Galesburg Weighs Impact of Video Gambling and Online Casinos

Galesburg, Illinois, is grappling with a growing concern: the rise of video gaming terminals (VGTs) in local businesses. While these terminals have brought financial gains to the city, the rapid proliferation of such devices has sparked concerns among residents and officials. The Galesburg City Council now faces a crucial decision—whether to impose a cap on the number of VGTs, enforce a temporary moratorium on new terminals, or allow the current trend to continue unchecked.

This debate echoes larger conversations around gambling access in the U.S., where the increasing convenience of gambling options has raised questions about their potential societal impacts. In many communities, gambling has become ubiquitous, leading some to worry that easy access may be contributing to an unmanageable surge in activity. For Galesburg, the question is not just about regulation, but about finding a balance between business growth and community well-being.

 

The Growth of VGTs in Galesburg

Currently, 33 Galesburg establishments, including bars and restaurants, house 190 VGTs. As more businesses adopt these machines, concerns about overconcentration and the regulation of gambling activity have emerged. Local officials have noted a clustering of video gaming venues in certain areas, raising alarm about the potential long-term effects of such saturation. In response, some council members, including City Manager Eric Hanson and City Clerk Kelli Bennewitz, are advocating for a temporary moratorium on new video gaming licenses to allow time for a comprehensive review of the situation.

The proposed freeze would halt the issuance of new gaming licenses, though existing licenses would remain valid. The rationale behind this approach is to give city officials a chance to assess the impact of the growing number of terminals before making further regulatory decisions. However, this proposal is not without its critics.

One of the loudest voices opposing a cap is Steve Cheeseman, a Ward 7 alderman. Cheeseman argues that restricting the number of terminals would not solve potential gambling problems but would instead harm Galesburg’s economic interests. “Limiting gaming machines does not help with gambling issues,” Cheeseman stated. “But it may, in fact, have a negative effect on business revenue.”

Cheeseman contends that imposing a moratorium could redirect potential revenue from new operators to neighboring jurisdictions, ultimately resulting in fewer economic benefits for the city. He also suggests that limiting new terminals could push customers to other locations, undermining local businesses and diminishing revenue for the city as a whole.

However, proponents of a moratorium argue that the city's video gaming market is already saturated. They claim that while additional terminals could generate more revenue, it is unlikely to provide substantial gains. The concern is that any new licenses would simply divide the revenue among already-established businesses without leading to a meaningful overall increase for the city.

A council letter echoed this sentiment, stating:

 

“While it is possible that additional gaming terminals would generate new revenue for the city, it could also be argued that the marketplace is saturated, and additional video gaming licenses would simply further divide those establishments that are already licensed.”

 

The Broader Context of Illinois’ Gaming Landscape

Galesburg’s situation is part of a larger conversation about the gambling landscape in Illinois, where VGTs dominate the market. The rapid expansion of these terminals has overshadowed other forms of gaming, such as online casinos. While some states, like Pennsylvania, have found ways to balance both VGTs and online gambling, Illinois remains in a stalemate on legalizing online casinos.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, VGTs are strategically placed at businesses such as truck stops, targeting a distinct audience of travelers and transient visitors. This approach has allowed for a more measured expansion of video gaming while also accommodating the growth of online casinos. In contrast, Illinois’ VGT market operates as a virtual monopoly, with operators unlikely to support the legalization of online casinos that could compete with their terminals.

The dominance of VGTs in Illinois raises questions about the future of the gambling market. While they have proven profitable, their widespread presence may be limiting the state's ability to develop other gaming options, such as online casinos. If Illinois follows Pennsylvania’s lead and legalizes both VGTs and online casinos simultaneously, it may allow for a more balanced approach to gambling regulation.

 

Conclusion

As Galesburg's City Council wrestles with the question of how to manage its growing video gaming market, it finds itself at a crossroads. While the financial benefits of VGTs are undeniable, the rapid proliferation of these devices raises important questions about the potential societal and economic impact. Should the council impose a cap, enforce a temporary freeze, or allow the industry to continue expanding unchecked? The decision will shape not only the future of Galesburg’s economy but also the broader debate on the role of gambling in modern communities.