As the New Jersey Legislature tries to reach a compromise on a plan to allow the state’s first casinos outside of Atlantic City, there’s been a lot of frustration and charges of political meddling and interference.
One thing there hasn’t been, however, is a compromise and it appears the referendum has stalled and will not be voted on during the current legislative session.
Proponents of the plan to allow at least two casinos to be built in the northern part of the state want to pass a resolution to present a referendum to voters in November before the current lame-duck session ends January 12. Voters must approve any expansion of casinos outside of Atlantic City, which would require a change in the state constitution.
To get a referendum before voters, the legislature must pass a resolution by a simple majority in two consecutive sessions. If no vote is taken in this session, a three-fifths majority would be needed in the next session to have the question on the November ballot.
But despite the urgency, legislators have been unable to hammer out differences between a plan proposed in the state Senate and another proposed in the state Assembly. Both plans have been proposed by state Democrats, which control the Legislature.
A deadline for a compromise bill in this session has passed, and now the matter can only be voted on if one house accepts the other house’s plan.
Two major sticking points have apparently emerged in the debate. Under the Senate plan, backed by state Senate President Steven Sweeney, both new casinos would have to be owned by casino companies currently licensed in the state and operating in Atlantic City.
The Assembly plan pushed by Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto would allow for one new developer to compete for a casino—a move seen as paving the way for a proposal by venture capitalist Paul Fireman to build a mega-casino in Jersey City.
The Meadowlands has also been named as a likely site for a casino.
The other issue is the revenue cut for Atlantic City. Under the Senate plan Atlantic City would receive about 50 percent of taxes from the new casinos for redevelopment while the Assembly’s original proposal would allocate about 35 percent
Reports say there has been substantial movement between the two sides on the revenue issue, and both houses have passed amendments to their bills in committee.
Both bills initially dedicate half the new gambling tax revenue generated by the casinos to Atlantic City. The Senate bill calculates aid based on the first $150 million of tax revenue generated, while the Assembly measure calculates it on the first $300 million.
The issue over naming developers, however, isn’t producing any movement.
Both Prieto and Sweeney recently penned editorials for NJ.com and the Newark Star Ledger outlining their positions on the negotiations. Sweeny talked of frustration on his part.
“Unfortunately it appears as if establishing regional battle lines is exactly what some corners of this debate have in mind,” Sweeney wrote. “I am frustrated by the growing realization that every time it seems like we draw close to a deal, the finish line keeps getting moved. It raises a legitimate question as to whether or not N.J. Assembly leadership is negotiating in good faith. Lawmakers from nearly every county voiced their support for my bill. One region remains opposed: Hudson County.”
Jersey City is in Hudson County.
Pietro, however, says the Assembly plan is a good compromise.
“The Assembly bill requires one of the operators to be a current Atlantic City license holder,” Pietro wrote. “The other bill requires them both to be current holders. I want new blood and ideas. I want healthy competition. My preference is that neither license holder be required to hold a current license, but again — compromise.”
Also in the mix is some staunch opposition from some southern New Jersey politicians, especially from Republican Atlantic City Assemblymen Christopher Brown, against allowing any casinos outside of Atlantic City.
Sweeney told politcker.com that he feels most southern New Jersey lawmakers have been willing to compromise on the referendum, but Brown is “showboating” for political gain.
“Some people can sit back and throw bombs, but what’s their plan?” he said.
Still, southern New Jersey legislators weren’t upset by the ballot question stalling.
“I’m certainly not losing sleep over the fact that the legislation has been delayed,” said state Senator James Whelan, who represents Atlantic City. “I hope it’s delayed indefinitely, but in the likely event that this referendum does come before the Senate next year, I will be voting against it.”
Many analysts in the state feel the impasse is the result of the upcoming New Jersey gubernatorial election in 2017. Two of the early frontrunners for the state’s democratic nominee are Sweeney and Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop.
Sweeney represents Camden County in southern New Jersey and has made protecting Atlantic City in any expansion plan a priority. He has also admitted being conflicted by advocating northern New Jersey casinos, but feels the state must make the move.
Fulop is also seen as being a strong candidate for the party’s nomination and some reports have said he does not want to give Sweeney a legislative win. He has strongly denied that and said that he has always supported casino expansion and strongly backs the Assembly bill. Fireman’s proposal for the city however, would likely be more than a billion dollar investment.
Though no compromise has been reached, the state Assembly has scheduled a public hearing on their version for January 7.
