N.H. casino would cannibalize thousands of existing jobs
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Jim Rubens
For GSCAEG
The casino lobby has changed tactics now that the reasons to oppose slot machine casinos have become so numerous, the opposition so broad based, and the pro-casino case so flimsy. Jim Casey’s recent op-edit in support of SB 152, the casino bill now before the House, sinks to name calling and gross inaccuracies about the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling and our reasons for opposing casinos.
First, the Coalition cares deeply about New Hampshire jobs. Most casino jobs, however, come at the expense of existing jobs held by our neighbors at thousands of New Hampshire small businesses and entertainment venues. A New Hampshire casino, like every U.S. casino, would use monopoly profits from slot machines to attract gamblers by unfairly selling hotel rooms, meals, drinks, and entertainment below actual cost. For every casino job, between one-half and one job would be cannibalized from New Hampshire restaurants, hotels, conference centers, the Verizon Center, Fisher Cats baseball, and nonprofits such as the Capitol Center for the Arts, the Colonial Theater, the Lebanon Opera House, and the Music Hall in Portsmouth.
Once the 18 months of casino construction is done, we’d be left with casino jobs, almost all of which pay well below living wages. Because typical U.S. casino wages are so low, casinos are often forced to import workers from other states, rather than hiring local residents who need living wage jobs. In the region around the Connecticut casinos, casino workers unable to afford apartment rents are often forced into “hot bedding,” where day shift casino workers will share the same apartment bed with night shift workers.
Second, casino taxes are not a sustainable revenue source to support state services. States dependent on casino tax money such as Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, and Delaware have suffered far harsher budget stresses than New Hampshire’s, given that casino patronage has declined there every year since 2007, with no recovery in sight. States dependent on this declining revenue source have been forced to allow casinos and tacky slots venues to spread statewide, bringing their negative economic and jobs impacts into every community.
Third, Mr. Casey dangerously dismisses the costly impacts of gambling machine addiction on families, communities, and quality of life. Testifying before the legislature this week, Dr. Rachel Volberg, the world’s most widely published gambling addiction expert, presented the most current data from her 2012 meta-analysis of all 202 gambling addiction studies worldwide conducted since 1975. These findings are crystal clear. The video slot machines that produce 80 percent of casino revenues are far more addictive that any form of gambling now available here. And people living within ten miles of casino are nearly twice as likely to become addicted as those living farther away. Addicted gamblers and their families suffer rates of bankruptcy, job loss, family violence, and suicide several times higher than non-addicts. Mr. Casey is very wrong to dismiss this suffering and its cost consequences.
Fourth, the Coalition takes no position on any taxes other than that we oppose all forms of expanded gambling and associated taxes. Our Coalition is perhaps the most broad-based and diverse political organization in the state. Some of our member individuals and organizations support and some oppose a broad-based state tax, such as an income tax. However, all of us agree that new forms of gambling and associated gambling taxes would be the worst way to balance our state’s budget because the social costs exceed any tax revenues that might be obtained.
Finally, Mr. Casey should get his facts straight as to my personal views on taxes. I oppose a state income tax and have frequently noted this in thousands of public and private conversations. When speaking as chair of the Coalition, I have never once indicated either support or opposition to any tax or revenue source, other than indicating the Coalition’s opposition to expanded gambling and associated gambling taxes.
The public and the legislature both need and deserve the facts before making the irreversible decision to permit casinos here. Casino-backers do themselves no service by failing to present accurate information.
Jim Rubens is chair of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130509/GJOPINION_0102/130509173/-1/FOSOPINION
For GSCAEG
The casino lobby has changed tactics now that the reasons to oppose slot machine casinos have become so numerous, the opposition so broad based, and the pro-casino case so flimsy. Jim Casey’s recent op-edit in support of SB 152, the casino bill now before the House, sinks to name calling and gross inaccuracies about the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling and our reasons for opposing casinos.
First, the Coalition cares deeply about New Hampshire jobs. Most casino jobs, however, come at the expense of existing jobs held by our neighbors at thousands of New Hampshire small businesses and entertainment venues. A New Hampshire casino, like every U.S. casino, would use monopoly profits from slot machines to attract gamblers by unfairly selling hotel rooms, meals, drinks, and entertainment below actual cost. For every casino job, between one-half and one job would be cannibalized from New Hampshire restaurants, hotels, conference centers, the Verizon Center, Fisher Cats baseball, and nonprofits such as the Capitol Center for the Arts, the Colonial Theater, the Lebanon Opera House, and the Music Hall in Portsmouth.
Once the 18 months of casino construction is done, we’d be left with casino jobs, almost all of which pay well below living wages. Because typical U.S. casino wages are so low, casinos are often forced to import workers from other states, rather than hiring local residents who need living wage jobs. In the region around the Connecticut casinos, casino workers unable to afford apartment rents are often forced into “hot bedding,” where day shift casino workers will share the same apartment bed with night shift workers.
Second, casino taxes are not a sustainable revenue source to support state services. States dependent on casino tax money such as Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, and Delaware have suffered far harsher budget stresses than New Hampshire’s, given that casino patronage has declined there every year since 2007, with no recovery in sight. States dependent on this declining revenue source have been forced to allow casinos and tacky slots venues to spread statewide, bringing their negative economic and jobs impacts into every community.
Third, Mr. Casey dangerously dismisses the costly impacts of gambling machine addiction on families, communities, and quality of life. Testifying before the legislature this week, Dr. Rachel Volberg, the world’s most widely published gambling addiction expert, presented the most current data from her 2012 meta-analysis of all 202 gambling addiction studies worldwide conducted since 1975. These findings are crystal clear. The video slot machines that produce 80 percent of casino revenues are far more addictive that any form of gambling now available here. And people living within ten miles of casino are nearly twice as likely to become addicted as those living farther away. Addicted gamblers and their families suffer rates of bankruptcy, job loss, family violence, and suicide several times higher than non-addicts. Mr. Casey is very wrong to dismiss this suffering and its cost consequences.
Fourth, the Coalition takes no position on any taxes other than that we oppose all forms of expanded gambling and associated taxes. Our Coalition is perhaps the most broad-based and diverse political organization in the state. Some of our member individuals and organizations support and some oppose a broad-based state tax, such as an income tax. However, all of us agree that new forms of gambling and associated gambling taxes would be the worst way to balance our state’s budget because the social costs exceed any tax revenues that might be obtained.
Finally, Mr. Casey should get his facts straight as to my personal views on taxes. I oppose a state income tax and have frequently noted this in thousands of public and private conversations. When speaking as chair of the Coalition, I have never once indicated either support or opposition to any tax or revenue source, other than indicating the Coalition’s opposition to expanded gambling and associated gambling taxes.
The public and the legislature both need and deserve the facts before making the irreversible decision to permit casinos here. Casino-backers do themselves no service by failing to present accurate information.
Jim Rubens is chair of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130509/GJOPINION_0102/130509173/-1/FOSOPINION
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment