An innocent inquiry

Recently, an innocent response was received, below --

To whom it may concern,

Your group, United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, is working to jeopardize the future of our great state. I cannot fathom how you can be so adamant against casinos and racinos, a simple look at the facts will show the benefits far outweigh the limited concerns. Every year, nearly $1 billion of Massachusetts resident’s money is spent in neighboring states gaming facilities, this is money that we must work to keep here at home. Along with this $1 billion, it is predicted that there is an additional $2 billion in unmet gaming demand in New England; this combined $3 billion proves that there is a solid base for 3 resort style casinos and 2 racinos. Tax revenue generated from these casinos would account for an additional $400 million to the annual budget. This additional money could be put to use for various projects to better our state, all while lessening the tax burden for every citizen.


The expanded gambling legislation would also lead to the creation of over 10,000 permanent jobs along with thousands of construction jobs helping to improve the Massachusetts unemployment of 8.4%. While the 8.4% unemployment rate is the lowest in over a year, the Boston Globe in a recent article states, “the state's economic recovery showed signs of slowing as employers slashed jobs across several sectors.” We need to work to continue to add employment opportunities, not fight them off. The added benefits to local communities will also be great, helping the many struggling small businesses with added tourism revenue. These small businesses are the heart and soul of our entire economy, every measure must be taken to support them. Another claim that opponents to casinos make is that expanded gambling will hurt the beneficial Massachusetts state lottery. This fear is unfounded and not based on any facts; one simply has to look to Connecticut who has two of the largest casinos in the world. Their state lottery has grown in 13 of the past 18 years, what would make our state any different? Just because there would casinos and racinos doesn’t mean demand for lottery and scratch tickets would decrease.


I implore you to reverse your NIMBY stance and open your eyes. Massachusetts needs all the help that we can get, and best of all these facilities will be built with 100% private financing. It truly will be a win-win situation, creating jobs and stimulating our local economy. Casinos and racinos are the future of Massachusetts. I understand that many people are afraid of change and fear for their neighborhoods, but understand that change is good when it benefits the whole. Help those residents who are struggling to put food on their families table.

Respectfully,

Jason Frink

Tom Larkin, President of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts responded below --

Thank you for visiting our Web site.
I respect the fact you have put a great deal of thought and research into your assertion that the benefits of casinos outweigh the costs.

However, you are using Gambling Industry sponsored research. It is one sided. They have spent 5 million dollars in the past 2 years minimizing costs and maximizing benefits. Their lobbying money funds the Coalition on Jobs and Growth, expensive Lobbyists, friendly researchers, political contributions and media. They are the tobacco industry of the 21st century, exaggerating benefits and minimizing costs.

There is considerable independent research providing empirical evidence asserting that costs outweigh benefits. I cite some of it below.
Consider this;
1-The success of casinos (or racinos) depends on more and more people losing more and more money. This takes money out of the normal entrepreneurial system.

2-Most money lost (about 70% to 80%)comes from about 30% to 20% of the gamblers, mostly middle, low and very low income people. Most live within 50 miles of the casino.
If most customers are local, there is no way you can have economic development. It is simply money recycled from other businesses and from needy families.

3-The salaries of the employees of the casinos end up being paid by the unemployed and underemployed, the very people you want to help.

4-About 1/4th of the citizens do not gamble at all. They are mostly high to middle income people. Therefore, the economic benefits are derived disproportionately from low income groups; a tax on the poor.

5-Estimate of 10,000 new jobs needs to be analyzed. How many will be cannibalized? How
many will actually go to the unemployed? We believe the gambling Industry exaggerates. There have been net job losses, over time, in some states. I acknowledge there will be jobs in the short term.

6-Your reference to the Connecticut lottery has no bearing on the Massachusetts Lottery. Even those who propose casinos, acknowledge the Lottery will be cannibalized and set money aside to "mediate" that problem. A study, by the House Committee on Economic Development
(Roll the Dice, by James Kennedy, 2006) estimated a reduction of Lottery revenue of about 250 million. Remember, the Lottery returns about 24 cents on every dollar wagered, casinos will return only about 6 cents on every dollar. (Roll the Dice).

7-The Gambling industry distorts the estimates regarding Connecticut. If 1 billion were gambled at casinos in Connecticut, as you assert, how much do you think would go to the State? Answer, about 25 million. Here's why. Money spent is not money lost. Only about 10% of money spend in casinos is actually lost at the casino. The state would only see about 25% of the net profits of 100 million, 25 million.
Also, the people currently coming home to Ma. from Connecticut, when they are home, spend their discretionary money on family, shopping malls, buying goods and contributing to the economy. In your scenario, the state increases the availability of gambling they lose more and more with bad economic consequences (read 1 through 4 above). Let's make it more difficult for people to lose more and more money not easier.

