New front opens in City Council battle over video gambling

The decision to lift the Chicago ban on video gambling terminals has divided the City Council and exacerbated tensions between alderpersons and Mayor Brandon Johnson.

On Thursday, a new front opened in the ongoing battle.

Over objections from Jason Ervin (28th), one of Johnson’s closest City Council allies, the License Committee rejected attempts by him and five other mayoral allies — Jessie Fuentes (26th), Walter R. Burnett (27th), Rosanna Rodriguez-Sanchez (33rd), Anthony Quezada (35th) and Maria Hadden (49th) — to prohibit video gambling terminals in their wards.

Ervin tried to defer the local bans, apparently sensing defeat in a committee stacked with members of the opposition group behind an alternative budget that includes video gambling.

But License Committee Chair Debra Silverstein (50th) would not allow it. Silverstein argued that colleague Anthony Napolitano (41st) already had asked for a roll call, and since Ald. Gilbert Villegas (36th) already had seconded that motion, the vote needed to proceed.

The ward-by-ward bans were then soundly defeated by successive votes of 16-2 and 14-3.

Ervin called the move a new low and a breach of the unwritten rule known as aldermanic prerogative that calls for the Council to defer to the local alderperson’s wishes on zoning, licensing and most other matters.

“I have never in my 15 years in the Council [seen] a ward-based matter done in this manner. This is highly unusual,” Ervin said. “ We do have some level of tradition… and I guess if we’re throwing all of that out of the window… I’m asking that you guys hold this in committee. I don’t know what the rush is on moving something that the alder put in, and the alder is asking to be held in committee.”

Ervin, who took part in the meeting remotely, signed off in disgust after Silverstein overruled him and called for the vote to proceed.

Napolitano said he insisted on Thursday’s vote to prevent Johnson from blowing a hole in the $16.6 billion, 2026 budget approved by a City Council majority that rejected Johnson’s corporate head tax.

That alternative budget assumed that Chicago would generate $6.8 million by licensing newly legalized video gambling terminals across the city.

That’s based on the assumption that 80% of the 3,300 eligible establishments with off-premise liquor licenses will apply, but that the Illinois Gaming Board would take six to eight months to grant those licenses.

“This is an economic increase to our deflated economy in Chicago to bring more revenue into our city especially because, me as a border ward — I’m being destroyed by my surrounding suburbs that already have VGTs actively running,” Napolitano said.

A few years ago, Napolitano failed to convince the Council to let him use aldermanic prerogative to block an affordable housing project in his Far Northwest Side ward. He viewed Thursday’s vote as political payback.

“All [five] of these aldermen are for more government, bigger government and government oversight and less aldermen being able to speak for their wards. But when it works for them, they want to be able to invoke their right for aldermanic prerogative,” he said. “When this happened to me, my line was, `I’m in the seat right now, but tomorrow it’s going to be you.' That’s exactly what happened. Tomorrow is today and it’s them.”

Ald. Anthony Beale (9th), the prime mover behind video gambling, has accused the mayor of working behind the scenes to repeal the ordinance that is a pivotal part of the alternative budget.

When Johnson failed to notify the Illinois Gaming Board to start accepting license applications, Beale did it for the mayor, triggering 200 applications. On Thursday, Beale branded the ward-by-ward bans “another effort to undermine” the alternative budget.

“This was just a maneuver to try and blow a hole in the budget because they don’t have the votes to repeal it,” Beale said. “Why should we allow something that’s totally irresponsible?”

Fuentes acknowledged that lifting that the Chicago ban on video gambling terminals is a "citywide issue" that demands a citywide repeal.

But Fuentes argued that ward-by-ward bans are the next best thing and should have been permitted during Thursday's vote.

"I have a ward that struggles a great deal with gambling addiction and drug addiction. Having accessible gambling terminals around the corner poses serious health concerns for my constituents," Fuentes said. "The fact that they would push this vote just so they could kill it in wards they do not represent is disheartening and a bit disrespectful. I'm super upset that they chose this route. I wouldn't do it to any alderman who's trying to do what's best for their ward."