Casinos in N.H.: Zero net benefit
On Thursday, the nonpartisan and independent New Hampshire Center For Public Policy Studies released a study suggesting that a single $500 million casino with 5,000 video slot machines would net zero dollars for the state once the massive regulatory and social costs are counted.
"The center estimates the state would break even at best if a casino is opened at Suffolk Downs in Massachusetts as planned," the report states. "The center estimates the New Hampshire casino would generate $138 million in revenues without a casino at Suffolk Downs but only $68 million with the opening of the nearby Massachusetts facility. The study estimates the social and regulatory costs would be $68 million, leaving the state with a net benefit of zero."
And, the study adds, if the casino is smaller than proposed and has only 3,000 slot machines, the state will actually lose $2 million a year.
We expect when lawmakers read this study it will mark the beginning of the end for the proposed casino. The only reason New Hampshire is discussing a casino is to raise revenue. When lawmakers see that the revenue is an illusion, we're certain they'll decide a casino is simply not worth the risk.
A net benefit of zero is not going to entice anyone to put our robust tourism and hospitality industries at risk by allowing a casino to siphon off customers from existing hotels and restaurants with cut-rate rooms, meals, drinks and entertainment subsidized by slot machines.
A net benefit of zero argues against putting at risk the millions of dollars state charities now receive under our unique system of charitable gaming.
A net benefit of zero won't persuade lawmakers to suspend disbelief when casino proponents say slot machines won't proliferate across the state, even though they have spread in every other state and the very bill now being debated provides for a gambling expansion study.
A net benefit of zero doesn't justify the risk of growing the size of state government by feeding it with casino revenue.
A net benefit of zero makes it hard to rationalize the increases in theft, assaults, embezzlement, divorce, bankruptcy and suicide that every state that has allowed gambling has experienced.
A net benefit of zero makes it hard to sleep at night when you are paying for state government by, in the words of casino foe Jim Rubens, "monetizing human suffering."
We truly believe that Gov. Maggie Hassan and state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro advocate for a casino because they believe it will create jobs and help pay for vital state services including our universities and community colleges, mental health care, support for at-risk children and adequately funded public schools. But we also believe these good public servants are being fooled by casino operators whose very business model is founded on the illusion that you can risk a little and win big.
Gov. John Lynch wasn't fooled, and that's why he spent his final weeks in office speaking out against expanded gaming.
State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark wasn't fooled, and that's why she testified against expanded gaming at a recent senate hearing.
Please contact your state representatives and let them know that you're not fooled either.
We have seen hard times and recessions in the past, and this is not the first time we have struggled to fund all the worthy services we want to provide. But in the past, we have been responsible. We have prioritized and then spent the money we had, and not a penny more.
Without any gambling money, New Hampshire always ranks among the top states in quality-of-life surveys. We are tops in health, safety and for raising children. Our economy is robust relative to the rest of the New England and the nation, and our hospitality and tourism industries are thriving.
Why would we put that at risk for a net benefit of zero?
And then the Governor's blackmail --
Hassan: Without revenue from a casino, Legislature will have to make difficult cuts
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment