Gambling: Sucker's Bet

No to Expanded Gambling in New Hampshire

Governor John Lynch was a smart guy, a good businessman, and he thought casinos were a bad idea. Check this list to see where your state reps stand and let them know you agree with Governor Lynch. It's a sucker bet, folks--don't let big gambling interests from outside our state convince you otherwise.

 

A new study circulating at the Statehouse is making expanded gaming look like an uncertain bet.

 

http://www.wmur.com/political-scoop/Breakdown-How-House-members-plan-to-vote-on-expanded-gambling/-/16254890/19687072/-/bpmk9dz/-/index.html?absolute=true

 

 

Outgoing NH gov wary of casinos

Outgoing NH gov wary of casinos, wants more UNH $

Saturday, December 8, 2012

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire's outgoing governor, John Lynch, is hoping the state will avoid a proliferation of casinos, and that the Legislature will devote more resources to the University of New Hampshire and act on health care reform after he leaves office.

 

Lynch, who will soon leave office after eight years, also tells the Portsmouth Herald (http://bit.ly/SG5zQf ) he plans to have "a very, very low political profile."

 

Lynch says he's proud that he could put partisan politics to one side and focus on solving problems.

 

He says his love of New Hampshire prompts him to urge the state not to bet on gambling, and that he's concerned about the impact on its brand as a state.

 

He wants the Legislature to restore funding to UNH, saying the average debt load is excessive.

___

Information from: Portsmouth Herald, http://www.seacoastonline.com

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Outgoing-NH-gov-wary-of-casinos-wants-more-UNH-4101712.php#ixzz2EVx13fxl

Bettencourt support New Hampshire Race to the Bottom

Bettencourt: Some 'Revisiting' Gambling Position
Majority leader expresses "frustration" with Lynch's position.
By Jake O'Donnell

As the New Hampshire House of Representatives nears a vote on a bill that would legalize casino gambling, a key legislator believes recent happenings are causing some to take a second look at the issue.

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt, R-Salem, expressed confidence Wednesday about House Bill 593, the proposed legislation that if passed could add New Hampshire as the latest New England state to expand gambling.

Two licenses for casinos would be granted with the bill and Salem's Rockingham Park appears to be a prime candidate.

Bettencourt feels the Massachusetts bill that legalized casinos has moved some minds in Concord.

"There's no question that Massachusetts taking action has caused lots of historic opponents (of expanded gambling) to revisit their position," Bettencourt said.

He believes the bill will create hundreds of jobs and without action, New Hampshire's lottery system would take "a tremendous hit" because of the appearance of casinos south of the border.

Bettencourt's comments came a day after Gov. John Lynch's final State of the State address in which he reiterated his promise to veto any bill that expands gambling in New Hampshire. He spoke of considering the "long-term consequences" of actions by lawmakers.

"I do not believe that the monetary benefits of expanded gambling outweigh the risks that it poses to New Hampshire's quality of life, our existing businesses and workers, and our economic future," Lynch said. "That is why I will veto legislation allowing casinos in New Hampshire."

Bettencourt recounted Wednesday that when he first ran for the Legislature in 2004, he took a "neutral position" on expanded gambling. After spending time studying the issue, he has come away believing "the benefits far outweigh any negative social impact."

Bettencourt also expressed frustration with Lynch's position on the issue.

"What's frustrating for me is we are trying very hard to create an atmosphere for businesses to grow and expand," Bettencourt said. "The governor is on board to create jobs but is standing in the way here."

It had been previously reported HB 593 would come up for a vote next week but Bettencourt was unsure of a date for a vote. He said House Speaker William O'Brien would be setting the House agenda for next week today.

A recent report from the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies suggested the state would see $53 million in revenues from expanded gaming even with casinos and Massachusetts and expected social costs.

The Telegraph of Nashua reported Sunday that a possible $500 million expansion of Rockingham Park would create more than 2,000 jobs and bring in more than $140 million to the state annually. [Proponents love to overstate jobs and revenue, don't they?]

Opponents of the legislation told the Telegraph New Hampshire casinos may only appeal to New Hampshire residents and would only take jobs out of the existing economy here. [Slot barn patrons are becoming more local as Predatory Gambling proliferates. Just the facts from numerous studies!]

Thank you Governor Lynch!

New Hampshire's Governor Lynch refused to buy into the "Race to the Bottom" that Massachusetts is accepting.

Thank you, Governor Lynch for having common sense and recognizing the Folly of Fools' Gold!

Granite State Coalition
Against Expanded Gambling
NoSlots.com


Governor John Lynch issued a statement late today [below] that he will veto any slot casino bill that may emerge from the legislature. The Governor's thoughtful rationale for his position is a lasting contribution to quality of life and political integrity in our state.



This does not mean that the Granite State Coalition's work is done. Because profits for casino monopolies are so high (even in the face of saturated gambling markets), the gambling lobby will be back year after year attempting to wear down the public and the legislature with its false nostrums for jobs and prosperity. The gambling lobby will attempt to show progress to its Las Vegas clients with the coming January House vote on HB593.



We must therefore maintain full effort over coming weeks to persuade members of the House to vote NO on HB593.


Governor Lynch Announces He Will Veto Any Legislation Allowing Casinos or Racinos in NH


CONCORD – Governor John Lynch today announced that he will veto any legislation allowing casinos or racinos in New Hampshire.

In a detailed letter to legislative leadership, the Governor outlined a number of reasons for his decision to veto any casino legislation, including the lack of a regulatory structure, the potential impact to the state's quality of life and economy, and the proliferation of gambling across the state.

"As the next legislative session nears, it appears there once again will be multiple proposals to expand gambling in New Hampshire. As you know, I have long been concerned about the potential impacts of expanded gambling on New Hampshire's special character and quality of life," Governor Lynch wrote in a letter to the Senate president and House speaker.

"Over the years, I have listened carefully to all sides in the gambling debate, and even convened a bipartisan group of distinguished citizens to examine the issues around expanded gambling. After a great deal of thought and consideration, I have determined that the risks to New Hampshire from expanded gambling are simply too high, and for that reason I will veto any legislation allowing casinos or racinos in our state," Governor Lynch wrote.



A copy of the Governor's letter is below:

November 14, 2011

The Honorable Peter Bragdon
Senate President
State House - Room 302
Concord, NH 03301

The Honorable William O'Brien
Speaker of the House
State House - Room 312
Concord, NH 03301

Dear Senate President Bragdon and Speaker O'Brien:

As the next legislative session nears, it appears there once again will be multiple proposals to expand gambling in New Hampshire. As you know, I have long been concerned about the potential impacts of expanded gambling on New Hampshire's special character and quality of life.

Over the years, I have listened carefully to all sides in the gambling debate, and even convened a bipartisan group of distinguished citizens to examine the issues around expanded gambling. After a great deal of thought and consideration, I have determined that the risks to New Hampshire from expanded gambling are simply too high, and for that reason I will veto any legislation allowing casinos or racinos in our state. Here are the reasons why:

•Lack of regulatory structure: The Governor's Gaming Study Commission's report made clear New Hampshire does not have a regulatory structure sufficient to police expanded gambling operations. Even states that set up new regulatory structures have had problems. In Pennsylvania, a grand jury report recently found a host of problems with its gambling oversight agency. Yet, some are contemplating that New Hampshire move forward with expanded gambling before establishing any new regulatory structure. I have previously made clear that before I would consider expanded gambling, New Hampshire would need to have in place a strong and comprehensive regulatory structure. An effort to move forward with determining how to regulate this industry, however, has been blocked.

•Quality of life and our economy: It appears increasingly likely that Massachusetts will expand gambling. Given that, casinos in New Hampshire are unlikely to attract the large number of out-of-state visitors some supporters have forecasted, and will rely more heavily on New Hampshire residents for their income.

Expansion of gambling will bring with it social problems, harming New Hampshire's quality of life and adding costs to local and state government and social service agencies. While expanded gambling would bring employment opportunities, those jobs would likely come at the expense of other jobs in New Hampshire, as expanded gambling would divert money that is now being spent at other New Hampshire businesses and supporting other New Hampshire workers.

•Proliferation: Even if proponents are successful in limiting an initial bill to one or two gambling locations, I do not believe expanded gambling would stay limited to one or two locations over the long term. When revenue failed to meet expectations, there would be a strong push to expand gambling to other parts of the state. West Virginia, according to a study commission report, began in 1994 with just allowing slot machines at racetracks. Yet by 2009, gambling had expanded to such an extent that a single West Virginia county, with a population of just 37,000 people, had 37 mini casinos. New Hampshire could end up with casinos, or slot machines, across our state.

•Industry influence: For years, lobbyists and industry officials have promised that expanded gambling would deliver significant revenues to our state. If New Hampshire was to allow expanded gambling, this one industry could come to represent a significant portion of the state revenues, potentially wielding outsized control over policy debates. In the past several years, we've already seen the industry spend heavily on television ads and lobbyists in an effort to gain a foothold into New Hampshire. Such influence would only grow if the industry controlled a large portion of the state's revenue. I do not believe that it is in our state's long-term interest to grant that much influence to one industry.

•Just because Massachusetts is doing it doesn't mean New Hampshire should follow: This debate seems to be taking on urgency in part because of the discussions in Massachusetts. We have been told we must expand gambling in New Hampshire now because Massachusetts is about to do it. Taking our policy lead from Massachusetts is not something New Hampshire has traditionally done.

There are a lot of things that Massachusetts does (such as have income and sales taxes) that we don't do in New Hampshire. We should not be driven by Massachusetts' policy choices or Massachusetts' schedule.

While expanded gambling may bring a short-term infusion of cash, we have a responsibility to future generations of New Hampshire citizens to consider the long-term impacts of our decisions on the State of New Hampshire.

Over the years, New Hampshire has developed a brand that has led to our economic success. We offer a well-educated workforce, low crime rates, and a beautiful natural environment. New Hampshire is consistently ranked among the best states to raise a child, the most livable state and the safest state. As I have said before, I believe we must be extraordinarily cautious about doing things that may hurt our successful strategy.

I do not believe the monetary benefits of expanded gambling outweigh the risks it poses to New Hampshire's quality of life, its existing businesses and workers and its economic future. Consequently, I will veto legislation allowing casinos or racinos in New Hampshire.

Sincerely,

John H. Lynch
Governor

New Hampshire Gov. Appoints Gaming Study Commission

Unlike Massachusetts where Governor Patrick relied heavily on perennial casino cheerleader-for-hire and UMass. Dartmouth Professor Clyde Barrow for his failed Predatory Gambling proposal, it seems that New Hampshire Governor Lynch is attempting to analyze costs.

.

In fairness to Governor Patrick, he also spent $189,000 taxpayer dollars to have Spectrum prepare a biased 300 page report.

While Barrows was recommending three commercial casinos, Spectrum had determined that two commercial casinos and one tribal casino would be the perfect mix.

And I'm certain this could have had nothing to do with the fact that Sol Kerzner, the South African billionaire casino investor behind both Rhode Island's Twin Rivers and Connecticut's Mohegan Sun, and one of the men who wanted to put the Mashpee Wampanoag casino on the map, was a client.

Spectrum, in fact, once proudly listed Kerzner International as a client on the front page of their web site though, for some reason, this year, it's no where to be found.

In New Hampshire --

The [New Hampshire Gaming Study] commission will review various models for expanded gambling and their potential to generate state revenue. The commission also must assess the social, economic and public safety impacts of gambling options on the state's quality of life.

[New Hampshire Governor] Lynch has previously stated that in order to approve any expanded gambling, he would have to be convinced that it wouldn't negatively affect quality of life.


The Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling
offers many of the same objections Beacon Hill should study --

Overstatement of projected revenues by Cannery Casino.
The clear evidence that casino proximity increases gambling addiction.
Calculations showing that casino social and economic costs exceed tax revenues.
Links to five papers showing that casinos increase crime.
Evidence that casinos increase childhood gambling, addiction and crime.
Evidence that casinos increase in suicide.
Evidence that video slot machines are far more addictive than lottery.
Problem and addicted gamblers generate over half of casino revenue.
Community “social capital” index drops within 15 miles of casinos.
Addiction treatment services address only a small part of the addiction problem.
Why local chambers of commerce are rejecting casinos.

The financial impacts and social costs don't change with the state. Gambling is a loser except for wealthy investors who love legislators who form their opinions before examining the costs and expenses.

.

It's time for the wise leaders on Beacon Hill to insist on a Study Commission as well.