New Hampshire should be proud when a Representative takes a thoughtful and well considered position on the Fools' Gold of Predatory Gambling!
My Turn: On casino gambling, song remains the same
By Rep. PATRICIA LOVEJOY
For the Monitor
For the Monitor
Saturday, February 14, 2015
(Published in print: Sunday, February 15, 2015)
(Published in print: Sunday, February 15, 2015)
In 1964, the state of New Hampshire created the New Hampshire Lottery. Ever since, there have been attempts at establishing casinos in New Hampshire despite the opposition of the state’s attorneys general, most law enforcement agencies and all recent New Hampshire governors but the current one.
Sen. Lou D’Allesandro has once again introduced a bill to legalize casino gambling, so the issue will again be debated this year, even though in every House vote since 1973, casino legalization has been rejected. His bill would license two casinos – which raises a red flag immediately because Gov. Hassan has said she supports legalizing only one.
The argument for and against casino and slot machine gambling has evolved into an equation of whether the promised state revenue, jobs and entertainment value outweigh the harm casinos may do to the families of problem gamblers, to the communities in which they are located, and the small businesses that will have to try to compete with the large corporation that runs the casino with a monopoly franchise.
In short, do the ends justify the means? For 40 years, the answer to that question has been no.
Casino advocates have proposed every flavor of casino and slot machine parlor imaginable: casinos at horse tracks, casinos at dog tracks, casinos at hotels, casinos on boats, slot machines at all establishments serving liquor, and so on.
Over the years, state tax revenue tied to casino legalization has been proposed to address every state budget crisis of the moment – to reduce property taxes, fix roads and bridges, fund the education trust fund, fund kindergarten, fund treatment of problem gambling, and even to help prop up the dying horse-racing industry.
In 2013, casinos were pitched as an “all of the above” fix for the state’s revenue shortfall, as well as to give money to cities and towns to replace state aid.
The consistent rationale that casino and slot machine legalization proponents have espoused over the last 40 years is, “The state needs the money.” This may be true, however, in every budget cycle over the last 40 years, the state of New Hampshire has always “needed” money to fund its budget, but legislators have always managed to prioritize needs and balance those with available revenue without resorting to the legalization of casino or slot machine gambling.
There are many reasons why the legalization of casino gambling doesn’t make sense for New Hampshire, and the most recent is that, with at least three new casinos coming online in Massachusetts, the casino market in southern New England is rapidly saturating.
If legalized, any casino in New Hampshire will not be a high end, luxury destination, but will primarily be a convenience casino (sometimes called a slots barn) extracting income from patrons in the local economy within a 30-mile radius of the facility.
Why? The success of a resort casino depends on getting and maintaining a monopoly in a large market area. But as more casinos are licensed nearby, they undercut cut each other’s business. The economics just don’t work anymore.
For example, as has been widely reported, in Atlantic City, N.J., once the premier gambling venue on the East Coast, four casinos have recently closed and others have slashed jobs to survive, leaving broken small businesses and families in their wake. Atlantic City’s bond status has recently been downgraded to junk bond status, and the city is on the brink of bankruptcy.
This saturation effect is not limited to New Jersey. It’s affecting Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New York.
Why? Most people rarely, if ever, gamble at casinos. And so there are only so many gambling dollars to go around.
As gambling tax revenue dries up in states that have come to depend on it, legislators face new budget crises. The solution? Usually to license more casinos and slot machines and then new forms of legalized gambling, like sports and internet wagering – which further cannibalizes gambling venues and exacerbates the problem.
All New Hampshire can expect are hometown convenience casinos that pull money out of the pockets of our own residents, not destination resorts attracting out-of-state tourists.
The new casinos in Massachusetts and the turmoil in the gambling industry overall should raise serious doubts about any revenue projections that casino proponents will produce. In short, it’s a bad idea that’s gotten only worse.
Like many others, I do not believe that casino gambling would be an asset to New Hampshire. Casino gambling will cannibalize the businesses in our state, and, unlike our local businesses, the profits from casino gambling will flow to out of state and out of country owners.
It’s senseless to keep debating this when we have more important issues to address, but I’m confident that this House of Representatives will exhibit the same good sense that our predecessors have and again say no to casino legalization.
(Rep. Patricia Lovejoy is a Stratham Democrat. She serves on the House Ways and Means Committee.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment