Insight CHILE CASINOS
LAWMAKERS REJECT CASINO LICENCE EXTENSION
In an acrimonious debate Chilean lawmakers have rejected plans to extend the municipal casino licences.
A project that sought to ask the President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, for a concession extension for local casinos, which was put forward by Deputy for Viña del Mar Osvaldo Urrutia in the Chamber of Deputies, has been rejected by 31 votes to 37 against. The project, which would have asked for a repeal of Article 3 of Chile’s gaming laws, met with strong opposition, in particular from the Deputy representing the city of Quilpué, Marcelo Schilling.
A week before the debate, Mayors from the seven municipalities that operate casinos in Chile met in Viña del Mar to discuss the next stage in their plans to protect their casino concessions. Head of the campaign and Mayor of Viña del Mar, Virginia Reginato, said: “Unfortunately President Piñera did not meet to listen to us. Now we are starting from scratch, but we will not stop fighting.”
Expressing her belief that the President would listen to their arguments she said that the seven mayors met again: “with the aim of refining agreements which we will put forward to the new authorities of the government and President Michelle Bachelet in defence of our common interests,” adding that it was now a matter of “urgency” that the government act quickly in order to prevent a “tragedy.”
In presenting the request to the Lower House, Deputy Osvaldo Urrutia argued that Viña del Mar is one of the most populous in Chile and would struggle to meet requirements without a casino.
1 4
Virginia Reginato, Mayor, Vina del Mar, Chile.
miles of Viña del Mar, it would not be able to have a casino. According to Chilean gaming law, no new casino may be built in capital Santiago, there cannot be more than three casinos per region and a casino may not be located within 70km of an already existing casino.
“Unfortunately President Piñera did not meet to listen to us. Now we are starting from scratch, but we will not stop fighting, with the aim of refining agreements which we will put forward to the new authorities of the government and President Michelle Bachelet in defence of our common interests. It is now a matter of “urgency” that the government act quickly in order to prevent a tragedy.
“Viña del Mar has had a casino for 85 years,” he
said, “which means a significant income to its budget, and it will not be able to continue to provide a range of services to the community. We must not forget that the municipality has many properties exempt from the payment of fees so we are asking the President to repeal the article and give us time to look into a new law, which does not expropriate the resources that these communities have had for such a long time.”
However, Deputy Schilling argued that municipalities with casinos had abused their rights and as the city of Quilpué was within 100
The negative vote in the Chilean Lower House casts serious doubt on the possibility that municipalities will be able to continue to run casinos as they have in the past. Local lawmakers had hoped for at least a transitional period to allow them to make fiscal adjustments, which would make up for the inevitable shortfall in casino revenue.
The issue of the municipal casinos has become increasingly urgent of late with local lawmakers concerned that they will soon lose out on millions of dollars of tax revenue from casinos located within their jurisdictions.
In 2005, Chile passed a gaming law which allowed for the construction of 18 additional casinos to the seven municipal casinos already in operation. The licence for the seven other casinos in Chile ends on 31 December 2015. The casinos which were already licensed before the new act fall under the supervision of the local municipalities where they are located and are a vital source of funding. Combined they generate around US$90m a year in tax revenue for local governments. However, from the beginning of 2016, the seven casinos will come under the supervision of the Chilean Gaming Board and the tax revenues from these locations will be split equally between the local municipality and the central government.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108