Meetings & Information




*****************************
****************************************************
MUST READ:
GET THE FACTS!






Showing posts with label declining home values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label declining home values. Show all posts

Friday, July 4, 2014

Architectural Gimmicks Can’t Make Casinos Safe Economic Bets



Architectural Gimmicks Can’t Make Casinos Safe Economic Bets

An example of the Skyspire proposed for a new Philadelphia casino. (Photo: usthrillrides.com)
Despite evidence that casinos are not generators of urban economic growth and that the northeastern U.S. is nearing gaming oversaturation, Philadelphia continues to look forward to its second state-approved casino license. Deputy Mayor Alan Greenberger recently told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the city hoped for a decision from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board by summer’s end.


Recent weeks have seen a couple new developments. One bidder put forward a proposal for an off-brand Space Needle as part of their proposed complex. Philadelphians needn't worry about appearing hopelessly provincial ” it'll be 10 feet taller than its Seattle counterpart! (The derivative embarrassment would grow greater in 2015, when, across the Delaware River, Camden hopes to open a Space Needle knockoff amid its menagerie of riverfront boondoggles.)

Last week, the field narrowed when Penn National Gaming dropped out, leaving four contenders. The company president's press release didn't just contain the usual pablum. He also highlighted two of the big questions haunting the licensing process. Should Philadelphia's second casino be housed in one of the less happening stretches of Center City in hopes of revitalization? (Penn National's plans were for a South Philadelphia site near the city's stadiums.) Should Philadelphia even be getting a second casino at all?

A contributing factor in our decision to withdraw our proposal was the City of Philadelphia's vocal support for a Center City casino location,” wrote the retreating head of the company, Timothy J. Wilmott. In a September hearing before the Gaming Control Board, Greenberger rated the various entrants based on criteria including job creation, revenues generation and the possibility of economic development in the surrounding area. But the evidence for casinos as a form of urban revitalization is unclear. The literature tends to be, at best, descriptive or anecdotal, wrote Alan Mallach, in a 2010 survey of the literature on the economic effects of casinos for the Philadelphia Federal Reserve.

The chief anecdote among industry opponents is Atlantic City's perennial decrepitude” often cited as evidence that casinos cannot buoy a city's future. But A.C. is an exceptional case due to its decades-long monopoly of the mid-Atlantic market. Gaming's presence certainly buoyed South Jersey with tens of thousands of good, unionized working-class jobs, but the host city did not fare so well. Windowless casinos seemed to almost foster the surrounding city's dismal conditions. Dozens of local small businesses closed. But a single casino, even in a less than bustling part of downtown Philadelphia, would not have a comparably deadening presence. (One bidder's project even sports windows.) Even considering the industry’s tacit acceptance of Atlantic City's decline, it's hard to argue that it isn't better off than comparably-sized Chester, Pennsylvania” now home to its own lone casino.

Casinos are economic drivers in the sense that they provide a lot of jobs and tax revenue to the governmental entities that sponsor them, said Greenberger in March 2013. I haven't seen them generate local economic development. Yet. The city hopes that a casino might breathe some life into Center City's unevenly developed North Broad Street or sometimes seedy Market East. But even if Atlantic City's shabby example isn't the necessary outcome, there also isn't any evidence that a downtown casino will revitalize its surroundings.



A Casino-Free Philadelphia supporter at a Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board hearing (AP Photo/Jason Minick)

The casino industry often promises Las Vegas-style casinos to potential hosts, not so subtly hinting that they will soon be engulfed by cash-strewing out-of-towners. But Sin City is an even greater exception than Atlantic City: Its crush of casinos and entertainment attracts a lively trade in destination gambling in addition to conventions and non-gaming tourism. It is a destination that draws in out-of-state money that would not otherwise be spent in Nevada.

The Center City locations offer the potential to attract new customers to the gaming industry, in part from the nearby convention and visitor activities, Mayor Michael Nutter's press secretary, Mark McDonald, told me in an email. From the experiences of SugarHouse, we have not seen a drop in business for restaurants and other entertainment venues. Philadelphia is a big city with a large customer base and discretionary entertainment budget.

Philadelphia is far larger than most other localities that have experimented with urban casinos, but Mallach's survey includes reasons for skepticism. In contrast to Atlantic City and Las Vegas, most of the regions he reviews didn't attract much tourist trade. Detroit is the only urban area remotely comparable to Philadelphia in his work: 80 percent of its customers came from the city's metro region. The Las Vegas model cannot be replicated by big hotels, concert halls and tacky homages to other city's landmarks. Other casinos can only aspire to Las Vegas style: The real thing dominates America's destination gambling trade.

And if you aren't a destination for those outside your region?

If you aren't bringing in money from the outside you are really exporting money to casino owners and the state capitol, says Paul Boni, a Philadelphia attorney and board member of the national advocacy group Stop Predatory Gambling. It damages the local economy rather than helping it. There's no evidence that people are going to have a nice dinner afterwards or go see a show. Local convenience gamblers, not to mention problem gamblers, that's not the purpose of their visiting the casino. They aren't interested.

A recent report by the National Association of Realtors piles on the bad news. Home values are often negatively affected by the presence of a nearby casino, and the authors are not sanguine about the economic benefits of city casinos. “Indian casinos in very rural areas are frequently cited as generating significant local economic benefits, largely due to the depressed nature of the local economy, they write. This has not generally been the case for urban casinos.

Wilmotta's other parting barb jabs at another unresolved problem.

The market potential in Philadelphia is less today than when we first applied, as a result of the ongoing gaming saturation in the mid-Atlantic region, as well as continued softness in the economy,  he concludes. Twenty-six new casinos have opened across the northeastern region since 2004 and analysts believe the market is close to saturated.

Philadelphia's first casino, SugarHouse, is using catastrophic language to forestall the competition.

We cannot survive this, their general manager told the Gaming Board in January. The second Philadelphia license should be issued to no one. Because this action right now will decimate the southeastern PA casino industry.

In reality, the second casino will probably turn a profit and SugarHouse will stay afloat, although it will be surprising if either is remarkably successful. As the NAR report notes, Casinos that are close to each other tend to split the available business, reducing profitability.

Beyond moderate profits and tax revenues, Philadelphia's next casino” be it an architectural gimmick or a pseudo-Parisian integrated urban entertainment” complex ” will probably be a disappointment as a vehicle for urban revitalization, local economic growth or good jobs (those are already being lost in Atlantic City). That hardly seems worth the risk of gaming.

The Equity Factor is made possible with the support of the Surdna Foundation.


http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/casinos-make-money-philadelphia-space-needle-provence

 

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Foxwoods Desperate For Massachusetts $$$




‘Connecticut is losing gaming revenue at a pretty rapid pace,’’ said Keith Foley, an analyst at Moody’s Investor Service. ‘‘The Connecticut trends have not been so good for the Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods.’’ Mary Johnson, president of the United Auto Workers local that represents workers at Foxwoods, said the union and Foxwoods are locked in a contract dispute over wages and other issue, with Foxwoods ‘‘crying poverty.’’ She said she was surprised the casino is seeking to expand.

‘‘It just didn’t make sense, with layoffs at work,’’ she said.

Foxwoods Seeks Financial Win With Mass. Casino

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut’s Foxwoods Resort Casino faces daunting hurdles as it joins a crowded race for the lucrative destination resort business in Massachusetts.

It’s been grappling with falling revenue and significant debt at its eastern Connecticut site and now must face down organized local opposition and strong competition in Massachusetts as it tries to expand in southern New England.

The operators of the biggest casino in North America are proposing a $1 billion, 300,000-square foot resort off I-495 in Milford, Mass., about 40 miles southwest of Boston. Plans call for about 4,725 slot machines, 125 table games, 350 hotel rooms, restaurants and other attractions.

