Senator Jamie Eldridge shared a link.

Worst casino fears coming to fruition - 

CommonWealth Magazine

IT DIDN’T TAKE LONG for the powerful casino industry to muscle its way into…

COMMONWEALTHMAGAZINE.ORG

• 
  

  

  
  

  Jamie Eldridge

  The new law that allows casinos to serve alcohol until 4 a.m. is a troubling example of the influence that corporate special interests wield on Beacon Hill. Concerned residents need to be more aware, and wary, of the next demands that are made from elected officials as the casinos in Everett and Springfield come closer to opening.

  
  

Worst casino fears coming to fruition

• Jamie Eldridge
 
•  1 day ago
 
•  Categories:Gambling
 
•  Tags:Casinos

IT DIDN’T TAKE LONG for the powerful casino industry to muscle its way into Massachusetts politics. Beginning in the early 2000s, corporate lobbyists began giving unprecedented amounts of money to elected officials on Beacon Hill to convince them to support expanded gambling. By 2009, leadership in the House, Senate, and the corner office all supported legalized casino gambling in Massachusetts. Back then, opponents of expanded gambling emphasized that casinos would hurt local communities and snatch customers away from small businesses. We also warned that powerful corporate interests would begin clawing away at the limited legal protections put in place for Massachusetts residents in the casino law.

Now, our worst fears about casinos are coming to fruition. The Wynn Casino hasn’t even opened, and yet it already managed to sneak a provision into the fiscal 2018 House budget that would allow casinos to serve alcohol until 4 a.m. This provision became law when Gov. Charlie Baker failed to veto it by the end of July.

This exemption from our state’s alcohol laws is a danger to public safety and gives casinos an unfair advantage over local bars and restaurants. As opponents have argued for nearly a decade, casinos can have devastating impacts on the health and success of local economies.

When casinos arrive, existing businesses suffer. Local businesses see fewer profits and greater personnel costs as the result of increased drug and alcohol problems among employees after the introduction of gambling. Moreover, because of these costs, new businesses generally do not relocate to areas that already have casinos. In Atlantic City, the number of restaurants dropped from 311 to 66 in the 19 years following the introduction of casinos.

Casinos are especially dangerous to local communities because they differ from other forms of entertainment. Unlike sports stadiums or concert venues, casinos are designed to meet the customer’s every need. Casino patrons can access restaurants, shopping centers, lodging, and entertainment within the casino complex. This means that local businesses will not receive an increase in business from the traffic brought in by casinos. In fact, residents might relinquish local goods and services in favor of gambling. As more Massachusetts families spend money at casinos, less money will flow to small businesses, non-profits, municipal governments, and the arts.

Several studies have suggested that legalized gambling hurts the state lottery. A decrease in demand for the lottery could have a negative impact on small business owners. The lottery brings people into small, family-run convenience stores where they also make other purchases. When casinos intervene, this money is instead funneled to big corporations, almost entirely out of state.

Meet the Author

Jamie Eldridge

Senator from Acton, Massachusetts Senate

E-mail

Bio » Latest Stories »

The new law that allows casinos to serve alcohol until 4 a.m. is a troubling example of the influence that corporate special interests wield on Beacon Hill. Concerned residents need to be more aware, and wary, of the next demands that are made from elected officials as the casinos in Everett and Springfield come closer to opening.

Jamie Eldridge is a state senator from Acton.

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/gambling/worst-casino-fears-coming-fruition/amp/

Beacon Hill genuflects to more Drunks on the Road

Beacon Hill Genuflects to More Drunks on the road

Beacon Hill Prostitution disregards PUBLIC SAFETY!

No debate, no fanfare, no discussion! Just slip it in?

What happened to  Senator Stanley Rosenberg opposition?

