Governor Christie?s ?Ask the Governor? show on 101.5 FM radio Tuesday night featured a call from ?Joseph in Atlantic City? at the 44-minute mark.
?Joseph? wanted to know if Christie was prepared to sign the online gambling bill that passed the legislature in late December. Christie has until Feb. 4 ? the day after the Super Bowl in New Orleans ? speaking of gambling ? for him to sign or veto it.
Here?s my transcript of the response, as well as Christie?s comments on the state Department of Justice?s intervention Tuesday in the NFL et al?s sports betting lawsuit:
?Well, [the bill] is sitting on my desk. I?ve got to make a decision very soon.
I haven?t made a final decision yet, but here are the things ? two things that I?m cocnerned about.
The first is that I don?t know that it really will help Atlantic City. And I?m concerned that it may drive taffic away from Atlantic City ? that if people can gamble in their own homes on their laptops, why are they going to go to Atlantic City? And I think its contrary to what we?re trying to accomplish there.
Secondly, I?m also really concerned about setting up a whole new gneeraiton of addicted gamblers. You know, if you can sit on the edge on your bed on your laptop and gamble away the paycheck ? that?s a lot different than making the decision to go down to Atlantic City to gamble in a casino. So I?ve got those two concerns.
I haven?t made a final deciions yet, but I have those two concerns, and you should know that that?s the way I feel. And [there is] in part the reasons that I vetoed the bill before, in addition to some ways that it was constructed that made no sense, either. So I?m taking a very close look at it, I was reading it over the weekend, and reading the briefing from my staff in depth, and I?m going to have to make a decision in the next couple of days.?
MY TAKE: In his 2011 veto, Christie had no interest in the part about subsidies for horse racing purses and he had qualms about the possibility of ?internet cafes? opening up all over the state. The new legislation removed the horse racing provision and addressed the latter, so the big issue ? the one that Christie said ?made no sense? ? may be what Christie previously called a ?legal fiction? of the Atlantic City constitutionally-approved monopoly on gambling in the state being preserved simply because the servers that records the gambling from all over the state would be based in Atlantic City.
So Christie ? a former U.S. Attorney ? may still be digesting that one, even with a Seton Hall constitutional law professor having given his stamp of approval to a state Assembly panel last year.
Christie does not seem to have strong pro- or anti-gambling sentiments. So he has a challenge here: personally, he doesn?t like this bill and doesn?t seem to think it will help at all.
But it has the backing of both the casinos themselves and the South Jersey lawmakers. Christie has repeatedly stressed a rebound for Atlantic City as being a core part of his first term in office.
Meanwhile, the state?s Council on Compulsive Gambling has taken no stance on the expanded gambling, instead seeking what they say would be additional funding needed. The bill does provide for those funds, though reasonable people can differ on how much is enough.
Will Christie ultimately decide he can best help the city by vetoing to his own reservations ? or by deferring to those who are most affected, and who have a different opinion?
I suspect, especially with these comments, that even Christie doesn?t have that answer just yet.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
peoples choice awards 2012 ford recalls robert kardashian chicago weather forecast narcolepsy narcolepsy weather st louis
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.