8-Casinos all over the country are going bankrupt. That's the pattern, after they exploit a state. They stay open during bankruptcy, but terminate employees and the state revenues are reduced drastically.7 of the NJ casinos are in bankruptcy. That's why they are so hot to come here. Massachusetts is virgin gambling territory for casinos. While our unemployment rate is 8.5% it is higher in most casino states. The Ma. budget shortfall (FY2010 to FY 2011) is also about 8.5%, low compared to many casino states (Nevada 56.6%, Illinois 36.1%, New Jersey 37.4% and Connecticut 29.2%-Time Magazine-June 28, 2010)

9-Increases in gambling correlate highly with many social problems including increases in child abuse/neglect, crime, alcohol/drug abuse,
suicides, recidivism, domestic violence, returning veteran problems, poverty and youth gambling.
Most social workers, teachers, psychologists, probation officers, drug/alcohol counselors and others trying to reduce those problems are often part of the USSMASS coalition. I assure you it has little to do with the NIMBY issue.

10-Finally, the gambling industry distorts the issue of gambling addiction, suggesting only a small fraction of people have this problem and money will be set aside to treat them.
The National Gambling Impact Commission Study (NGISC-1999) (I suggest you read it, it is free on line) found that about 1/3rd of active gamblers have gambling problems ranging from mild (18%), moderate (10%) to severe (5%).
Gambling problems double over time within a 50 mile radius of new casinos. (NGISC)
Gambling problems are not easily "treatable" because they are almost always secondary to other bad habits especially alcohol. Over 60% of people with gambling problems have alcohol problems. Until they get and stay sober it is almost impossible to treat the gambling problem.
Legislators who propose expanded gambling have a very limited understanding about how addictions are acquired, interact and reinforce each other.
The gambling industry minimizes the problem but understands the connection between gambling and alcohol full well. They exploit it for all it is worth. Most money lost in casinos is withdrawn from ATM machines, not money carried into the casino.

In this economy it is compelling to try to help people get jobs and to welcome any business that promises to create jobs.
The "facts" as presented by the Gambling Industry, seem so simple, jobs, jobs, jobs. What's not to like?
If the Legislature would spend as much time trying to create jobs through research and development, infrastructure repair, education, alternatives to incarceration, health services, green jobs, small business development and human services as they do trying to bring us class III (Slot Machines), they would be acting more constructively long term.

I acknowledge there will be benefits if casinos come to Ma, as you point out. Again, I do not trust the "simple facts" produced by the Gambling Industry. But, there certainly will be short term economic development with construction jobs, license fees, jobs at the casino and state revenue increases. I do not acknowledge bringing Ma. gamblers back from Connecticut is a good thing, for them or the Ma. economy. We also haven't factored in the cost of the huge state bureaucracy that needs to be created to regulate this thing.

I hope, the information in this response, enables you to fathom, to acknowledge, this is a complex issue. The costs are long term and potentially very destructive to us.

It is true that people have the right to gamble too much, to drink too much, to smoke and to overeat. Gambling is the only addiction actually promoted by government. That is what is most offensive to me. People have the right to engage in risky behaviors, and the tobacco, gambling, drug, alcohol and junk food industries can be expected to promote their products. But I do not expect my government to partner up with them.
We already have plenty of opportunities to gamble. The Lottery is exploitive but that genie is out of the bottle. The Slot Machine genie is not out of the bottle yet. Once it is, like the Lottery, there will be no putting it back into the bottle.

You have a right to assume I am exaggerating costs and minimizing benefits.
I'll make a deal with you. USSMASS has been asking for an independent cost-benefit analysis of any new proposal to expand gambling to Class III. Given your assertion, you should be willing to support that. If the results show that benefits outweigh costs, as you assert, I will agree to switch sides and join your cause. Of course, if you agree to the deal, and my assertion, that costs outweigh benefits is proven, I expect you to join our side. Agreed?

Thank you for taking the time to write to us. I fully respect your opinion. You are in the majority. I am sorry to be so long winded, but your Email stimulated my thinking. I hope my response does the same for you.

Tom Larkin
President-USSMASS



The response from Mr. Frink below --


Dear Tom,

Thank you so much for the response. To be honest I am actually against casinos/ racinos in our state. I am currently enrolled in a political science class at Nichols College that requires us to pick a topic and do reports on it through the semester, I chose expanded gambling. One of the assignments was to write a letter to the group that shares your same opinion but as someone from the other side. We were instructed to be forceful, yet not rude trying to stimulate a response.

I picked the casino topic without very much knowledge of the situation. During my research (and your very informative website) I realized just how harmful these casinos would be. I am originally from CT and have seen what these resort casinos can do to a region and know several people who are addicted to gambling. Having recently purchased a home in Charlton, I want to protect my tax dollars and the quality of life I have grown very accustomed to. We need to be sure that a casino will benefit our state, I agree that we must conduct an independant cost analysis before such a large decision is made. I apologize if I tricked you, or upset you in anyway, you are doing great work and I know it can't be easy going up against huge corporations with unlimited finances. Another assignment (actually done before the e-mail) was to send a letter thanking a group working for your side. I sent a letter to your group that was much nicer, thanking you for your efforts, you should get it soon I hope. We were supposed to use an alias for the "angry" letter, however I didn't realize until after I sent the e-mail that it had my real name was linked to it. I wanted to send you this e-mail so you weren't confused when you received a letter from the same person against gambling. I hope I have not confused you.


Again thanks for responding. If there is anything that I can do to help the cause, feel free to contact me. This semester long project really has opened my eyes, and your e-mail response shows just how passionate you are. Keep up the great work!

Best Regards,
a.k.a: Jason Frink