Why Are There Only Three Casinos In Detroit?

DetroitDad · March-25-11, 01:15 AM

Why is the number of casinos in Detroit set at three? I understand that the Michigan law states that three casinos may be approved in any city above 800,000 people, but where did they get the number three from? Why not two, or four?

**RaumVogel** · March-25-11, 01:26 AM

I'm sure there's some beancounter-type in Lansing that figured that 4 would be too many for the amount of revenue availiable and 2 wouldn't make the state enough money.

**Meddle** · March-25-11, 02:19 AM

What, you want 'em on every corner like all the failed faux-churches and gas stations?

Three Coleman palaces are three too many.

**Wesley Mouch** · March-26-11, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

What, you want 'em on every corner like all the failed faux-churches and gas stations?

And why not? In Vegas you can find 3 slot machines in the lobby of a family restaurant.

The limitation was political.

Why not allow the Magic Stick to have a machines? Why not Cheli's, or Compuware?

**English** · March-26-11, 11:38 AM

One more thing -- it would be very nice to have a smoke-free casino, or a smoke-free casino floor that you could get to without being subjected to smoke. The smoke levels in all three are getting just ridiculous. I'm one of those who mainly goes for the food, drinks, and entertainment, but over the past year or so, the secondhand smoke level has gone from tolerable to ridiculous.

BTW, I'm not a goody-goody dictating what smokers do. I'm the daughter of two smokers. I also have asthma. It's getting to the point that I can't visit the casinos at all... a preventive inhaler puff beforehand used to do the trick, but no longer.

**Brian1979** · March-26-11, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

What, you want 'em on every corner like all the failed faux-churches and gas stations?

Three Coleman palaces are three too many.

Coleman palaces? Coleman had nothing to do with the casino's, the casino's were from the Archer administration. Coleman hasn't been the mayor since 93 and has been dead since 97 so what exactly does Coleman have to do with the casinos?

**ThisIsForTheHeart** · March-27-11, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

What, you want 'em on every corner like all the failed faux-churches and gas stations?

Three Coleman palaces are three too many.

Gary Coleman who died last year [[R.I.P.)
What kind of say did he have in Detroit? That's the only Coleman I know that's been around for a while.

I agree with the rest, The Casino's would have been better if they were either on a strip or easy access by the people mover or walking.

**Gistok** · March-25-11, 03:24 AM

For those of you too young [[or out of state) back in the mid 1990s there was a state ballet referendum that asked for 3 casinos for Detroit. Reason was because $1 million was leaving Michigan every day for the Windsor Casino. The constitutional measure passed, even against Governor Engler's objection.

It became law DURING THE ARCHER ADMINISTRATION... at ONLY 3 casinos... nothing more... nothing less.

... and Meddle your anti-Coleman bashing is making you sound like a broken record... he's been dead for 11 years... it's time for you to move on....

**iheartthed** · March-25-11, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

... and Meddle your anti-Coleman bashing is making you sound like a broken record... he's been dead for 11 years... it's time for you to move on....

Been dead more than 13 years now.

**R8RBOB** · March-25-11, 07:53 AM

The crazy thing about the casinos was that everyone who was involved in Detroit getting casinos was eliminated from getting approved by the state or they had to sell their share. As a result, the two casinos that were given a preference by Mayor Dennis Archer were later sold and one Greektown filed for bankruptcy. And the people thought casinos was going to pour tons of dollars in the Detroit coffers.

**Hypestyles** · March-25-11, 09:31 AM

The city could use one more. But make it should be a more expansive, resort-type place..

What happened with the aborted attempt to have all of them be on the riverfront? what all was involved with that effort?

**R8RBOB** · March-25-11, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

The city could use one more. But make it should be a more expansive, resort-type place..

What happened with the aborted attempt to have all of them be on the riverfront? what all was involved with that effort?

Actually, the city could use one less but that's my opinion. The riverfront idea died when all the landholders wanted more money for their land. The city thought that they would be able to offer the fair market rate for the land but because the land was going to be used for casinos then the price of the land could go beyond the market rate and the city realized that it didn't have enough money to make that happen so they abandon the riverfront and left it in shambles. I still hate that Bastille's had to close. It was a hole in the wall but it was a comfortable place to go to have a beer.

**artds** · March-27-11, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

What happened with the aborted attempt to have all of them be on the riverfront? what all was involved with that effort?

If you're interested in reading an account of everything that occurred that isn't littered with Gistok's flagrant biases, I would suggest reading the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion in City of Detroit v. Detroit Plaza Limited Partnership.

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/DOCUMENTS/O...258479.OPN.PDF

The "Basic Facts and Procedural History" section contains an accurate account of how things went down.

Contrary to what Gistok posted, the land was taken through Eminent Domain, and the value of the land was determined not by "greedy investors", but by a jury comprised of ordinary Wayne County residents.

**Gistok** · March-27-11, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by artds

If you're interested in reading an account of everything that occurred that isn't littered with Gistok's flagrant biases, I would suggest reading the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion in City of Detroit v. Detroit Plaza Limited Partnership.

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/DOCUMENTS/O...258479.OPN.PDF

The "Basic Facts and Procedural History" section contains an accurate account of how things went down.

Contrary to what Gistok posted, the land was taken through Eminent Domain, and the value of the land was determined not by "greedy investors", but by a jury comprised of ordinary Wayne County residents.

Nice try Artds... but next time you should try to actually read AND comprehend what you have Googled...

1) This reference source is ONLY about the 6.3 acre LaFarge Cenent Silo site, which was south of Atwater Street... and the plans were to convert the land to parkland... the city and LaFarge were negotiating within a $8-$10 million figure that was never finalized [[see Section 4 - OFFER TO SELL). Since parkland is a PUBLIC use... the use of Eminent Domain... IS ALLOWED.

2[[) The LaFarge partnership got wind that the casinos were going to be built NORTH of Atwater along the east riverfront. Well that stalled the sale of the LaFarge plant. Later the partnership determined that their per square foot land value was something like $175. They got the judge to dismiss evidence that the city was going to show [[Like-Kind-Exchange, page 4) to show how the city got to a lower valuation than what the LaFarge investors wanted. The judge disallowed the jury from hearing this, and that obviously led to the eventual decision of a jury decision of 31.5 million and that verdict was upheld. Going from $8-$10 million to $31.5 million for parkland does seem quite excessive... but that's due to the fact that plans north of Atwater were for 3 Casinos, and it would be intolerable for the glitzy casinos to be next to cement silos.

NOW to get back to the real issue...

The actual acreage of land for the casinos was between Atwater and Jefferson. That was the circa 110 acres of land that was being negotiated by the city and landowners. 42 acres of that land were actually sold to the city [[the casinos paid). But the remaining holdouts wanted much higher figures... according to the article that Artds mentioned... the city tried to use EMINENT DOMAIN, but they were immediately shot down in court by the UCPA [[UNIFORM CONDEMNATION PROCEDURES ACT) mentioned on the bottom of page 2.

So to make a long story short... this so called "evidence" that Artds found deals mainly with the process of Eminent Domain for LaFarge Silo land south of Atwater Street [[to be used for parkland). It does NOT deal with issues [[except peripherally) on land purchases for the actual casino site. That land cound not, and was not EMINIENT DOMAINed... only the 42 acres of parcels that were purchased thru NEGOTIATIONS were actually purchased by the city. The remaining landowners were proverbially "left holding the bag" when Mayor Archer told the casinos to find their own sites.

A good portion of the already purchased riverfront land became the nucleus of the future Tricentennial [[Milliken) State Park.

I stand by my original comments... and with the price of the LaFarge site going from $8-$10 million all the way up to $31.5 million... I also stand by my "greedy investors" statement.

