Monmouth's Home Town Opposes Casino Referendum

The borough of Oceanport, N.J., the home of Monmouth Park, has issued a resolution opposing the referendum on the Nov. 8 ballot that would approve two casinos in the state outside of Atlantic City.

Though the wording of the referendum prohibits Monmouth from having a casino of its own because it does not allow for any new casinos within 72 miles of Atlantic City, the Meadowlands is expected to be given one if voters approve the initiative. The Meadowlands will be required to contribute a portion of its profits to Monmouth purses.

Yet Oceanport's elected officials, along with many individuals involved in the Thoroughbred industry, have found plenty to dislike about the casino proposal. The primary problem is with the way the bill is written only two percent of the profits will go toward purses, split evenly between Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds. In other states that have casinos linked to racing the sport gets far more than two percent.

The estimate is that Monmouth will get $2.5 million from the new casinos, not nearly enough to make an appreciable difference in the purses or quality of racing. Those are among the reasons the Oceanport council came out in opposition of the referendum. Another sticking point is an allegation made by Dennis Drazin, who heads Monmouth management, that Meadowlands owner Jeff Gural is backing down on a promise he allegedly made to the Thoroughbred industry that he would use some of his personal profits from the casino to help boost purses at both tracks.

“Mr. Gural is the one who is going to own the casino up there and, conservatively, they are looking at $350 to $500 million in annual profits,” said Oceanport Borough Council President Joe Irace. “There was supposed to be some sort of revenue sharing with Monmouth and its horsemen and it appears Mr. Gural no longer wants to put that in writing.”

The referendum allows for only two casinos outside of Atlantic City. It is expected that they will be at the Meadowlands and at a location in Jersey City.

Irace said he has heard plenty of promises coming out of the state capital of Trenton that Thoroughbred racing will be taken care of if the referendum passes, but he doesn't trust the politicians.

“They keep saying they'll change it in the enabling legislation,” Irace said. “I have no confidence or trust in Trenton changing anything after the fact. It's obvious they did this for a reason. I would like to see them come up with enabling legislation now to guarantee that Monmouth Park gets something significant. If they put something in writing beforehand or Mr. Gural will put something in writing honoring his original agreement with Mr. Drazin, that would be a different story.

“Monmouth Park is not looking for a hand out. They just want to be on an even playing field with the surrounding states. All the surrounding states either have casinos at the tracks or revenue sharing agreements with them. That's what Monmouth is looking for, give us an even playing field. The track is beautiful and will do fine if on an even playing field. Trenton, for whatever reason, always puts their money on Atlantic City and never on horse racing.”

Irace said that if there are no guarantees from either Trenton or Gural that Monmouth will be taken care of, he will continue to argue against the referendum.

“Sitting here and approving bad legislation or a bad referendum in hopes it is corrected somewhere down the line is not a good idea,” he said. “We're better off shooting it down.”

Irace said he did not expect Monmouth to close, whether the referendum passes or not, but added that either scenario would continue the deterioration of the track in terms of a smaller meet, lower purses and a worse racing product.

His hope is that this referendum loses and a new version will appear on future ballots, one that will have a positive impact on Monmouth.

“I'd like to see this come back in a couple of years with a different governor, different legislative leaders and, hopefully, we get a different result for Monmouth.”