wall eventwill also help raise money for local non-profit organizations, to be announced in the coming weeks, which are committed to promoting healthy living.

“The rise of diabetes is one of the most serious health challenges affecting urban communities today and Novo Nordisk is passionate about helping combat this public health epidemic, especially in our own backyard,” said George McAvoy, vice president, Diabetes Marketing at Novo Nordisk. “We look forward to welcoming the Philadelphia community, a city rich with cycling traditions and passionate fans, to the 2014 Novo Nordisk Walk the Wall event, where fans are invited to climb the same stretch of course that has challenged the world’s best professional cyclists for over 30 years: the legendary Manayunk Wall. Together we will beat the Wall. Together we will work to beat diabetes."

Novo Nordisk is a returning sponsor of the Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic and sponsor of Team Novo Nordisk, the world’s first all-diabetes professional cycling team, who will compete in the professional race on June 1. Members of Team Novo Nordisk will also participate in the Walk the Wall event - sharing their inspirational stories and encouraging participants as they climb the Wall.

The Manayunk Wall, which is comprised of a 17 percent-grade hill, begins at the base of Levering Street at Cresson and climbs to the top of the wall at Lyceum and Manayunk Avenues. The Novo Nordisk Walk the Wall event will begin at Main and Levering Streets in Manayunk at 4 p.m. To learn more and register, please visit: https://walkthewall.eventbrite.com .

About Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic

The Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic is operated by a community-based non-profit organization formed to organize and host the new world-class professional cycling race in Philadelphia. Joining title sponsor Parx Casino is event Founding Sponsor New Penn Financial, and official sponsors Novo Nordisk, Philadelphia Federal Credit Union, Fuji Bikes, Amstel Radler, Bicycling Magazine, and Roxborough Memorial Hospital. For more information, visit www.phillycyclingclassic.org .

About Novo Nordisk

Headquartered in Denmark, Novo Nordisk is a global healthcare company with more than 90 years of innovation and leadership in diabetes care. The company also has leading positions within hemophilia care, growth hormone therapy and hormone replacement therapy. Novo Nordisk employs approximately 40,000 employees in 75 countries, and markets its products in more than 180 countries. For more information, visit novonordisk-us.com or follow our news in the U.S. on Twitter: @NovoNordiskUS.

THE MASSACHUSETTS constitution gives voters wide latitude to propose changes in state law, and a ballot measure proposed by gambling critics bent on repealing the state’s controversial 2011 casino legislation falls squarely within that power. So when Attorney General Martha Coakley blocked the measure last year, casino opponents understandably sued to overturn her decisionin state court. Keeping the question off the November ballot may soothe the anxieties of gambling firms. But Coakley’s office simply hasn’t offered a compelling legal rationale for denying voters a direct voice on the gambling issue. The Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in the case this week, should overturn the attorney general’s decision, and quickly.

Under state law, it’s up to the attorney general to certify that initiatives meet constitutional requirements, one of the first steps in a process that also involves collecting thousands of signatures, a hurdle the anti-casino campaign cleared easily. Courts have ruled that attorneys general should err on the side of voters, instructing them to green-light referendums “unless it is reasonably clear that a proposal contains an excluded matter.” Coakley has authorized many controversial ballot measures, including the 2008 referendum that banned dog racing. Yet when organizers of the casino repeal filed their petition last year, she rejected it. But her arguments, then and now, are convoluted.

Before the SJC on Monday, Coakley’s office cited a provision in the Massachusetts constitution that prohibits popular initiatives that take away an individuals’ “right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use.” But nothing in the repeal proposal takes away anything that fits the common-sense definition of property, such as objects or real estate. Rather, Coakley claims the companies that have applied for the four casino licenses created by the law have an “implied contract” with the state that amounts to a kind of property. Since the applicants have anted up a $400,000 fee to determine an outcome to the licensing process, Coakley says, they have a right to get a resolution of that process, one that voters may not take away.

As a practical matter, though, the gaming commission expects to award all its licenses by November anyway. If the repeal law passes, it wouldn’t go into effect until December. That means the applicants will have received the determination they’ve paid for before the law goes into effect, rendering the attorney general’s central argument against a referendum moot.

And even if the commission misses its deadline, it’s long been understood that the Commonwealth can change the rules governing gambling at will — whether by legislative fiat or at the ballot box. After all, the former operators of dog tracks in Massachusetts invested money in keeping up their licenses, only to see the voters abolish their whole industry.

That precedent has caused some apprehension in the broader business community, because additional wrangling on a high-profile policy matter is said to exacerbate the state’s reputation for unpredictability. Yet the court’s job here is simply to assess the legal issues. At the very least, there is no “reasonably clear” case that anything in the proposed referendum runs afoul of the law — the standard the attorney general should have applied before blocking a vote. The court should authorize the ballot question, and rule quickly to resolve uncertainty around the issue.