Artds... next time you try insulting other people's intelligence... you might first want to do your homework....

bartock · March-25-11, 11:05 AM

Yes only 3 casinos but what will happen is, they will just add additional towers/expand the three casinos that exist. Motor City has talked about eventually adding a second tower -

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2007...l_books_n.html

**Gistok** · March-25-11, 12:21 PM

Hypestyles... the casinos set aside $150 million for the Archer administration to buy up [[couldn't use Eminent Domain) about [[can't remember the exact figure) 110 acres of land along the riverfront area. Well the landowners got greedy, and the $150 million only were able to get about 42 acres for that $150 million... so Archer told the casinos to find their own locations, and in return the city got to keep the already purchased land [[much of which became Tricentennial [[Milliken) Park.

The holdouts screamed bloody murder [[and some sued)... but hey didn't have a legal leg to stand on... and now have their much diminished value land... or they already sold it to other investors for nickels on the [[Casino land value) dollar.

The greedy holdout investors... instead of pocketing a profit of millions for their land... they were banking on tens of millions... and of course got stuck holding the proverbial "bag".

This would be Schadenfreude, if the entire process hadn't already decimated the fledgling entertainment district in Rivertown!!

**English** · March-26-11, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Hypestyles... the casinos set aside $150 million for the Archer administration to buy up [[couldn't use Eminent Domain) about [[can't remember the exact figure) 110 acres of land along the riverfront area. Well the landowners got greedy, and the $150 million only were able to get about 42 acres for that $150 million... so Archer told the casinos to find their own locations, and in return the city got to keep the already purchased land [[much of which became Tricentennial [[Milliken) Park.

The holdouts screamed bloody murder [[and some sued)... but hey didn't have a legal leg to stand on... and now have their much diminished value land... or they already sold it to other investors for nickels on the [[Casino land value) dollar.

The greedy holdout investors... instead of pocketing a profit of millions for their land... they were banking on tens of millions... and of course got stuck holding the proverbial "bag".

This would be Schadenfreude, if the entire process hadn't already decimated the fledgling entertainment district in Rivertown!!

Hey Gistok -- I'm moving to Rivertown in 0 minus 4 weeks. I'm torn... it would have been nice to have a more viable 'hood, but the Riverwalk and Tricentennial/Milliken Park are just beautiful. Taken with the Dequindre Cut, I have to say that the tranquility of being on the river and close to parks where I can walk, run, and bike are what sold me on this 'hood above some of the others [[with Lafayette Park a close first runner-up, and still on my list for when I buy in 2-3 years).

I'm even leaving the Live Midtown incentive on the table to make this move, which is saying a lot. Not sure I would have made this choice if I was living 7-8 blocks away from MGM or Greektown.

**Gistok** · March-25-11, 12:32 PM

Also... yes it is true that many of the initial investors who were going to be casino owners didn't pass the state background check... in Greektown Gatzaros and Papas failed and had to sell their 40% of their stakes to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians [[50% owners)... the Greektown pair got $248 million. Since then Gatzaros has cleaned up his act, and became a 1% owner in Greektown Casino [[maybe he owns more now??)

The MotorCity group also got stung... minority investors Herb Strathers and Nellie Varner both failed the state check, as did Mike Malik [[of Malik, Tom Celani and Marion Ilitch)... so Malik sold his shares to Marion Ilitch, who then became a 25% owner of MotorCity).

MGM Grand had a similar situation with one of the minority investors [[a college buddy of Archer) failing the state background check.

And later of course MGM Grand and Circus-Circus [[later Mandalay Bay) merged, and MGM sold their 53.5% interest of MotorCity Casino to Marion Ilitch [[they could not legally own 2 Detroit casinos). So this brought Marion Ilitch's total share ownership up to something like 88% of MotorCity. Well that didn't sit well with 10% owner Tom Celani, nor the small 2% minority investors... so they sold their remaining 12% to Marion Ilitch so that she became sole owner of that casino.

**Danny** · March-25-11, 01:00 PM

Three casinos in Detroit is enough. Detroit is NOT LAS VEGAS, RENO, BRANSON MISSOURI and ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY. But those 3 casinos could be closing soon because Detroit's population is under 800,000. It could happen by next year.

I do believe the more the millions of U.S. dollar bills will be going over Caesar's Windsor.

