ag⋅ri⋅cul⋅ture [ag-ri-kuhl-cher]
1. the science, art, or occupation concerned with cultivating land, raising crops, and feeding, breeding, and raising livestock; farming.
2. the production of crops, livestock, or poultry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agriculture .

Perhaps the dictionary is just silly, so he may find some guidance under the WV Code, Chapter 19 (Agriculture), Article 23 (Horse and Dog Racing). Perhaps our Legislature is silly to call this agriculture, in addition to the dictionary.

Mr. Lillard claims there “are no data to suggest anyone is borrowing money to buy up farmland just to supply hay and straw to the racetrack.” While Mr. Lillard probably researched this area immensely, a 2006 study on “The Economic Impact of the Charles Town Horse Racing Industry on the Charles Town Economy” may supplement his data: http://www.cthbpa.com/pages/ThalheimerReport_112006.pdf .
This study concludes that the horse racing industry has an annual economic impact of $178 million to the Charles Town economy as well as providing 3,658 full time jobs. If Mr. Lillard would like more specifics, I will provide the data.

Table games at Charles Town, in general, could probably benefit Jefferson County and West Virginia. The current legislation, W. Va. Code 19-22C-1 et seq. contains numerous risks for Jefferson County and West Virginia. Our state grants racing associations like CTRS/PNGI the privilege of conducting “lotteries” like slots, and table games under our Constitution.

Article six, section thirty-six of the West Virginia Constitution:
6-36. Lotteries; bingo; raffles; county option.
The Legislature shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets in this State; except that the Legislature may authorize lotteries which are regulated, controlled, owned and operated by the State of West Virginia in the manner provided by general law, either separately by this state or jointly or in cooperation with one or more other states and may authorize state-regulated bingo games and raffles for the purpose of raising money by charitable or public service organizations or by the State Fair of West Virginia for charitable or public service purposes: Provided, That each county may disapprove the holding of bingo games and raffles within that county at a regular, primary or special election but once having disapproved such activity, may thereafter authorize the holding of bingo games and raffles, by majority vote at a regular, primary or special election held not sooner than five years after the election resulting in disapproval; that all proceeds from the bingo games and raffles be used for the purpose of supporting charitable or public service purposes; and that the Legislature shall provide a means of regulating the bingo games and raffles so as to ensure that only charitable or public service purposes are served by the conducting of the bingo games and raffles.

Our Legislature could have the State of West Virginia own and manage these activities and reap the vast profits instead of these racing associations, if it decided to do so. I disagree with Mr. Lillard’s view that PNGI/CTRS is entitled to controlling our legislature “[a]s far as state legislators are concerned, that’s the tradeoff for the vast sums of gaming revenue that fund state social services and the government of all 55 West Virginia counties.” Track managements play a role in the political process, but I worry that West Virginia government is and/or will become beholden to these out of state corporations because it depends too much on the revenue, which is dwindling because of these same out of state corporations. For example, PNGI spent $2 million on the slots initiative in Maryland and over $30 million in Ohio on gambling initiatives. The highest ranking PNGI executive’s title at CTRS sums it up: Vice President of Regional Operations. Look to PNGI’s 2008 annual report (http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/921738/000104746909002104/a2190897z10-k.htm#dg79501_item_1a._risk_factors), which states under its risk factors that a substantial portion of company revenues come from CTRS:
“ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
Risks Related to Our Business
A substantial portion of our revenues is derived from our Charles Town, West Virginia and Lawrenceburg, Indiana facilities.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, approximately 37.5% of our net revenues were collectively derived from our Charles Town and Lawrenceburg operations. Our ability to meet our operating and debt service requirements is substantially dependent upon the continued success of these facilities.”

Jefferson County and West Virginia deserve a better deal. When the table games bill was first introduced in 2005, track managements argued it *needed* 90%, then in 2006 they argued it *needed* 80% to be profitable. They ultimately legislated 65% + 1 % for track managements from table games. Additionally, there are no revenue sources for West Virginia for infrastructure costs table games will demand such as roads and emergency services.

Also, there is no oversight of the WV Lottery in counting the take such as Radio Frequency Identification Chips. This is especially concerning considering the proven history of corruption in the WV Lottery: See United States v. Bryan, 58 F.3d 933 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1995); United States v. ReBrook, 58 F.3d 961 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1995); (See also US v. O’Hagan, 521 US 642 (1997)), where the US Supreme Court overturned the 4th Circuit and ruled that the WV Lottery Director and Attorney, Bryan and Rebrook, should have been convicted of violations of securities laws in addition to the numerous fraud convictions); and most recently, an indictment of a WV Lottery licensee and former delegate for bribing a WV Lottery official, a mayor, and a sheriff, whose trial was conveniently continued from August until next year – http://www.wvgazette.com/mediafiles/document/2009/06/08/ferrell-indictment1_I090608183747.pdf .

Whether Jefferson County permits table games on December 5th or not, West Virginia should amend the legislation to reduce the numerous risks contained in the current legislation.