Just like Massachusetts!

The Costs were determined to exceed the Benefits, yet Proponents blindly believe they are somehow different and can achieve what hasn't been achieved elsewhere.

Facts are posted here:

Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Too many holes in casino bill

Telegraph Editorial

For the record, The Telegraph has supported casino gambling for New Hampshire for many years.

We believe it can provide significant benefits for the state’s economy with manageable consequences. Properly sited, designed and managed, facilities that include expanded gambling can be important assets in broadening the state’s attractiveness to businesses and visitors.

That being said, there are just too many aspects of Senate Bill 152 that smell like week-old flounder for us to embrace the legislation. Wednesday’s committee vote epitomized what reeks about the bill.

On the table were 17 possible amendments that addressed a host of issues, yet the committee was not allowed to vote on any of them. Yes, they can be offered when the bill hits the House floor this week, but by squashing committee debate, House leadership contributed to the perception that this casino bill is being railroaded.

With her budget proposal, Gov. Maggie Hassan confronted the Legislature with the Senate’s casino plan as if holding a gun to its head. To restore much-wanted funding to programs such as the University System of New Hampshire and Children In Need of Services, Hassan said $80 million in up-front casino licensing was the golden goose. That sort of budgetary blackmail is not good for making wise public policy. Yes, frequently, budgets are predicated on anticipated changes in fees and taxes, but it’s never a good idea to base such a huge chunk of spending on a plan that would have such a lasting impact on New Hampshire’s quality of life.

It also did not sit well with us that at the eleventh hour, Millenium Gaming jacked up its Rockingham Park proposal by $150 million to include a host of features that were not part of its original design. The move came off as a death-row plea that served to give credence to detractors who argue the company views the Salem site more as a “convenience” than a “destination” casino.

Most troubling is that the deal uses a high initial licensing fee to provide an instant infusion of cash at the expense of a lower than customary tax on casino revenues. There has been much too little public discussion on this issue. At first glance, the impression is that a desperate state dealt for a quick fix instead of making a careful assessment of the best way to maximize revenues over the long haul.

And while Millenium Gaming is fine company, too much of SB 152 seems tailor-made to fit its desires. Without alternative proposals, how does the state know it’s getting the best deal possible? Competition is good, and there was way too little of it in this deal.

It all comes down to the simple fact that the casino vetting process needs to be much more open and diligent – a fact laid bare by the the assessment of a member of the Greater Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce who said the casino bill commits three cardinal sins of fiscal responsibility: It overstates revenues, understates expenses, and applies one-time revenue to recurring operating expenses.

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/editorials/1005085-465/too-many-holes-in-casino-bill.html