**Gistok** · March-25-11, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

Three casinos in Detroit is enough. Detroit is NOT LAS VEGAS, RENO, BRANSON MISSOURI and ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY. But those 3 casinos could be closing soon because Detroit's population is under 800,000. It could happen by next year.

I do believe the more the millions of U.S. dollar bills will be going over Caesar's Windsor.

Danny... with the loss of over 10,000 jobs, hundreds of million in tax revenue for both the city and the state.... THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!

**Brian1979** · March-26-11, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

Three casinos in Detroit is enough. Detroit is NOT LAS VEGAS, RENO, BRANSON MISSOURI and ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY. But those 3 casinos could be closing soon because Detroit's population is under 800,000. It could happen by next year.

I do believe the more the millions of U.S. dollar bills will be going over Caesar's Windsor.

The casino's aren't going to be closing and the 800,000 thing was only for the original permit so since Detroit had over 800,000 people when the casino's were built, it's not going to be an issue.

**MichiganMan** · March-25-11, 01:52 PM

The Language of Proposal E
as it appeared on Michigan's November 5, 1996, general election ballot

A Legislative Initiative to Permit Casino Gaming in Qualified Cities

The proposed law would:

Permit up to three gaming casinos in any city that meets the following qualifications: has a population of 800,000 or more; is located within 100 miles of any other state or country in which gaming is permitted; and has had casino gaming approved by a majority of the voters in the city.
Establish a Gaming Control Board to regulate casino gaming.
Impose an 18% state tax on gross gaming revenues.
Allocate 55% of tax revenue to the host city for crime prevention and economic development; allocate remaining 45% of tax funds to state for public education.

Should the proposed law be adopted? Yes [__] No [__] Results ... 1,878,542 Yes [[51.5%) vs. 1,768,156 No [[48.5%)

This is the proposal language that passed. There is nothing about what happens if the Population drops below 800,000. The casinos will remain. They were approved based on the criteria at that time.

**Danny** · March-25-11, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by MichiganMan

The Language of Proposal E
as it appeared on Michigan's November 5, 1996, general election ballot

A Legislative Initiative to Permit Casino Gaming in Qualified Cities

The proposed law would:

Permit up to three gaming casinos in any city that meets the following qualifications: has a population of 800,000 or more; is located within 100 miles of any other state or country in which gaming is permitted; and has had casino gaming approved by a majority of the voters in the city.
Establish a Gaming Control Board to regulate casino gaming.
Impose an 18% state tax on gross gaming revenues.
Allocate 55% of tax revenue to the host city for crime prevention and economic development; allocate remaining 45% of tax funds to state for public education.

Should the proposed law be adopted? Yes [__] No [__] Results ... 1,878,542 Yes [[51.5%) vs. 1,768,156 No [[48.5%)

This is the proposal language that passed. There is nothing about what happens if the Population drops below 800,000. The casinos will remain. They were approved based on the criteria at that time.

Have you read law 1. on the ballot A POPULATION THAT IS OVER 800,000. Detroit is under 800,000 officially. Therefore It's now illegal to have 3 casinos in Detroit so it must close. The law in the ballot has spoken.

**dtowncitylover** · March-25-11, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

Have you read law 1. on the ballot A POPULATION THAT IS OVER 800,000. Detroit is under 800,000 officially. Therefore It's now illegal to have 3 casinos in Detroit so it must close. The law in the ballot has spoken.

It says to PERMIT a city with over 800,000. It says nothing about if that city goes under 800,000 residents. At the time Detroit had well over 800,000 residents, therefore they were permitted to open up casinos.

I think Danny was and still is anti-casino.

**Brian1979** · March-26-11, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

Have you read law 1. on the ballot A POPULATION THAT IS OVER 800,000. Detroit is under 800,000 officially. Therefore It's now illegal to have 3 casinos in Detroit so it must close. The law in the ballot has spoken.

Show me where it says anything about having to close the casino's if the population dips under 800,000. There is nothing that says that so the casino's are safe.