Review the costs of:  HAPPY HOUR

FROM MASSterlist:

Casinos’ last-call perk has its share of critics

Public safety officials and casino opponents are among those sounding warnings after the state budget process resulted in the state’s future casinos being able to request the right to serve alcohol until 4 a.m., then start serving again at 8 a.m. Local bars and restaurants say the carve-out puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Dan Atkinson and Jordan Graham of the Herald have more.   Boston Herald

Interesting budget tidbits: 4 a.m. liquor hours for casinos and T pension transfer

Gov. Baker yesterday signed, amended or rejected a number of policy riders within the state budget, two of which caught our attention, via the Globe: “Baker approved language, sought by the casino industry, to extend alcohol service at the gambling palaces until 4 a.m., two hours past what is permitted at the latest-serving restaurants and bars. Baker’s budget message also includes authorization for the state to transfer control of the MBTA employees pension fund into the state’s general pension program, a measure lawmakers have rejected previously.” MASSACHUSETTS DRUNKS ON THE ROAD? Conn. ended push for 24-hour bars at casinos after crash EXPANDED FREE ALCOHOL IS NOT  ''another little change'!  Massachusetts has only Plainridge Slot Barn open at this time and already CHANGES? How many DRUNKS do you want on the road?  Masachusetts is unable to reduce ALCOHOL RELATED fatalities now.  Reported by MASSterlist 04/14/2017: Rosenberg ‘not a fan’ of extending casino last calls to 4 a.m. The House budget unveiled earlier this week has an outside section that would allow casinos to sell liquor to gamblers an extra two hours till 4 a.m. But Shira Schoenberg at MassLive reports that Senate President Stan Rosenberg is “not a fan of the idea,” in his words. "We said we're not going to chip away at the statute because this is how it happens in state after state,"Rosenberg said. "First there's one little change, then another little change and before you know it the commonwealth loses control of the industry." MassLive Conn. ended push for 24-hour bars at casinos after crash State had hoped to collect more slot machine profits DRIVER CHARGED A sailor, Daniel E. Musser, 24, is charged with manslaughter and driving under the influence and faces up to 19 years in prison. By Gregory B. Hladky Globe Correspondent / March 22, 2009 HARTFORD - Officials looking to help solve Connecticut's multibillion-dollar deficit thought they had found an easy way to raise another $5 million a year: allow casinos to serve alcohol 24 hours a day. A sailor, Daniel E. Musser, 24, is charged with manslaughter and driving under the influence and faces up to 19 years in prison. DRIVER CHARGED More hours of bar service would mean more gambling, they figured, which would mean the state could collect more slot machine profits. But the proposal by Governor M. Jodi Rell's administration came to a sudden end at about 3:30 a.m. on March 7, when a car leaving the Mohegan Sun casino turned the wrong way down Interstate 395, headlights off, and slammed into a van full of college students on their way to Logan International Airport. They were scheduled for a flight to Uganda, where they had plans to help out at an orphan age over spring break. Elizabeth Durante, a 20-year-old pre-med student at Connecticut College in New London, was killed. The car's driver, Daniel E. Musser, 24, a sailor from the Naval Submarine Base in Groton, was charged with manslaughter and driving under the influence and faces up to 19 years in prison. The next day, Rell called Durante's death "an unconscionable tragedy" and pulled back her budget proposal to make alcohol available 24 hours at the casinos. "Even though this accident occurred under the laws as they have been for many years, the governor said it does give one pause to question the wisdom of extending liquor service hours at the casinos," Christopher Cooper, Rell spokesman, said recently. "We don't believe the bill is going to move forward this session." Chuck Bunnell, chief of staff for the Mohegan Tribal Council, agreed. "The Tribal Council in general has taken the position that it's time to pause and mourn the loss of this very bright light of humanity," Bunnell said, "that it's not appropriate to have those discussions right now." Bunnell said the tribe was originally "approached on a bipartisan basis" by lawmakers looking for ways to increase state revenue. Lori A. Potter, a spokeswoman for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, said analysts at the tribe's Foxwoods Resort Casino stand by their prediction that extending casino bar hours would result in an increase in state revenue. "It is important to note that it would be impossible to find a more heavily regulated serving establishment in the state of Connecticut than the two casinos," Potter said. Connecticut law requires the casinos' bars to stop serving by 1 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and by 2 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays. One of the arguments originally used in favor of allowing longer serving hours was that their competitors in Atlantic City serve alcohol 24 hours a day. Legal hours for bars to serve alcohol vary greatly across the United States, according to Steven Schmidt, vice president for public policy at the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association. In Massachusetts, for example, state law allows service until 11 p.m., but local governing bodies can extend the hours to 2 a.m. In states such as New Jersey and Nevada, Schmidt said, local authorities are allowed to set bar closing hours. Charles H. Gartman, one of the students with Durante in the van that night, has difficulty understanding why anyone thought round-the-clock liquor at the casinos was a good idea. "Twenty-four-hour bar service is a little bit ridiculous," Gartman said last week in a phone interview from his New York City home. "You can't trust everyone to drink and drive safely." Gartman, 19 and a sophomore at Connecticut College, has not yet recovered from injuries he suffered in the crash. The five other passengers also suffered injuries, some minor. "Both my legs were pretty banged up, and at first I couldn't walk," he said. "I have pretty severe lacerations on my chin." Nor has he recovered from the loss of Durante, of West Islip, N.Y. Gartman said it was Durante who got him interested in going to Uganda to aid orphaned children. "It was her enthusiasm for helping people," he recalled. Stephanie Hinman, who was Durante's roommate and one of the students on the Uganda trip, finds it ironic that her friend would die at the hands of an accused drunk driver. "Neither Liz nor I ever drank," Hinman said from her home in Norfolk, Conn. "We lived together in the substance-free dorm." In a 2007 interview with a college publication, Durante said she wanted to become a surgeon and work in Africa with Doctors Without Borders. For Janice Heggie Margolis, executive director of the Connecticut chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Durante's death provided tragic evidence of why casino liquor hours should never be expanded. She said the potential price to society of more fatal crashes is simply too high, no matter how much money might flow to the state. "This is exactly the reason why," Heggie Margolis said. "You can never put on paper the cost of a life." http://archive.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2009/03/22/conn_ended_push_for_24_hour_bars_at_casinos_after_crash/

MASSACHUSETTS DRUNKS ON THE ROAD? Conn. ended push for 24-hour bars at casinos after crash

EXPANDED FREE ALCOHOL IS NOT  ''another little change'! 
Massachusetts has only Plainridge Slot Barn open at this time and already CHANGES?


How many DRUNKS do you want on the road? 
Masachusetts is unable to reduce ALCOHOL RELATED fatalities now. 




Reported by MASSterlist 04/14/2017:

Rosenberg ‘not a fan’ of extending casino last calls to 4 a.m.

The House budget unveiled earlier this week has an outside section that would allow casinos to sell liquor to gamblers an extra two hours till 4 a.m. But Shira Schoenberg at MassLive reports that Senate President Stan Rosenberg is “not a fan of the idea,” in his words. "We said we're not going to chip away at the statute because this is how it happens in state after state," Rosenberg said. "First there's one little change, then another little change and before you know it the commonwealth loses control of the industry." MassLive

Conn. ended push for 24-hour bars at casinos after crash

State had hoped to collect more slot machine profits

DRIVER CHARGED A sailor, Daniel E. Musser, 24, is charged with manslaughter and driving under the influence and faces up to 19 years in prison.

By Gregory B. Hladky

Globe Correspondent / March 22, 2009

HARTFORD - Officials looking to help solve Connecticut's multibillion-dollar deficit thought they had found an easy way to raise another $5 million a year: allow casinos to serve alcohol 24 hours a day.

A sailor, Daniel E. Musser, 24, is charged with manslaughter and driving under the influence and faces up to 19 years in prison.

DRIVER CHARGED

More hours of bar service would mean more gambling, they figured, which would mean the state could collect more slot machine profits.

But the proposal by Governor M. Jodi Rell's administration came to a sudden end at about 3:30 a.m. on March 7, when a car leaving the Mohegan Sun casino turned the wrong way down Interstate 395, headlights off, and slammed into a van full of college students on their way to Logan International Airport. They were scheduled for a flight to Uganda, where they had plans to help out at an orphan age over spring break.

Elizabeth Durante, a 20-year-old pre-med student at Connecticut College in New London, was killed.

The car's driver, Daniel E. Musser, 24, a sailor from the Naval Submarine Base in Groton, was charged with manslaughter and driving under the influence and faces up to 19 years in prison.

The next day, Rell called Durante's death "an unconscionable tragedy" and pulled back her budget proposal to make alcohol available 24 hours at the casinos.

"Even though this accident occurred under the laws as they have been for many years, the governor said it does give one pause to question the wisdom of extending liquor service hours at the casinos," Christopher Cooper, Rell spokesman, said recently. "We don't believe the bill is going to move forward this session."

Chuck Bunnell, chief of staff for the Mohegan Tribal Council, agreed.

"The Tribal Council in general has taken the position that it's time to pause and mourn the loss of this very bright light of humanity," Bunnell said, "that it's not appropriate to have those discussions right now."

Bunnell said the tribe was originally "approached on a bipartisan basis" by lawmakers looking for ways to increase state revenue.

Lori A. Potter, a spokeswoman for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, said analysts at the tribe's Foxwoods Resort Casino stand by their prediction that extending casino bar hours would result in an increase in state revenue.

"It is important to note that it would be impossible to find a more heavily regulated serving establishment in the state of Connecticut than the two casinos," Potter said.

Connecticut law requires the casinos' bars to stop serving by 1 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and by 2 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays. One of the arguments originally used in favor of allowing longer serving hours was that their competitors in Atlantic City serve alcohol 24 hours a day.

Legal hours for bars to serve alcohol vary greatly across the United States, according to Steven Schmidt, vice president for public policy at the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association.

In Massachusetts, for example, state law allows service until 11 p.m., but local governing bodies can extend the hours to 2 a.m. In states such as New Jersey and Nevada, Schmidt said, local authorities are allowed to set bar closing hours.

Charles H. Gartman, one of the students with Durante in the van that night, has difficulty understanding why anyone thought round-the-clock liquor at the casinos was a good idea.

"Twenty-four-hour bar service is a little bit ridiculous," Gartman said last week in a phone interview from his New York City home. "You can't trust everyone to drink and drive safely."

Gartman, 19 and a sophomore at Connecticut College, has not yet recovered from injuries he suffered in the crash.

The five other passengers also suffered injuries, some minor.

"Both my legs were pretty banged up, and at first I couldn't walk," he said. "I have pretty severe lacerations on my chin."

Nor has he recovered from the loss of Durante, of West Islip, N.Y. Gartman said it was Durante who got him interested in going to Uganda to aid orphaned children. "It was her enthusiasm for helping people," he recalled.

Stephanie Hinman, who was Durante's roommate and one of the students on the Uganda trip, finds it ironic that her friend would die at the hands of an accused drunk driver.

"Neither Liz nor I ever drank," Hinman said from her home in Norfolk, Conn.

"We lived together in the substance-free dorm."

In a 2007 interview with a college publication, Durante said she wanted to become a surgeon and work in Africa with Doctors Without Borders.

For Janice Heggie Margolis, executive director of the Connecticut chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Durante's death provided tragic evidence of why casino liquor hours should never be expanded.

She said the potential price to society of more fatal crashes is simply too high, no matter how much money might flow to the state. "This is exactly the reason why," Heggie Margolis said.

"You can never put on paper the cost of a life."

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2009/03/22/conn_ended_push_for_24_hour_bars_at_casinos_after_crash/

Pennsylvania: 24 Hours Alcohol? Huh? Budget shortfall opens door for more gambling and more failed fiscal policy

Budget shortfall opens door for more gambling

A gambler plays a slot machine at the Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem. A raft of new options could put casino-like gambling in towns across the state were introduced this week, including slot machines at satellite locations. (Emily Robson, MORNING CALL FILE PHOTO)

With Pennsylvania facing a $2.3 billion budget shortfall, some legislators think they have a proven method to help close it: more gambling.

That is, except one. Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem President Mark Juliano was the lone casino executive to denounce most of the proposed expansion, arguing it would only cannibalize the $3 billion-a-year industry the state has built with its 12 casinos.

The new proposals, if adopted, would represent a massive expansion of the state's gambling laws. One bill introduced Wednesday in the Senate would allow existing casinos, for onetime licensing fees of up to $10 million, to offer Internet gambling, open satellite locations with 250 slot machines and place slot machines at off-track betting facilities.

A separate bill in the House would make almost any tavern or restaurant with a liquor license eligible for up to five video gaming terminals, potentially putting slot-machine-like gambling in hundreds of locations statewide.

Another proposal would allow slot machines at international airports, including Lehigh Valley International.

All of it would be a mistake, Juliano testified this week before the Senate Committee on Community, Economic and Recreational Development.

"Today, proposals are being considered which will erode the successful progress we have made in Pennsylvania," Juliano said. "Approving Internet gambling, slots at OTB's and VGT's will only hurt the business that many in Harrisburg say they want to help."

But Juliano was largely alone in condemning most of the new gambling options. Though none of the casino executives wants video gambling in taverns, most supported Internet gambling statewide so long as the tax rate is low and it's controlled by existing casino operators. Some of the horse racing casinos also supported placing slot machines at off-track betting facilities.

"Penn National firmly believes that I-gaming is a vital tool to enable Pennsylvania's gaming industry to continue to evolve and protect what has been built here," said Eric Shippers Sr., an executive with Penn National Gaming Inc., which runs the Hollywood Casino in Grantville, Dauphin County. "The advent of intense competition in every direction, however, necessitates that the commonwealth and the industry do things differently."

Every casino, including the Sands, agreed on a few proposed concepts. They all want the ability to serve alcohol 24 hours a day, eliminating the current restriction that stops the flow between 2 and 7 a.m. And they agreed that tax credits should be offered to casinos willing to invest in development, such as a hotel, that would help draw patrons from out of state.

The flurry of new gambling proposals comes as legislators spar with Gov. Tom Wolf over his $33.8 billion budget that relies heavily on new or higher taxes on everything from cigarettes to personal income. Many of the gambling proposals have been rejected before but are back again because legislators see them as preferable to raising taxes.

The Senate bill would offer casinos a menu of new options they'd have to pay hefty licensing fees to get. For $5 million, they could serve alcohol non-stop. Another $5 million would enable some to place 250 slot machines in off-track betting facilities, and they'd even get a chance to open satellite slot facilities within 20 miles of their casinos. As many as two additional satellites could include 250 slot machines each, provided the casino pays a $5 million fee for each new facility.

For $10 million, casinos would be licensed to operate online gambling, in which state residents would play online through a casino website, so long as they initially registered their new account at the casino. The state would not only get all the licensing fees, but it would then be able to tax all the gambling created by the new offerings.

While options such as unending alcohol service are attractive to casinos, there's a real question about whether casinos are willing to pay those fees.

"Definitely, 24-hour alcohol service would be an enhancement for us," said Mike Bean, CEO at Mohegan Sun at Pocono Downs, near Wilkes-Barre. "But I'm not sure we'd be willing to pay a $5 million fee for it."

A separate House bill would allow taverns and restaurants with liquor licenses to buy an additional license to operate up to five video gaming terminals, which are not slot machines but offer similar gambling games.

Muhlenberg College political science professor Chris Borick said there's probably never been a better time to trot out a concept that failed before.

"The need for revenue is a powerful force," Borick said. "When the money is short, the move toward more gambling becomes much more likely."

Borick added that, in Harrisburg, it usually takes more than one viewing for a proposal to gain support. Internet gambling, for example, got little traction last year but appears to be picking up momentum now. However, video gaming terminals in taverns would appear to be where Internet gambling was years ago.

