Casino Supporters Go Bipolar on Gambling Addiction

This was circulated in 2013:

Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling NoSlots.com Blog & Alerts     Casino Supporters Go Bipolar on Gambling Addiction     Casino supporters have gone all bipolar over the costs of gambling addiction.   On one day, they claim that all the gambling addicts New Hampshire will ever see are lurking here symptom-free and that a casino here would cause no addiction increase. Today, they make headlines about how Massachusetts casinos will cause gambling addiction increases here in New Hampshire.   So which is it? Judging from casino supporters' most recent mood swing on gambling addiction, they now agree that casinos increase gambling addiction.   At the center this of all this are projections by the New Hampshire Public Policy Research Center that the casino proposed in SB152 would be a net economic loser for our state, raising $45 in tax revenue but costing $47 million in crime and addiction-related social costs.   Even though casino supporters (at least today to suit their constantly shifting PR and messaging strategy) now acknowledge that casinos cause increases in gambling addiction, they continue to attack the Center, charging it with having an "unproven" social cost model.   So ... our ask to casino supporters: Show us your social cost model.   Please make it something more scientific than anecdotes from a police chief in a gambling town (who just got bought 15 new cruisers by the casino) that he sees no crime in the casino parking lot. As to the Granite State Coalition, we do have a social cost model, the one most often used in the published, peer-reviewed literature on gambling addiction. A single Salem casino as proposed in SB152 would cause $105 million dollars per year in increased costs of gambling addiction, more than double the Center's excessively conservative projection. What are these costs? Lost work days and decreased workplace productivity. Money taken under false pretenses from friends and relatives. Increased family bankruptcy. Increased household debt loads and liquidated savings. Increased family violence, child abuse, and divorce. Increased serious crimes, including violent physical assault, breaking and entering, auto theft, and embezzlement. Increased criminal justice, welfare, and social services costs paid by state and local taxpayers. We urge the House to defeat any measure which would legalize casinos and to find a humane means to balance the state budget. Respectfully, Jim Rubens, Chair

Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling NoSlots.com    Blog & Alerts Greetings!      The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies today released its new analysisas to the net economic impact of a Salem casino as proposed in SB152:   "a net loss to the state of roughly $2 million a year."   The analysis is bad news for Las Vegas-based Millennium Gaming, which, since 2005, has been peddling its Money From Thin Air fairy tales to a revenue hungry legislature.      Millennium Gaming (Fix It Now) website logo 2/28/13   Here are some verbatim quotes from the Center's analysis:  While expanded gambling will yield revenue to the state, our model's estimates of the social costs of problem gambling suggest no long-term net state benefit when the tax on casino operations is set at 30 percent or less. [P]redicting revenue from license fees is difficult, and budget writers should use caution in basing a budget on such revenue. Gambling revenues continue to decline locally and nationally Our model still does not account for a number of factors, including the potential positive or negative effects of expanded gambling on New Hampshire's "brand" (as a tourist destination and place to do business), the potential private costs associated with pathological gambling (so-called "abused dollars").  An Annual Loss of $67 Million if Full Social Costs Are Included The Center's social cost estimates are extremely conservative. Using the most-frequently cited social cost numbers in the gambling impacts literature, a single Salem casino as proposed in SB152 would cost New Hampshire $67 million annually.         Internet Gambling Will Drive Revenues Even Lower Delaware, Nevada, and New Jersey have now legalized Internet gambling. Facing declining revenues at its three race track casinos due to neighboring state casino proliferation, Delaware was first to legalize Internet gambling in 2012. Illustrating the gambling proliferation problem, Delaware also legalized Keno-slots and sports betting at bars and restaurants throughout the state.   We've seen in industry after industry how quickly the Internet has devastated brick and mortar business models -- in books, electronics, and office supplies. Now it's about to happen to physical casinos.   Internet gambling means that the days of big tax money from slot machines at brick & mortar casinos are numbered. It means that any budget or spending promises from a casino tax had better be revised downward yet again. It means that casino taxes must not be the basis for support of any ongoing state programs, such as highways, mental health, or education.   The Coalition urges the legislature to defeat any casino legislation and to build a state budget without relying on casino license or tax revenues.   For Sobriety in Revenue Estimating, Jim Rubens, Chair

30 Reasons To Oppose Slot Casinos

Stop Predatory Gambling

For his selfless and effective leadership opposing government sponsorship of predatory gambling, New Hampshire's largest newspaper named Jim Rubens "Citizen of the Year." We are all deeply proud of Jim and his fellow citizens who have sacrificed much to fight a public policy that produces unfairness and inequality in American life. Congratulations, Jim, and thank you.

http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131229/NEWS25/131229347/1022/foliage

 

Jim Rubens guided political rivals along a common path to halt casino | New Hampshire Citizen of...

unionleader.com

For more than a decade, the casino gambling industry has seemed to exert increasing influence in the state Legislature to get a foot in the Granite State's door. But each time the industry and its supporters tried to push

 

 

 

Home » News » Citizen of the Year

December 28. 2013 10:29PM

Jim Rubens guided political rivals along a common path to halt casino

By JOHN DiSTASO
Senior Political Reporter

 

For more than a decade, the casino gambling industry has spent ever-increasing amounts of money and has seemed to exert increasing influence in the state Legislature to get a foot in the Granite State's door.
But each time the industry and its supporters tried to push through, they found Jim Rubens of Etna pushing back.

A year ago, as pro-gambling Maggie Hassan prepared to become governor with a new majority of her fellow Democrats in the House, the odds for a casino appeared better than ever.
But after passing the state Senate, a casino bill died in the 400-member House in May by 35 votes.

Rubens, who had chaired the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling for almost as long as the pro-gaming forces had pushed for it, had won again. While he was not the only factor in the outcome, he was a key factor.
Because of that effort, Jim Rubens has been named the New Hampshire Union Leader 2013 Citizen of the Year.

The award recognizes groups or individuals who, in the view of the Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News, have had the biggest influence or effect on New Hampshire in a given year. This is the 10th year for the honor.
The newspapers called Rubens the "face, voice and energy behind the effort - an effort whose success surprised many observers both in and outside of the State House."

"I could never have done it alone," Rubens, 63, said in a recent interview. But, he allowed, "I do credit myself with keeping the coalition together and keeping it broad."
Rubens was a constant presence in legislative halls during the months leading to the vote. He did not try to twist lawmakers' arms, but he provided mounds of information supporting his side.

Former state Republican Party Chairman Steve Duprey has taken over as lead coalition spokesman now that fellow Republican Rubens has resigned to run for U.S. Senate. Duprey marvels at Rubens' ability to quickly research and find studies on a wide range of gambling-related issues.
This year, a newcomer to the extensive anti-gambling network was the arts and entertainment community.

Duprey, formerly on the board of Concord's Capitol Center for the Arts, said the arts sector had not previously recognized the threat to their economic well-being.
But, he said, Rubens "went out and found every research study that's been done on the impact on the arts community and made sure all of that information was distributed to everyone from the Capitol Center to the Palace Theatre to the Verizon arena."
Officials of those facilities were key opponents to the gambling bill in hearings before a legislative "super-committee."

Rubens resigned as coalition chairman shortly after the House vote. He announced in September that he would try to unseat U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. He'll have to win a GOP primary first.
He said he realizes that his Senate bid, like his gambling fight, will be a "David vs. Goliath" affair.

He said, "The experience of fighting a fight this intense all these years kept my political instincts in tune, taught me more about political strategy and coalition building."
Rubens' opposition to gambling began when, as a state senator in the mid-1990s, he received a $5,000 check from a Chicago resident he didn't know.

"It was illegal to take a check that large at the time, and when I tracked it down, it turned out to be someone associated with the gambling industry."
"It was an obvious attempt to buy my vote," he said. "It revolted me. I returned the check."

He believes casino gambling would lead to "dominance of state politics by a single business entity. We already have lottery and charity gambling, which do not entail these dominance and corruption risks."
The 2013 legislative session presented the greatest challenge. Rubens knew the battleground would again be in the House, which he says, "you can't buy."

His approach was to "find out what each representative was concerned about, and it varies."
Rubens said the coalition continues to be a cross-section of Republicans and Democrats who disagree on many issues but are unified against casino gambling.

"It is the most broad-based coalition in the state," he said. "People at our meetings had never spoken to each other before. After fighting each other on almost every other issue, they were now working constructively, arm in arm, with such friendship. It was an incredible experience."
What he called "Liberty Republicans" are people who "don't like monopolies," said Rubens. Other foes include "Some (who) had a family member who was addicted to gambling. Others don't want to see government grow in any way and are concerned about a new revenue source growing government. Some are concerned about political corruption and influence.
"And liberal Democrats are hoping for another revenue source, an income or sales tax. They call it tax reform."

Anti-gambling Democrat state Rep. Marjorie Smith of Durham cited Rubens' ability "to collect data and testimony from other states. I believe that for people who were struggling to figure out what to do, that kind of approach was very, very helpful."
Smith supports Shaheen for reelection, but said that on gambling, "Jim was successful in bringing people together. The cross-fertilization to create a broad network was very important."

Fergus Cullen, like Duprey, a former Republican Party chairman, said that "all the money is on one side in the gambling debate.
"The casinos have lobbyists, consultants, polling, and sometimes direct mail and media. The opposition is exclusively grassroots.

"It's easy for people to get engaged for six months or a year, but it's hard for people to be engaged year in and year out," said Cullen. "That's where Jim's tenacity comes in."
A gambling bill will be back in the new year, this time with a detailed regulatory structure put forth by a new Gambling Regulatory Oversight Authority.

Rubens is confident that with the coalition and CasinoFree New Hampshire combining forces with Duprey and Democratic former state Sen. Harold Janeway as bipartisan lead spokesmen, the effort is in "superb" hands.
He stressed that while campaigning for the Senate, he has not shied away from pro-gambling areas of the state.

"I get blowback," he said, "but my message is 'You've seen my skills organizationally. And I'd ask you to support me because I'd like to take those skills to Washington and deal with the jobs, debt problems.'"

 

Casino License Money: A Recipe for Budget Chaos

Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling NoSlots.com Blog & Alerts For Immediate Release Contact: Jim Rubens, (603) 359-3300 Casino License Money: A Recipe for Budget Chaos "Governor Hassan's decision to include casino license money in her proposed budget is a recipe for budget chaos," said Jim Rubens, chair of Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling. "It's an abdication of her promise that casinos be highly regulated." Every state to have legalized slot machine casinos over the past decade has found that it requires at least two years until any casino revenues flow into state budgets. The Massachusetts process is no different, requiring two plus years to first license revenues and over five years to first casino operating revenues. No casino investor will allow license money to flow into the general fund until all these steps are complete: adopt regulations and bidder selection criteria, select among competing casino bidders, complete background checks on management and investors, select and install central computer system, secure local referendum, planning, zoning, and infrastructure approvals, and conclude litigation and appeals. Attempting to rush the approval process will result in three problems: Governor Lynch's Gaming Study Commission found that New Hampshire's gambling regulations are insufficient even for the gambling we now have. Casinos cannot be highly regulated, as Governor Hassan has promised, when at least two years are not allowed to carefully design regulations, select carefully among competing bidders, and complete background checks. Multiple New Hampshire Attorneys General have testified to the legislature that background checks alone require a full year to complete. Rushing this process sharply increases the risk of irreversible errors and political corruption. Assuming that the House reverses its decades-long rejection of casinos and legalizes casinos as of July 1, 2013, casino license revenues will not flow into the general fund until mid-2105 at the earliest. Building $80 million in license money into the budget will result in the need for sharp budget cuts during the second year of the biennium, resulting in budget chaos and embarrassment by those who've promised this money to constituents. The $80 million in license money will create unsustainable budgets at the University of New Hampshire and state agencies promised this money because casino operating revenues will not fully ramp up for several years, given casino construction phasing, more intense competition from larger, better located Massachusetts casinos, and the reduced 25 percent tax rate in SB152, the Governor's preferred casino legislation. GSCAEG and our bi-partisan coalition have helped keep New Hampshire casino-free since 1991. Learn more about our thirty reasons for opposing casinos at NoSlots.com.

Donate To GSCAEG 30 Reasons To Oppose Slot Casinos

Pennsylvania Casinos Broke Their Revenue Promises

From our friends up north in New Hampshire --
[The same thing will happen in Massachusetts because the projected revenue and low wage job creation figures have been overstated.]

Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling NoSlots.com Blog & Alerts A Pennsylvania newspaper, The Morning Call, broke the damning story yesterday: "Casinos broke their revenue promises" Surprise, surprise. Except maybe to those still buying the gambling lobby's "destination casino" fairy tale. It turns out that casino developers in Pennsylvania's competitive licensing process greatly overstated potential tax revenues in order to secure casino licenses. "When Pennsylvania was deciding in 2006 who should get a license to run state-regulated casinos, gambling companies from around the country arrived in Harrisburg with big promises of how much money they could bring to the state. It turns out that many of those casino executives were exaggerating by as much as 50 percent on how much gambling revenues their gaming halls would generate," reports the Morning Call. Only the track casinos not subject to PA's competitive proposal process -- and thereby guaranteed their licenses -- came close to hitting their revenue projections. The Call asks whether the great recession explains the exaggerated revenue projections: "[S]ize may have had something to do with it. While the tracks were adding smaller casinos onto the existing horse-racing facilities, the stand-alone casinos were building much larger facilities. In most cases, the stand-alones planned to open with 3,000 slot machines and increase to 5,000 in six months. That didn't happen with any of them. Mount Airy's numbers have been so disappointing that it has removed hundreds of slot machines from the floor, dropping its total to just above 2,000. Sands also did not follow through on its plan to expand to 5,000 slot machines ...'Based on the economic conditions at the time, we decided against the additional slot machines,' said Sands spokeswoman Julia Corwin." Bills coming before the New Hampshire legislature require a competitive proposal process, similar to Pennsylvania's -- for both track and non-track proposals. Lessons for New Hampshire Legislators: Rely ONLY on independent revenue projections not paid for by casino developers. Ignore casino developers' tax revenue promises. Beware of provisions in any casino bill allowing for "Phase 1" or "Temporary" casinos. The promised 5,000 machine destination casino shown in the glossy presentations will not happen because the New England casino market is saturated. Wishing and hoping for a destination casino will not make it so. All New Hampshire will ever get are local-market casinos, not attracting tourists, but cannibalizing consumer spending from and killing jobs at thousands of existing local New Hampshire businesses. Jim Rubens Chair, GSCAEG Donate To GSCAEG 30 Reasons To Oppose Slot Casinos Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling | PO Box 3931 | Concord | NH | 03302

Hassan Is Wrong on Gambling

Letter: Hassan Is Wrong on Gambling

Friday, January 4, 2013

 

To the Editor:

 

During her visit to Claremont, Gov. Hassan said that casino gambling is a “way forward” to address local fiscal challenges such as those faced by Claremont (“Claremont Tells Hassan School Funding Still Key,” Dec. 29). This promise is entirely misleading because it takes at least two years from the effective date of casino legalization before any casino license or tax money can flow into state or local coffers.

 

This elapsed time is required if casinos are to be “highly regulated,” as Hassan has promised, to adopt regulations, complete background checks, select among competing casino bidders, secure local permits and conclude litigation. No state to have legalized casino gambling over the past 10 years has done it faster. Massachusetts, the state to have most recently legalized slot machine casinos, will require 2¼ years to issue the first casino license and 5½ years before the first casino tax revenue will flow. Even for those willing to accept the family breakdown, addiction, and crime caused by casinos, there will be no casino money available for the upcoming 2014-2015 state budget.

Hassan should also acknowledge the costly trade-offs associated with casinos. Former Gov. John Lynch’s Gaming Study Commission found that even a single casino as proposed for Salem would create an additional 10,000 problem gamblers and addicted gamblers in New Hampshire and cause 1,200 additional violent and property crimes each year. Gambling-addiction treatment programs, while vital, are utilized by only about 10 percent of gambling addicts.

 

Area residents can be grateful that all three of our region’s state senators, David Pierce, Bob Odell and Jeanie Forester, and most of our state House members have long opposed casinos.

I encourage area residents to contact Hassan at 603-223-8480, asking her consider the many available means other than gambling casinos to balance the upcoming state budget. Readers can learn more about why casinos are net economic and social negatives at www.NoSlots.com.

Jim Rubens

 

Chairman, Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling

 

Etna

 

http://www.vnews.com/news/townbytown/claremont/3608790-95/casino-state-casinos-gambling

New Hampshire: Evidence to the Contrary

What does it say about candidates who oppose the voters' opposition to Predatory Gambling? 

New life for gambling legislation

Governor candidates open to idea

By Ben Leubsdorf / Monitor staff

October 8, 2012

Come January, for the first time in a decade, New Hampshire will have a governor who supports some form of expanded gambling.

Both Republican Ovide Lamontagne and Democrat Maggie Hassan say they want to allow a single casino in New Hampshire. They differ on the details, but either would be a change from incumbent Gov. John Lynch, whose longstanding wariness about expanded gambling crystallized last year into a veto threat. Lynch's predecessor, Craig Benson, also opposed expanded gambling.

But that doesn't mean gambling foes are ready to give up the perennial fight over whether expanded legal gaming should be used to bolster state revenues. Even with a governor willing to sign it, there's no guarantee a casino bill would make it through the Legislature particularly the 400-member House, the traditional killing floor for expanded-gambling legislation.

"You've got to get it through the House, and you've got to get it through the Senate," said Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, a Manchester Democrat and longtime supporter of expanded gambling. "It looks better because you've got a positive situation (in the governor's office), but the devil is always in the details as to what they'll accept."

Perennial, nonpartisan issue

Expanded gambling is a perennial issue, and one that splits both major political parties.

Some 35 percent of Democrats support some form of expanded gambling, with 44 percent opposed, according to an April survey by Dartmouth College's Nelson A. Rockefeller Center. Republicans are about evenly split, with 42 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed. Independents support expanded gambling, 45 percent to 38 percent opposed.

Overall, the survey found, 40.9 percent of New Hampshire voters support expanded gambling, while 41.6 percent are opposed a statistical tie, since the April 2-5 survey of 403 people had a 4.9 percent margin of error.

The state Republican Party platform adopted last weekend contained an anti-expanded gambling plank, while the Democratic Party platform adopted this summer is silent on the issue.

But those platforms are nonbinding, leaving a decision on whether to expand legal gambling - currently, the state allows lottery games, charitable gaming and racetrack betting - in the hands of individual lawmakers.

Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat elected in 1996 for the first of three terms, was the last governor to support expanded gambling, proposing video lottery games as a way to raise revenue for the state. In 2002, as she prepared to leave office, there was a last-ditch effort to legalize video lottery at racetracks or a casino in Berlin, but both bills died in the House. (Shaheen is now a U.S. senator.)

That pattern has been repeated time after time, with the House proving unfriendly territory for expanded-gambling bills.

"For close to 20 years now, casino bills have come up at least every two years . . . and the House religiously votes them down," said Jim Rubens, a former Republican state senator who chairs the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling.

The most recent attempt, a bill that would have allowed two casinos, died in March on a 226-118 vote in the House.

Rubens said anti-gambling forces have been able to assemble a coalition across party lines, marshalling conservatives, liberals and libertarians.

Anti-tax Republicans, Rubens said, often worry about gambling as a representing a new tax on consumers and an expansion of state government. Democrats, he said, worry about the harm to local businesses and the potential for social problems like gambling addiction. And liberty-minded Republicans, he said, worry that allowing just one or two casinos would represent a sort of monopoly, and "they despise the notion of a monopoly."

But with Hassan or Lamontagne set to take office in January, the stage will be set for a casino bill to be signed into law if the Legislature can pass one. And, Rubens said, that will return the debate to where it was during Shaheen's time in office.

"We're in a very similar position to during her terms of office, in that the Legislature will determine whether we have a casino or not," Rubens said. "So this is not really new. We've been here before."

What has changed, though, is the casino market in New England. Maine's second casino opened in June. Last year, Massachusetts passed a law allowing three casinos and one slots parlor.  [Massachusetts voters, who have never been allowed to vote on the issue, will REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL !]

Rubens said the proliferation of casinos in the region means any New Hampshire casino would likely rely only on the local market, which he said is too small to support a large, high-end casino.

"We've seen a maturation of the casino industry and a saturation of the casino market," he said, adding, "By the time Massachusetts builds the four big, relatively flashy casinos in its state, the New Hampshire market that will remain is what's called a local market or a casino convenience market. We call them 'slot barns.'"

D'Allesandro, though, said the proliferation of casinos is creating support among legislators who are looking to keep New Hampshire residents from gambling in neighboring states.

"The trend line has been positive in light of the fact that they put it in Maine, they put it in Massachusetts, and we are now beginning to see the effects of doing it in Maine," he said. "New Hampshire dollars are now flowing to Maine. . . . I think that at least creates a concern among New Hampshire legislators that we are losing revenue."

Candidates and casino

Hassan, of Exeter, and Lamontagne, of Manchester, both favor allowing a single casino, though they differ on the details. Hassan has been more flexible on expanded gambling in the past, supporting a number of bills during her three terms in the state Senate.

"Given what's happening in Massachusetts, where there are going to be at least three if not four high-end casinos that will draw business from New Hampshire - gambling revenues, rooms-and-meals revenues - I think it's important that we do what we've always done, which is compete with our neighbor to the south and make sure we get revenues up here," Hassan said Thursday during a debate at New England College in Henniker.

Hassan said she supports "one highly regulated, high-end casino that could truly compete with Massachusetts. Why? Because I don't want our gambling revenues and our rooms-and-meals revenues spent in Massachusetts, building their roads, their bridges and their schools, and then having the social and safety concerns that come with gambling, come back over the border and not having any revenues for us to address them."

Lamontagne once was a vocal foe of expanded gambling. During his 1996 gubernatorial run, he blasted Shaheen for her video-gambling proposal.

"Jeanne Shaheen is willing to trade our quality of life here in New Hampshire for Las-Vegas style casinos," he said that fall.

But this year, he's said he'd support a single casino on the Massachusetts border.

"I would only be open to one place, and that is Salem, at Rockingham Park, the historic site of gaming in New Hampshire, so long as there are proper protections in place, and controls. ... That has to be the approach we take," he said Thursday. "Otherwise, I am not behind expanded gaming under any circumstances."

Lamontagne also said the money from a casino should be used only to lower taxes or for a current state commitment, such as the widening of Interstate 93.

Lamontagne's law firm, Divine Millimet, represents Rockingham Park, where Millennium Gaming has a plan to build a casino if and when the law is changed. Lamontagne's campaign has said he didn't work directly on the Rockingham Park portfolio and would sever his ties with the firm if elected.

Hassan last week said she wasn't convinced picking a site in advance was a good idea.

"I don't believe a governor should decide ahead of time exactly where a casino is going to be. I think it's important to have an open and transparent bidding process, so that we get competition and so that we can make sure that it's a transparent process as well," she said. "And that's very important in state government, to make sure that we have arms-length transactions."

Millennium Gaming spokesman Rich Killion said the company doesn't have a preference between Lamontagne and Hassan, despite Lamontagne's support for the Rockingham Park location, and isn't getting involved in the gubernatorial race.

But it would be nice to have a pro-casino governor, he said.

"I think there's no question it helps having someone in the corner office who has a plan and an approach for the issue," Killion said.

And the issue of expanded gambling is almost certain to arise next year, with two proposed bills already filed by incumbent representatives seeking re-election to the House.

One, filed by Dover Republican Michael Weeden, would lift the state's ban on gambling. The other, filed by Nashua Republican Bill Ohm, wouldn't legalize casinos but would specify that any revenue from any future casino should go to taxpayers, not the state treasury.

Ohm said he's still working on the precise language, but has in mind Alaska's model for distributing oil royalties, where Alaska residents receive an annual check.

D'Allesandro said he plans to introduce his own legislation for the next session, assuming he wins re-election to the Senate.

""I'm looking forward to it, as always, because I still believe, in terms of economic recovery and job creation, ... it's a vital part of the plan to get this economy going in the right direction," D'Allesandro said.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/359881/new-life-for-gambling-legislation?page=0,0