Video gaming - a good idea?

At last night's meeting of the Woodstock City Council, a discussion of video gaming was held.

After about ten minutes of Mayor Sager's introduction, which I thought might be the entire discussion, the microphone was opened to the public.

The first speakers were folks with a direct financial interest in approval of video gaming, because they handle the machines. Triple 7 owns the terminals and operates them. So, naturally, they would be in favor.

An attorney for the gaming group (it wasn't clear whether he is employed by Triple 7 or retained by them) presented his information, and then the Council heard from the Woodstock VFW and the Woodstock Moose Lodge, as well as from Mark Gummerson, who represents Coleman's.

In this morning's paper the Northwest Herald reporter wrote that Stephanie Drougas works for Triple 7. Indeed she does; she said so last night. And then an editor of the Northwest Herald elevated her status in a headline to "Advocate". She wasn't an advocate! She was there to pitch the interest of her employer!

When the question arose about whether a drunk would waste more of his family fortunes at the video gaming terminals, she said Drougas didn't think so by his placing one-cent bets. The terminals allow bets ranging from $0.01 to $2.00. (Could somebody blow through $100 (or more) pretty fast with $2 bets?)

Establishments could have up to five machines, and Drougas said that each machine (each machine) could take in from $45,000 to $60,000 a year. Of the take, 30% goes to the State of Illinois, of which 5% of the take would be returned to Woodstock. Of the other 70%, the bar gets a share (half?) and the terminal operator (Triple 7) gets a share (half?). And Woodstock stands to collect $3,000 ($60,000 x 5%) per machine. Five machines? $15,000. From each establishment.

The VFW and the Moose seem to believe that their cut ($60,000 x 35% = $21,000 per machine) will help them keep their doors open.

Will Moose and VFW members cough up $300,000, so that their service organizations can end up with $105,000? Why not just donate $105,000 and keep $195,000 in their pockets?

Isn't there something wrong with these numbers and the whole picture?