Foxwoods can expect a barrage of questions from Milford officials and residents who are skeptical about its finances and the huge impact it would have on traffic, water and sewer systems and police and fire services.

Like the Mohegan Sun, its Connecticut neighbor that also wants to branch out in Massachusetts, Foxwoods is pressed by stiff competition in the Northeast and is seeking new markets and more revenue.

“That’s exactly what we’re trying to do,” Foxwoods Chief Executive Scott Butera said. “We have a strong customer base in that area.”

Revenue at Foxwoods, run by the Mashantucket Indian tribe, was $6.57 billion from May 2012 to April 2013, down 12 percent for the year. Revenue fell each month.

“Connecticut is losing gaming revenue at a pretty rapid pace,” said Keith Foley, an analyst at Moody’s Investor Service. “The Connecticut trends have not been so good for the Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods.”

Foxwoods also is wrapping up a deal with creditors that Foley said will reduce its debt from $2.27 billion to $1.74 billion. That’s still high relative to Foxwoods’ earnings before interest, taxes and other costs, he said.

And tribal payments to the casino’s owners, the Mashantucket Pequots, have stopped, a food pantry has opened and counselors are giving tribal members job-hunting advice.

Foxwoods must overcome organized local opposition and win voter approval in Milford, which would then compete against Everett and the Suffolk Downs thoroughbred racetrack in East Boston for a state license for eastern Massachusetts.

Everett is far ahead in the process, announcing in April a local host agreement with Las Vegas casino operator Steve Wynn. A referendum is scheduled for June 22.

And Suffolk Downs has high-profile political backing from Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.

Foxwoods has little choice but to jump into the Massachusetts market because many customers at the two Connecticut casinos are from Massachusetts, Foley said. By adding a Massachusetts casino, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun also would avoid ceding business to competitors.

“Like a lot of companies, you want to participate, you want to at least hedge what your losses might be,” Foley said.

Mary Johnson, president of the United Auto Workers local that represents workers at Foxwoods, said the union and Foxwoods are locked in a contract dispute over wages and other issue, with Foxwoods “crying poverty.” She said she was surprised the casino is seeking to expand.

“It just didn’t make sense, with layoffs at work,” she said.

Foxwoods cut 50 table-game dealers in severance packages this year and said other jobs will be cut.
Still, Johnson said she understands why Foxwoods is looking to broaden its base in southern New England. “It was just a little shocking,” she said.

Valerie Red-Horse, an investment banker and financial adviser familiar with Indian casinos, said Foxwoods could benefit from the improving economy that has loosened credit leading to a rise in construction and fattened investment in strengthening stock markets.

“Everything has leveled off and rebalanced,” she said.

Beyond a casino backer’s balance sheet and investment partners, Red-Horse said states and municipalities need to look at how experienced prospective casino operators are.

“Management is No. 1,” she said.

Butera said that’s Foxwoods’ strength.

“We have a very good business in all of New England,” he said. “This is our way of bringing our brand to an area we know very well.”

William Buckley, chairman of Milford’s Board of Selectmen, said town and state officials will scrutinize Foxwoods’ finances when the casino is expected to present details June 3.

“We need to know who we’re dealing with. We need to know if they have the financial wherewithal,” he said.

The town and an organized opposition have a long list of questions and concerns: Whether a project of such size would overburden Milford’s water and sewer systems, public schools and housing, if the casino would bring crime that would tax the town’s police force, if home values would fall and if new casino businesses would undermine local stores.

“It would be a net negative for the town of Milford, not that there wouldn’t be positives,” said John Seaver, a leader of Casino-Free Milford, an opposition group.

The one benefit of a casino would be more jobs, he said, though most would be low-wage.

Butera said Foxwoods is on sound financial footing to take on the huge undertaking of building a destination resort.

“We wouldn’t be doing this unless we thought it was a good opportunity for our brand and our company,” he said.


http://www.wbur.org/2013/05/19/foxwoods-mass-casino

Boston Globe
 

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Lost Home Values

One of the many hidden costs of Predatory Gambling is the decline in real estate values that will be passed on to taxpayers. No one wants a Slot Barn for a neighbor.





TheGambling Consultant didn't get it right on loss of property values:

Here's the data cited by TJ Keen in his question that stated based on property value impact of casinos in our trading area, Plainville property values could be negative...ly affected between 10-20% which means a direct hit to Plainville resident's wealth to the tune of approx. $30,000 and $60,000. This was based on the following facts:

1) A report by Spectrum Gaming which Mr. Cummings stated was well known / respected in the industry:

GAMBLING IN CONNECTICUT:
Analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts
Prepared for the State of Connecticut, Division of Special Revenue M. Jodi Rell, Governor Michael Fedele, Lieutenant Governor June 22, 2009

Page 225: North Stongton: During the revaluation in 2000, the value of residential homes along the highway was reduced by more than 10 percent.

 Page 229: Preston, CT: During the 2000 revaluation, the value of residential homes along the highway was reduced by more than 10 percent

2) A report written by the Preston, CT Board of Selectmen

The impact traffic increase has had on home values in Preston is dramatic. A recent revaluation of properties in Preston as shown home values for properties within a quarter mile of a state road are as much as (20 %) twenty percent lower than a similar home that is not close to the traffic of the casino. The financial impact for Preston homeowners is approximately $6,000,000.00.

- Source:Casino Related Impacts on Preston, CT; prepared by: Preston Board of Selectman; Robert Congdon, First Selectman; Gerald Grabarek, Selectman; Thomas Maurer, Selectman: December 18, 2001. (page 7)

3) Median home sale price for Plainville in 2012:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/best-places-to-live-2013-single-family-homes/#.UTZ9HaX-egF


http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/plainville-hires-gambling-consultant/article_b007b1db-ef62-5388-bcfc-802d3a9cdf87.html
 

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Ignoring the Consequences



Little attention has been paid to the activities at Plainridge and the failure of Plainville Town Officials to select independent experts to protect Plainville's future.
 


You might find the information below significant.

The future expansion of a Slot Barn has been discussed at the Gam[bl]ing Commission meetings.


These were posted:
Plainridge: In your backyard?
Phew! Plainridge and Pickles!


NOTICE OF MORE BLASTING!


As abutters, we've just received notice that Plainridge will resume blasting on February 25th, and continue blasting for three weeks. Of course, they have not kept their word on the length of blasting in the past, so I won't bother to believe what's written on the notice this time.

As someone who attended all of the Planning Board meetings regarding this project, I was not made aware of the fact that there would be so much blasting involved, all with absolutely no mitigation to the neighbors for noise and inconvenience. I shudder to think of what we'll be forced to endure when the next phase of the building commences.

Perhaps, had Plainridge not built its garage as close as they could to their neighbors, we wouldn't mind so much.

But some neighbors have it worse than others.

Some neighbors find themselves in possession of a "Mutual Non-Interference Agreement" signed by Francis Daddario and GTWO, the former owners of the land on which Shepardville Woods and Plainridge are now built. The “Agreement” says that Daddario and GTWO agreed, “not to object to any such future development plans of the other by any of the following means: oral or written opposition to governmental permits, approvals, and or rezoning, at or connection with hearings, town meetings, administrative proceedings and/or administrative or judicial appeals.” They also wrote that this agreement between these two developers would apply to anyone who owns the properties in the future.

One could imagine that the residents of Shepardville Woods might fear that, under the "Agreement," they can't speak out against anything happening at Plainridge, no matter how loud or intrusive. They might feel they can't speak against Plainridge at Planning Board meetings, Town Meetings, or to make a complaint to the Board of Health about how the noise of the blasting and construction adversely affects their family members, for instance.

Surely, Plainridge wouldn't want its neighbors to live in that kind of fear from this document. Surely, the powers that be would agree that the "Agreement" was made between businessmen, and shouldn't apply to individual homeowners who settled on the land.

The right and proper thing for Plainridge to do would be to tear up this fourteen-year-old "Agreement" and notify their neighbors that there will be no repercussions should any of them exercise their First Amendment rights and their responsibility as citizens of Plainville.

In the meantime, let the blasting begin. Again.

Mary-Ann Greanier
Plainville, MA 02762


JPGs of the 3 pages of the "Non-Interference Agreement":












From: Mary-Ann Greanier
Subject: BLASTING TO RESUME AT PLAINRIDGE
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013

BLASTING TO RESUME AT PLAINRIDGE

Abutters to Plainridge have just received notice that Plainridge will resume blasting on February 25th, and will continue blasting for three weeks. Of course, they have not kept their word on the length of blasting in the past, so we won't bother to believe what's written on the notice this time.

Those who attended all of the Planning Board meetings regarding this project were not made aware of the fact that there would be so much blasting involved, all with absolutely no mitigation to the neighbors for noise and inconvenience. We shudder to think of what they'll be forced to endure when the next phase of the building commences.



"In gambling, the many must lose so that the few may win." - George Bernard Shaw



Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Plainridge: Intimidation is Their Tactic

It must be Mr. Piontkowski's hair that dazzles and blinds and prevents otherwise thoughtful folks from asking reasonable questions and fulfilling their responsibilities to the future of their community.

Hopefully, these property owners have filed for abatements, maybe even filing with the ATB because if you think your property is worth something with blasting in your backyard.....well, just maybe you should think again....or take a look at communities that have been subjected to Slot Barns.




As abutters, we've just received notice that Plainridge will resume blasting on February 25th, and continue blasting for three weeks. Of course, they have not kept their word on the length of blasting in the past, so I won't bother to believe what's written on the notice this time.

As someone who attended all of the Planning Board meetings regarding this project, I was not made aware of the fact that there would be so much blasting involved, all with absolutely no mitigation to the neighbors for noise and inconvenience. I shudder to think of what we'll be forced to endure when the next phase of the building commences.

Perhaps, had Plainridge not built its garage as close as they could to their neighbors, we wouldn't mind so much.

But some neighbors have it worse than others.

Some neighbors find themselves in possession of a "Mutual Non-Interference Agreement" signed by Francis Daddario and GTWO, the former owners of the land on which Shepardville Woods and Plainridge are now built. The “Agreement” says that Daddario and GTWO agreed, “not to object to any such future development plans of the other by any of the following means: oral or written opposition to governmental permits, approvals, and or rezoning, at or connection with hearings, town meetings, administrative proceedings and/or administrative or judicial appeals.” They also wrote that this agreement between these two developers would apply to anyone who owns the properties in the future.

One could imagine that the residents of Shepardville Woods might fear that, under the "Agreement," they can't speak out against anything happening at Plainridge, no matter how loud or intrusive. They might feel they can't speak against Plainridge at Planning Board meetings, Town Meetings, or to make a complaint to the Board of Health about how the noise of the blasting and construction adversely affects their family members, for instance.

Surely, Plainridge wouldn't want its neighbors to live in that kind of fear from this document. Surely, the powers that be would agree that the "Agreement" was made between businessmen, and shouldn't apply to individual homeowners who settled on the land.

The right and proper thing for Plainridge to do would be to tear up this fourteen-year-old "Agreement" and notify their neighbors that there will be no repercussions should any of them exercise their First Amendment rights and their responsibility as citizens of Plainville.

In the meantime, let the blasting begin. Again.

Mary-Ann Greanier
19 Mirimichi Street
Plainville, MA 02762

508.695.2794 phone
508.369.1787 mobile


JPGs of the 3 pages of the "Non-Interference Agreement":








Sunday, May 20, 2012

This didn't just happen....

When the wealthy 1% suck discretionary income out of the economy promoting the Folly of Predatory Gambling, this is the result.

This didn't just happen with the current Administration.