Gov. Ron DeSantis said on Wednesday he has concerns about bills that would decouple gambling from live thoroughbred racing at Gulfstream Park in Broward County and Tampa Bay Downs, which would erase a requirement for the facilities to hold live races to be able to operate cardrooms and, in the case of Gulfstream, slot machines
Speaking at a press conference in Ocala, the heart of thoroughbred country in Florida, the governor said he’s waiting to see how those bills unfold.
"If you put Florida first," DeSantis said, "then you're looking to make sure that Floridians can be successful. And the horse breeding is part of our state's culture. It's part of the culture here. I'm concerned with some of the things I hear about these proposals, about what that would mean for the viability of that going forward."
The two GOP-sponsored bills -- HB 105 and SB 408 -- which would decouple live racing from pari-mutuel betting and other gambling at the two main thoroughbred tracks in Florida -- are nearing the homestretch in the House and out of the gate in the Senate.
Proponents say decoupling is needed to preserve a thoroughbred racing industry in decline.
Jeff Johnston, a lobbyist for Gulfstream Park -- which is owned by The Stronach Group, a Canadian corporation -- pointed to competition from other permit holders since in 2021 the Legislature decoupled other, non-thoroughbred tracks.
"So we are the only ones in South Florida that are coupled," he told a Senate committee on Tuesday.
Opponents say decoupling could end live racing in Florida and devastate an industry that employs 33,000 people and has a $3.24 billion economic impact.
Hall of Fame trainer Mark Casse said the proposed legislation would "provide a death blow, both to thoroughbred racing and the breeding industry, in one full sweep."
At a hearing in Tallahassee Tuesday, bill sponsor Sen. Danny Burgess, R-Zephyrhills, amended his bill to delay the decoupling for seven years.
Burgess told people opposing the bill he would never intend to hurt the thoroughbred industry.
"I actually took this bill on," he said, "because I believed and was concerned that without a change, the ultimate ending is already in writing and it's coming and it's just a when that happens. And so I truly see this as something that's ... necessary to ensure the success of an industry like yours, so that that continues, the legacy continues for the next generation."
