McHenry County Board candidates weigh in on video gambling

Tina Hill is the only District 5 candidate in the McHenry County Board race who thinks video gambling is a good idea for the county. The other candidates Jim Kennedy, John Jung and Frank Wedig all think the negative social effects of gambling outweigh any economic positives.

The McHenry County Board voted in December to ban video gambling in businesses outside municipal borders after the state expanded the gambling laws in the summer of 2009. The expansion is supposed to help fund a $31 billion state spending bill. But several of the District 5 candidates think the potential spending in McHenry isn't worth the danger.

"Part of it is a moral issue," said Jung, a Republican. "Why are you bringing in something that can have a negative effect on your citizens in order to build a road?"

"Why don't you make prostitution legal or drugs legal? - If you're going to do one thing why not do all of them?"

Wedig, the Green candidate, said he doesn't think the county or the state is going to gamble its way to prosperity, so the ban should remain in place. He said he would have an open mind if presented with convincing alternatives, but is opposed to the gambling based on the information he already has.

The December ban on the machines only affected about 40 establishments that are outside of municipalities. Hill pointed to all the businesses in Harvard, Lake in the Hills, McHenry and Algonquin that are allowed to have the video gambling. She said it is unfair to the few that can't have it, hurting their competitive edge.

Hill didn't give the arguments for social negatives much merit.

"There's gambling everywhere," she said. "Having video games in a bar is not going to turn anyone into an addict."

The spending bill would go toward development throughout the state including potential transportation projects in McHenry County. These are the projects Hill would look forward to. But Kennedy, the Democratic candidate in the race, is suspicious the money would even make it to the county.

"There's no guarantee as to whether we would get our fair share back from the state," Kennedy said.

In his opinion, along with Jung and Wedig, the board voted the right way in the first place. The potential for increased crime or stress on families and social service agencies dealing with addiction is too much, they said. So unlike Hill, they prefer to keep the ban.