If the Tidelands bill is successful, the state will have control over the Coast’s waterfront instead of the local municipalities in which a casino could be located. It is a sweeping change and although it is gaining overwhelming support in the legislature, not everyone is pleased.
State Control
Senate Bill 2780, also known as the Tidelands bill, has received overwhelming support in the Senate and will now go back after two amendments were made. The first amendment, advanced by Senator David Blount, Chairman of the Senate Gaming Committee, mandates that a Tidelands lease must be established between the Coast municipalities and the secretary of state while also stipulating casino operators must work directly with the state to secure a lease.
“There’s been a lot of conversations involving local government on the Gulf Coast to protect their authority to manage ports and harbors down there,” stated Blount.
The chairman of the Senate Ports & Marine Resources Committee, Mike Thompson, added a second amendment that would extend the timeframe for adjustments to the bill as it gets discussed during committee hearings.
“This bill has generated a lot of concern back on the Coast,” said Thompson. “We want to make sure that nothing in this bill precludes those government authorities from having exclusive control over their ports and harbors.”
HB 1659 is the House companion bill, and it too cruised through the chamber by a 113-6 vote at the end of February. The bill will now go back to the House where it will be reconciled with the Senate Bill 2780. A conference committee between members of both chambers will smooth over any differences before the bill goes to a final vote.
Senator Blount was eager to point out that coastal residents would have enough time to participate in the discussion and get any questions answered before the bill becomes law.
Not Everyone’s a Fan
Gulfport lawyer Virgil Gillespie, an expert on Mississippi’s Coast tidelands laws, was asked about the proposed bills and said, “This bill may be the most radical change in property law of any kind since Mississippi became a state in 1817.”
“It’s just too overreaching and troublesome,” Gillespie added. “This bill will keep hundreds of lawyers busy for at least 10 years.”
“This is a real can of worms that is going to be opened up and have broad-reaching implications. We never have been contacted by the secretary of state or the people who are involved in the changing of the rules,” said Biloxi Mayor Andrew ‘Fofo’ Gilich.
Some developers see this as a way to create a monopoly for the current casinos as any new projects would have to go through the state and circumvent the wishes of the local municipality.
“It appears that this bill was done as a means of protecting the market,” said Luke Lenzi, one of the potential developers of what has been referred to as the Tullis property. “It has a monopolizing effect whether that was the intent or not.”
One of the pioneers of Mississippi casino gambling legislation, former state Senator Tommy Gollott of Biloxi said that during his tenure in the Senate, the committees he sat on found that “a free market approach” was the best approach. When the government limited licenses, and thus competition, the casinos would be reluctant to reinvest in the property as they had no incentive to do so.
“For the government to continue its success,” Gollott wrote, “Laws written by and for the existing casinos should be avoided at all costs.”
