Casino will not work in the long run
Back in December, The Herald editorialized that "New Hampshire's lawmakers and governor are going to find the glitter of gambling gold very difficult to resist when building the budget for the next two years."
Sadly, that prediction has come true with Gov. Maggie Hassan including $80 million in her budget proposal from licensing one large casino, presumably at Rockingham Park in Salem.
In her budget address last week, Hassan stated: "The revenue from one casino would mean tens of millions of dollars a year that can be used to strengthen our economy and address our priorities, such as freezing in-state tuition and addressing our mental health crisis, as well as funds to address social costs like substance abuse and gambling addiction.
"A high-end casino would also bring a significant economic boost, creating more than an estimated 2,000 jobs during construction and 1,000 long-term jobs, while attracting new businesses and economic development."
The Siren Song of the gambling lobby can be difficult to resist.
While the Herald has long opposed expanded gambling in the state, we certainly understand the governor's desire to fund so many crucial services that are now underfunded, including our state's university and community college systems, mental health services, the CHINS program for troubled children, care for the sick and our disabled veterans, combating drug crime, and repairing our roads and bridges.
And it is possible that the benefits of a thoughtful single-casino gambling plan, with a muscular regulatory system established and ready to keep the gambling operators in check, could outweigh the many negative aspects of expanded gambling.
But New Hampshire doesn't have a plan or a regulatory structure in place.
The lead bill, SB152, suggests that the lottery commission, which has no experience overseeing gambling operations, will "regulate, license and enforce the provisions for video lottery and table games operated at a gaming location."
The bill suggests the state police, already understaffed and without experience overseeing a Las Vegas-style casino, will create a "gaming enforcement division."
The plan to hold harmless local charities now receiving vital funds from charitable gaming is murky at best.
If the long-term plan is to have a single casino in the state, voters should question why the bill "creates a commission to study the operation of the licensed gaming location and its effects on the community, and to make recommendations that may include whether to issue additional licenses."
During his last days in office, Gov. John Lynch sounded the alarm against this sort of naive thinking.
"People say it will only be in Salem. But at some point, revenue will decline again and people will say, 'Well why not put one on the Seacoast or near the (New Hampshire Motor) Speedway?" Lynch said. "If all we were concerned about was the next two years, that would be one thing. But I'm looking at the next 30 years."
All around the nation we find examples of casino operators over-promising and under-delivering on tax revenues. And we see states, addicted to gambling money, unable to resist operators' demands for expansion when they say they need it to keep the money flowing.
We urge the legislature to build a budget that does not rely on gambling money and instead judge expanded gaming on its own merits and not as a quick fix to the state's short-term fiscal challenges.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment