| |||
| |||
|
Showing posts with label Millennium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Millennium. Show all posts
Saturday, April 25, 2015
New Hampshire: Wednesday, April 29th Hearing
Saturday, February 14, 2015
New Hampshire Alert!
| |||
| |||
|
Sunday, May 26, 2013
New Hampshire's Defeat of Predatory Gambling
General Court to face budget without revenue from
expanded gaming
By JEN
KEEFE
news@fosters.com |
Sunday, May 26, 2013
DOVER — Casino gambling is a no-go in New Hampshire — at least for now, and
that means so is the revenue source on which Gov. Maggie Hassan was counting to
help the state budget.
In a 199-164 vote Wednesday, the Democratically-led House struck down a bill that would legalize 5,000 video slot machines and 150 table games at one facility.
SB 152 had passed the Senate in a bipartisan, two-to-one margin in March, but a House supercommittee recommended the full House kill the bill.
Gov. Hassan had heavily lobbied House Democrats to vote against the supercommittee’s recommendation so the bill’s 17 amendments could be considered and perhaps win over a majority of supporters for a final vote.
While Hassan managed to convince a majority of House Democrats to vote against killing the bill; House Republicans voted 107-52 in favor of killing it.
And a motion to reconsider, which failed 212-152, demonstrates how far apart House legislators stand on the issue.
Legalization of casino gambling in the state came closer this time around than in any previous attempts, but the message out of the House on Wednesday was that the bill just wasn’t one they could swallow.
Hassan’s proposed budget included $80 million in casino revenue that she had earmarked for government spending — infrastructure improvements, social services, higher education, and other programs.
Many agree the revenue is needed, but weren’t willing to bring a casino to the state in order to get it.
“I would not even think of passing that bill out of the House,” said Jacqueline Cali-Pitts, D-Portsmouth. “It wasn’t strong enough on regulations or distribution of funds. I think counties would bear the brunt of what was going on at the casinos — the county jails, sheriffs and dispatch. I think we would have a problem. And I’m talking about the surrounding towns, too. Not just Salem.”
Rockingham Park in Salem was floated as a potential location for the casino, which because of its proximity to Massachusetts gave rise to the question of where the benefit of new jobs or spending revenue would really be felt.
Rich Killion, spokesperson for casino developer Millenium Gaming that has invested the most in lobbying for a casino at Rockingham Park, said by voting against the measure, New Hampshire is losing out on jobs and revenue.
Killion cited reports by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth that residents here spend more than $70 million annually at casinos, and that activity will heighten when Massachusetts opens its three casinos in a few years.
“Those are New Hampshire dollars that are leaving the state and that’s a missed opportunity,” he said, adding that even if some jobs and revenue went over the border because of Salem’s location, the majority of the benefit would still be felt in the Granite State.
But for many representatives like Cali-Pitts, the bill wasn’t something they felt good about passing, despite the state’s need for revenue.
“I’m worried about where the cuts are going to come from,” Cali-Pitts said.
In what is being seen as retaliation to the House casino vote, Senate members on Thursday handily killed several key pieces of legislation out of the Democratically-controlled House — including about $53 million in tax increases.
The Senate rejected a 20-cent-per-pack increase to the cigarette tax, which was expected to generate about $40 million over the next two years, a 12-cent increase in the gasoline tax over the next three years and a tax on tips earned by restaurant and hospitality employees.
Hassan, in a prepared statement released after Wednesday’s vote, said crafting a balanced budget will be that much more difficult without money from a casino licensing fee.
“I remain committed to working with the legislature to finalize a balanced budget that restores the priorities that the people of New Hampshire support: job creation, higher education, economic development, strengthening our mental health system and protecting the health and well-being of our communities,” Hassan said. “Without passing SB 152, the path will be more difficult, but the people of New Hampshire expect us to do difficult things. We must work together to keep our state moving forward and to ensure a brighter, more innovative economic future for all Granite Staters.”
James Verschueren, D-Dover, voted against killing the casino bill and said following the vote that while he’s “not particularly fond of gambling,” he is less fond of a state that can’t meet its responsibilities to its residents.
“We don’t have another revenue source,” he said, adding Dover has been especially hard-hit as the state isn’t adequately funding its schools, leaving between $9 million and $11 million in needed funds.
Neither the House nor the Senate budgets relied on revenue assumptions from a casino. A committee of conference will meet to craft a budget on which both bodies agree, but it’s anyone’s guess what that budget will look like.
However, the outlook is many programs will remain underfunded.
“We’re going to be looking at a seriously underfunded set of programs in the state and that’s sad,” said Verschueren, adding that while Hassan’s $80 million projection for revenue might not have been exact, the lack of revenue anticipated from a casino “does mean that particularly mental health and school aid just aren’t going to be there now.”
Jim Rubens, chairman of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, said it was “fiscally irresponsible” for Hassan to include anticipated casino revenue in the budget and pointed to committee findings that the money wouldn’t have arrived in time for the biennial budget.
“It was a compelling argument for freshman Democrats who want revenue to fund needed services,” Rubens said. “But it would have created budget chaos. Going forward, legislators won’t have that gun to their head that the budget won’t work without casinos.”
Other casino opponents are calling for the revenue shortfall to be addressed without depending on a “quick-fix” revenue source that could carry other implications for the state.
Rochester Republican Rep. Warren Groen, who voted in favor of killing the casino bill, saw casino revenue as a road to bigger government — and with bigger government, comes greater spending, he said.
“The way I see it,” Groen said, “the prime moving force behind this bill was to provide state revenue. As the state gets more revenue, government grows, and the larger it gets the more power it has and the less power the citizen has.
“What we need to do is examine our priorities and the revenue we currently have and adjust accordingly.”
Groen, who works in the construction industry, noted his business has taken a “real hit” in the past couple of years.
“We took a cut in pay,” he said. “Government doesn’t seem to think that way.”
Groen’s main concern with legalizing casino gambling in the state was the social impact from gambling addiction. He worked for years at an addiction recovery center and has seen “the bottom side of the industry.”
However, Verschueren said he believes any social impact from a casino in New Hampshire would be a marginal increase compared to what is likely to come from Massachusetts having casinos just over the border.
For him, the revenue source was a bigger concern.
“I think the people who voted against gambling — I understand where they’re coming from and there were lots of good arguments against it,” Verschueren said. “But in the end, I believe they made the wrong choice.”
Rubens is certain the proposal will come back again as developers put pressure on legislators to approve casinos, but said this most recent debate doesn’t bode well for its success.
“The more we see about casinos, the more we see them portrayed as a magic, economic elixir,” Rubens said. “But they’re not a new thing anymore. This ‘magic money’ phenomenon where you can put a casino in and people will come from miles around is not a thing anymore. The arguments being made are becoming less and less effective over time.”
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130526/GJNEWS_01/130529362
In a 199-164 vote Wednesday, the Democratically-led House struck down a bill that would legalize 5,000 video slot machines and 150 table games at one facility.
SB 152 had passed the Senate in a bipartisan, two-to-one margin in March, but a House supercommittee recommended the full House kill the bill.
Gov. Hassan had heavily lobbied House Democrats to vote against the supercommittee’s recommendation so the bill’s 17 amendments could be considered and perhaps win over a majority of supporters for a final vote.
While Hassan managed to convince a majority of House Democrats to vote against killing the bill; House Republicans voted 107-52 in favor of killing it.
And a motion to reconsider, which failed 212-152, demonstrates how far apart House legislators stand on the issue.
Legalization of casino gambling in the state came closer this time around than in any previous attempts, but the message out of the House on Wednesday was that the bill just wasn’t one they could swallow.
Hassan’s proposed budget included $80 million in casino revenue that she had earmarked for government spending — infrastructure improvements, social services, higher education, and other programs.
Many agree the revenue is needed, but weren’t willing to bring a casino to the state in order to get it.
“I would not even think of passing that bill out of the House,” said Jacqueline Cali-Pitts, D-Portsmouth. “It wasn’t strong enough on regulations or distribution of funds. I think counties would bear the brunt of what was going on at the casinos — the county jails, sheriffs and dispatch. I think we would have a problem. And I’m talking about the surrounding towns, too. Not just Salem.”
Rockingham Park in Salem was floated as a potential location for the casino, which because of its proximity to Massachusetts gave rise to the question of where the benefit of new jobs or spending revenue would really be felt.
Rich Killion, spokesperson for casino developer Millenium Gaming that has invested the most in lobbying for a casino at Rockingham Park, said by voting against the measure, New Hampshire is losing out on jobs and revenue.
Killion cited reports by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth that residents here spend more than $70 million annually at casinos, and that activity will heighten when Massachusetts opens its three casinos in a few years.
“Those are New Hampshire dollars that are leaving the state and that’s a missed opportunity,” he said, adding that even if some jobs and revenue went over the border because of Salem’s location, the majority of the benefit would still be felt in the Granite State.
But for many representatives like Cali-Pitts, the bill wasn’t something they felt good about passing, despite the state’s need for revenue.
“I’m worried about where the cuts are going to come from,” Cali-Pitts said.
In what is being seen as retaliation to the House casino vote, Senate members on Thursday handily killed several key pieces of legislation out of the Democratically-controlled House — including about $53 million in tax increases.
The Senate rejected a 20-cent-per-pack increase to the cigarette tax, which was expected to generate about $40 million over the next two years, a 12-cent increase in the gasoline tax over the next three years and a tax on tips earned by restaurant and hospitality employees.
Hassan, in a prepared statement released after Wednesday’s vote, said crafting a balanced budget will be that much more difficult without money from a casino licensing fee.
“I remain committed to working with the legislature to finalize a balanced budget that restores the priorities that the people of New Hampshire support: job creation, higher education, economic development, strengthening our mental health system and protecting the health and well-being of our communities,” Hassan said. “Without passing SB 152, the path will be more difficult, but the people of New Hampshire expect us to do difficult things. We must work together to keep our state moving forward and to ensure a brighter, more innovative economic future for all Granite Staters.”
James Verschueren, D-Dover, voted against killing the casino bill and said following the vote that while he’s “not particularly fond of gambling,” he is less fond of a state that can’t meet its responsibilities to its residents.
“We don’t have another revenue source,” he said, adding Dover has been especially hard-hit as the state isn’t adequately funding its schools, leaving between $9 million and $11 million in needed funds.
Neither the House nor the Senate budgets relied on revenue assumptions from a casino. A committee of conference will meet to craft a budget on which both bodies agree, but it’s anyone’s guess what that budget will look like.
However, the outlook is many programs will remain underfunded.
“We’re going to be looking at a seriously underfunded set of programs in the state and that’s sad,” said Verschueren, adding that while Hassan’s $80 million projection for revenue might not have been exact, the lack of revenue anticipated from a casino “does mean that particularly mental health and school aid just aren’t going to be there now.”
Jim Rubens, chairman of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, said it was “fiscally irresponsible” for Hassan to include anticipated casino revenue in the budget and pointed to committee findings that the money wouldn’t have arrived in time for the biennial budget.
“It was a compelling argument for freshman Democrats who want revenue to fund needed services,” Rubens said. “But it would have created budget chaos. Going forward, legislators won’t have that gun to their head that the budget won’t work without casinos.”
Other casino opponents are calling for the revenue shortfall to be addressed without depending on a “quick-fix” revenue source that could carry other implications for the state.
Rochester Republican Rep. Warren Groen, who voted in favor of killing the casino bill, saw casino revenue as a road to bigger government — and with bigger government, comes greater spending, he said.
“The way I see it,” Groen said, “the prime moving force behind this bill was to provide state revenue. As the state gets more revenue, government grows, and the larger it gets the more power it has and the less power the citizen has.
“What we need to do is examine our priorities and the revenue we currently have and adjust accordingly.”
Groen, who works in the construction industry, noted his business has taken a “real hit” in the past couple of years.
“We took a cut in pay,” he said. “Government doesn’t seem to think that way.”
Groen’s main concern with legalizing casino gambling in the state was the social impact from gambling addiction. He worked for years at an addiction recovery center and has seen “the bottom side of the industry.”
However, Verschueren said he believes any social impact from a casino in New Hampshire would be a marginal increase compared to what is likely to come from Massachusetts having casinos just over the border.
For him, the revenue source was a bigger concern.
“I think the people who voted against gambling — I understand where they’re coming from and there were lots of good arguments against it,” Verschueren said. “But in the end, I believe they made the wrong choice.”
Rubens is certain the proposal will come back again as developers put pressure on legislators to approve casinos, but said this most recent debate doesn’t bode well for its success.
“The more we see about casinos, the more we see them portrayed as a magic, economic elixir,” Rubens said. “But they’re not a new thing anymore. This ‘magic money’ phenomenon where you can put a casino in and people will come from miles around is not a thing anymore. The arguments being made are becoming less and less effective over time.”
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130526/GJNEWS_01/130529362
New Hampshire Senate nixes tobacco & gas tax hikes
In what a key lawmaker called "retribution" for casino gambling being killed by the House, the state Senate Thursday killed the House-passed 67 percent hike in the state's gasoline tax.
http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/news/10948739/new-hampshire-senate-nixes-tobacco-gas-tax-hikesSunday, May 19, 2013
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
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
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
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Saturating the New England Gambling Market
Evidence elsewhere offers declining revenues and state bailouts for Gambling facilities, easily ignored by 'experts.'
Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods report declining revenue.
How would a N.H. casino stack up against New England competition?
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods report declining revenue.
How would a N.H. casino stack up against New England competition?
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
Sunday, April 7, 2013
(Published in print: Sunday, April 7, 2013)
(Published in print: Sunday, April 7, 2013)
Mention casinos around these parts and two come to mind: Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, both 140 miles away in Connecticut. But there are four others, in Maine and Rhode Island, with three on the way in Massachusetts.
And New Hampshire might add at least one.
When the House takes up the state Senate’s bill to legalize a casino in New Hampshire later this month, the questions will be many. One of them will be this: How many casinos is too many, especially given the drop in casino revenue over the last few years?
Skeptics, such as the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, will warn lawmakers that the entertainment market will be saturated once Massachusetts opens its three casinos in 2014 and a fourth slots-only parlor later this year. After all, casinos in New England have begun adding other entertainment to their sites – spas, restaurants, arenas and shops – to hold on to customers who are spending less on gambling.
“It’s not that there’s not going to be room for more casinos after Massachusetts builds,” said Jim Rubens, executive director of the anti-gambling group, in an email Friday. “It’s as the market radius for each new casino progressively shrinks . . . the market cannibalization problem (gets) progressively worse.”
In other words, Rubens believes a New Hampshire casino will survive against the New England competition only by pulling customers from local restaurants, hotels and other entertainment venues.
On the other side of this debate will be analysts who assess market potential by studying driving times, education and income levels, competing sites and the differences between people who want a glitzy casino and those who’d be happy with slot machines in convenience stores.
Analysts such as Matthew Landry, managing director with Strategic Market Advisors in Somersworth. He has done market analysis for Millennium Gaming, which wants to build a $425 million casino at Rockingham Park in Salem, as well as other casino developers, including some competing for a Massachusetts license.
Landry believes Rockingham Park is such a winning location that it will compete aggressively with New England’s other casinos, even one planned for nearby greater Boston. Suffolk Downs in East Boston is one site under consideration.
“It’s one of the best untapped locations on the East Coast,” Landry said of Rockingham Park. “If you are living in Reading (Mass.), on a map it looks like you are halfway between Salem and (Suffolk Downs.) But driving up I-93 is much easier. Salem is the most accessible location to the highest population base that we can get and still be inside the state’s borders.”
Millennium has emphasized that point with lawmakers, telling them it intends to draw 60 percent of its customer base from Massachusetts. And while it will have live horse racing, a hotel, restaurant and small entertainment area, spokesman Rich Killion said Millennium isn’t looking to compete with New Hampshire businesses.
He said Millennium will let its players use their reward points at other New Hampshire businesses, to pay for meals, lift tickets or clothing at the mall. The casino would then reimburse the businesses, an arrangement the company already offers at its casino in Pennsylvania.
So, what is New Hampshire up against if it enters the New England casino market? Probably fewer competitors than you think. Maybe even just one.
The best-known casinos – Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun – are not New Hampshire’s real competition, said Clyde Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The center just released its fourth annual study of the New England gambling market, which included interviews with 3,035 New Englanders who gambled in the last year.
For starters, while Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are close to each other (eight miles apart) they are well beyond the 30 to 90 minutes most casino goers will drive to gamble. For example, Rhode Island gamblers tend to favor Foxwoods over Mohegan Sun because it’s slightly closer.
“Rhode Islanders won’t drive the extra eight miles,” Barrow said.
That’s not uncommon. Barrow said studies have shown that gamblers will choose the closest casino to them that meets their needs.
The Connecticut casinos are also anomalies in the casino world, so much that almost no one really competes with them, Barrow said. They have nearly 6,300 slot machines each and multiple hotels, restaurants, arenas and shops between them. Almost no other casinos anywhere are as grand. [Both with declining revenuesand excessive debt.]
“Foxwoods is the equivalent of four or five Atlantic City casinos,” Barrow said.
Landry of the Somersworth firm said Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun need all the extras just to make the long drive worth it for customers in New Hampshire, even Massachusetts. “Their penetration drops off dramatically as you go north,” he said of the Connecticut casinos. “And it’s not great south (of New Hampshire), particularly north of Boston.”
Right now, there’s nothing comparable to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun between them and New Hampshire and greater Boston. By next year, there will be in Massachusetts and possibly New Hampshire.
Rhode Island and Maine
Rhode Island offers two places to play slot machines: Twin Rivers Casino in Lincoln and Newport Grand Slots in Newport. Both began as small racetracks converted into casinos; Newport is still small, while Twin Rivers rebuilt and expanded in 2007.
Neither have spas or great shopping centers, so they are considered “convenience casinos,” capable of drawing customers from Rhode Island and Massachusetts but not much farther.
Twin Rivers Casino has begun making a play for the bigger market, however. The renovation and expansion has allowed it to have 4,700 slot machines, two restaurants and a comedy club. This summer it plans to add 64 table games.
But if driving times matter like Barrow and Landry say, Rhode Island isn’t New Hampshire’s competition, either.
To the north, Maine has two offerings, one in Oxford, about 80 miles from Concord, and the other in Bangor, nearly 180 miles away. But like the Rhode Island spots, the Maine locations offer slot machines and table games but not much else. (The Bangor Hollywood Casino does offer live harness racing part of the year.)
New Hampshire lottery officials have said the Oxford casino has cut into its sales of lottery and scratch tickets along the state border. They also said New Hampshire residents who live along the border are visiting the casino. But Maine isn’t real competition either – if New Hampshire chooses to put a resort or destination casino along its border.
With New Hampshire’s bill requiring a $425 million investment in a casino, New Hampshire and Maine are not necessarily competing for the same customers, analysts said. That’s an important distinction Barrow said states should consider while debating expanded gambling legislation.
He said it makes a difference for the casino – and the state.
“If you want to generate a lot of money for the state, you go with slots because it’s not a lot of capital investment and they run themselves,” Barrow said, meaning the slots don’t require dealers. “If you want to create jobs with revenue being secondary, you go with a destination casino.”
There is a competing gambling bill in the House that would legalize six, slot-only parlors instead of a grander single casino. It is currently tabled in the House.
The Massachusetts factor
That leaves Massachusetts and the three casinos it’s planning across the state. Two will be on the state’s edges, one in western Massachusetts, the other nearer Worcester and Cape Cod. It’s the one going in the middle of the state – in greater Boston – that would compete most directly with New Hampshire.
Massachusetts’s casino law, like New Hampshire’s casino bill, requires a resort casino with a minimum investment of $500 million. The three developers who have applied for the greater Boston license know the destination casino business well. Foxwoods is eyeing a spot in Milford; Ceasers Entertainment is looking at Suffolk Downs; and Steve Wynn, who helped revive the Las Vegas strip in the 1990s, is looking at a spot in Everett on the Mystic River.
The Massachusetts law does not limit the number of table games or slot machines, whereas New Hampshire’s bill caps slots at 5,000 and table games at 125. But Barrow doesn’t see that as a disadvantage to New Hampshire because he doubts a casino in either place would install 5,000 machines.
“There are only three facilities in the U.S. that have more than 5,000 slots: Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun and the Empire City (casino) on the edge of New York City,” he said.
Barrow and Landry said the area between southern New Hampshire and Boston has a lot of the right kind of people to support a casino.
“What you’re looking for is a high concentration of people and money,” Barrow said.
For one thing, they are open to gambling.
According to Barrow’s study released last month, 52 percent of those interviewed said they had gambled in the last year, although casino gambling rated third, after lottery and scratch tickets.
They’re also well-educated and well paid, so they have the money to gamble.
About 60 percent of the respondents from New Hampshire and Massachusetts who had gone to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun in the last year had annual family incomes of more than $75,000.
And of that group, the gamblers from New Hampshire were the most educated: 51 percent had taken some college classes and 27 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Among the Massachusetts respondents, 68 percent had taken some college classes or earned at least a bachelor’s degree.
That’s the kind of customer a casino developer wants, Barrow said.
“The average casino player tends to have some college or higher,” he said.
Three things will become important in the casino race if New Hampshire legalizes a casino, Barrow and Landry said: location, community support and being first.
Landry and Millennium Gaming believe New Hampshire wins that challenge if a casino opens at Rockingham Park in Salem. Some sites in Massachusetts have raised concerns among locals. If Rockingham Park gets the casino, the local support in Salem is solid. When voters were asked in March if they supported a casino at Rockingham Park, 81 percent said yes.
Being first is the big unknown.
Right now, Massachusetts expects to award casino licenses for greater Boston and western Massachusetts by February 2014. In New Hampshire, the casino bill is awaiting debate in the House.
The bill’s supporters, including Gov. Maggie Hassan, pushed the bill through the Senate with a sense of urgency.
But the House has long opposed expanded gambling and declined to include a potential $80 million for a license in its budget. And it’s clearly not on a fast track in that chamber. It’s not even been scheduled for a public hearing yet.
“Being first (lets) you build up a loyalty, and that tends to lock people in,” said Barrow. Once players begin earning rewards points for frequenting the same casino, it becomes harder for them to leave, he said.
NH: Hospitality group votes to oppose casino gambling
Hospitality group votes to oppose casino gambling
By Garry Rayno
The New Hampshire Union Leader, Manchester
April 06, 2013 12:57 PM
CONCORD — Concerns over lost business and damaging the state's family-friendly image had the board of the state's hospitality association this week voting to oppose casino gambling.
The Board of Directors of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association voted overwhelmingly at Wednesday's meeting to oppose casino gambling in New Hampshire, according to board chairman Joel Bourassa.
The board had previously been neutral on the issue, although about a decade ago the organization also opposed expanded gambling citing similar reasons.
"It is the opinion of the board that casino gambling revenues will come at the expense of other recreational activities in our Seacoast, lakes and mountains throughout the state," Bourassa wrote to members after the board's vote. "This will lead to reductions in rooms and meals taxes and losses in retail expenditures."
The board also heard presentations for the issue by Millennium Gaming, which has an option on Rockingham Park in Salem and wants to build a casino at the track if lawmakers approve Senate Bill 152, and from gaming opponent the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling.
The hospitality organization's president Mike Somers said Millennium was willing to spend more on marketing a casino than the organization's members spend combined. The board feared the casino's brand would become the state's image and that could be a problem, he said.
"It is also the board's opinion that the wholesome, family friendly image of New Hampshire will be eroded once casino gambling is enacted, and it will have a negative impact on the hospitality and tourism industry," Bourassa wrote to members.
Another concern said Somers is the proliferation of casinos as happened in Maine and other states. "One is never enough," he said. "It never seems to end."
The NHLRA board is the latest organization to weigh in on the issue of casino gambling, something the Senate has already approved and that Gov. Maggie Hassan is backing.
The governor included $80 million in her two-year budget proposal from casino licensing fees.
Last week the National Education Association -- New Hampshire changed course and supported expanded gambling as a way to pay for essential state services such as higher education and catastrophic special education and transportation aid for school districts.
Last month two police organizations announced backing the casino gambling bill, although the NH Association of Chiefs of Police continues to oppose expanded gambling.
SB 152 is now before the House, which has traditionally opposed gambling.
The bill allows up to 5,000 video slot machines and 150 table games. State lottery officials predict a casino that size would produce about $120 million in revenue a year, although the independent New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies predicts a casino would net the state only $45 million or less due to competition from three planned Massachusetts casinos.
"This is a difficult debate statewide right now, but in the end, the board is committed to protecting the best interests of our diverse membership and the hospitality and tourism industry," Bourassa said.
The organization has more than 600 members statewide and Somers notes the membership is divided on the issue.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20130406-NEWS-130409821
Friday, March 15, 2013
Florida Lt. Gov. Resigns in Massive Gambling Corruption Probe
|
|
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Pie-In-The-Sky Promises
It's the same everywhere - overstated revenues, exaggerated job creation....false promises!
Just as in Massachusetts!
Just as in Massachusetts!
Granite State
Coalition
Against
Expanded Gambling
| |
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Dependency
|
Granite State Coalition
Against
Expanded Gambling
|
|
The
casino lobby can't blame its woes on the recession anymore.
State
by state data show that US casino market has become saturated, peaking in about
2007 and badly stressing states that have become unwisely dependent upon casino
taxes.
The
Rockefeller
Institute of Government examined gambling revenues in each of the 50
states over the period 1998-2009, finding that even continuous expansion into
new forms of gambling have not provided states with long-term budget stability
because gambling revenues "... do not keep pace with traditional tax revenues
and government expenditures over time ... [and] may add to, rather than ease,
long-term budget imbalances."
Millennium
Gaming, the Las Vegas gambling company pushing for Salem casino, testified to
the NH Gaming Study
Commission (page GSC 15) that New Hampshire gambling revenues would
drop by "nearly half" if Massachusetts legalized casinos.
Even
worse, interstate casino competition has become so intense, states so addicted
to casino tax money, and legislatures so trapped by casino lobbyists that New
Jersey, Delaware, and West Virginia all now use taxpayer dollars to subsidize
their casinos.
Casino
Customers Ageing Out
In
its feature story on the declining casino industry and its ageing and shrinking
customer base, the New York
Times quoted veteran casino marketing consultant Michael Meczka:
"There aren't any new customers out there. Gaming is an aged community ...
Anyone who has ever wanted to try a casino has tried a casino."
Nail
in the Coffin for Brick & Mortar Casinos
In
books, electronics, and office supplies, we've already seen how quickly the
Internet has devastated brick and mortar business models. In 2012, it began
happening to physical casinos when Delaware became the first state to allow
Internet gambling, including blackjack, poker, and online slot machines.
Delaware
could do this because the US Justice Department issued a December, 2011 opinion for the first time allowing
within-state online gambling. The opinion continues to forbid interstate
online gambling, but has resulted in de facto legalization of online
gambling on a state by state basis and only by residents of states having
legalizing online gambling.
This
will have horrid effects on the social health of Delaware residents because
every teenager and every gambling addict living there will now have access to a
slot machine in the privacy of their bedroom or via their iPhone or tablet. New
Hampshire legislators should resist probing these depraved depths for tax
money.
Take
Action
Call
your legislator (find phone # here). Ask him/her to
vote against any and all bills that would hook New Hampshire's budget or our
economy to the declining casino industry.
Thank
You,
Jim
Rubens
Chair,
GSCAEG
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