It might all come down to one thing: How desperate are legislators to avoid Wolf's proposed tax increases?


http://www.mcall.com/news/mc-pa-gambling-expansion-20150611-story.html

Waking Up In Vegas

BRILLIANT!  MUST WATCH VIDEOS!

Waking Up In Vegas

Massachusetts voters...

Massachusetts voters...

Repeal The Casino Deal

Former gubernatorial candidate Don Berwick takes on the casinos, stating that Question 3 isn't a close call. Read his thorough take down of the casino industry. http://bit.ly/1v50e5s

Casinos: A Losing Bet For Massachusetts

• Mon, Oct 27, 2014
• by Donald M. Berwick

Donald M. Berwick: "We have a chance in our state to invest in a declining industry that will harm our economy, reduce property values, kill more jobs than it adds, lower incomes, injure public safety, reduce net government revenues, increase a major mental health burden and selectively harm the poor. Or, we can stop it." (Mait Jüriado/flickr)

Casinos should have no place in Massachusetts, and Ballot Question 3 is our chance to stop them. (A “yes” vote on Question 3  TWEET says “no” to casinos and repeals the law that permits them.) If you care about the state’s economy, jobs and the overall health of our state, this is not a close call.

Consider first that the casino industry is in decline. Moody’s recently downgraded the industry’s outlook from “stable” to “negative.” Six out of 12 casinos in New Jersey have filed for bankruptcy; four large casinos in Atlantic City have closed this year, and another soon will. If Massachusetts tries to rely on casino revenue, it will become a stakeholder in the gambling industry itself, tied to failing casinos. Delaware has had to spend $8 million to bail out its casinos, and Rhode Island projects losses of over $422 million in casino revenue over the next five years.

If Massachusetts tries to rely on casino revenue, it will become a stakeholder in the gambling industry itself, tied to failing casinos.

Casinos harm their local economies. In its 3,000-page review of the economic toll that casinos take on their surrounding communities, the U. S. International Gambling Report series found consensus among 40 economists regarding casinos’ net negative effect on economic development. No research study not affiliated with the industry-funded American Gaming Association has found otherwise. The Massachusetts Restaurant Association, the Boston Business Journal and the Wall Street Journal oppose casinos.

In Atlantic City, one-third of retail businesses closed within four years of casinos’ arrival in 1978, when there were 311 taverns and restaurants. Twenty years later, there were 66.

In Norwich, Connecticut, median family income fell by $20,000 per year after a casino opened nearby. Mayor Wesley Johnson of Ledyard, Connecticut, the home of Foxwoods, says, “There has been no economic development spin-off from the casino.” And a study by the Realtor Association of Pioneer Valley estimates that average home values near a Western Massachusetts casino could fall by as much as $3,300.

What of the argument that casinos create jobs? “Bogus,” according to The Boston Business Journal, which debunked the claim that Massachusetts casinos will create 20,000 jobs, “…because the diversion of billions of dollars in one sector is destined to cause job losses in other sectors.” And, most of the jobs that casinos do provide rank among the worst paying in America, according to Forbes Magazine. A full-time gaming dealer, for example, has a median annual salary of $18,480.

Slot machines generate 60 to 90 percent of casino revenue, but money dropped into slots does not stay local: It’s shipped off to headquarters to the tune of $300,000 of foregone consumer spending per year, per slot machine. Those are dollars that are drained from and not returned to the local economy.

As a result of that drainage, according to University of Illinois researchers, one job is lost per slot machine every year.

Casino proponents claim that a Massachusetts casino will prevent “leakage” of government revenues to other states. It’s true that Massachusetts residents contributed approximately $77 million in gambling money to the Connecticut treasury in 2013. But only a fraction of that would be retained in Massachusetts if casinos opened here.

In fact, revenue projections for the Massachusetts casino deal are based largely on data from Las Vegas-style destination resort casinos, which bring in almost entirely outside money. Massachusetts casinos, in contrast, will draw mostly on local dollars, not dollars from other states.

Estimates of what casinos will add to state and local government revenues are inflated. Casinos in Massachusetts will cannibalize from the state lottery, which cities and towns depend on for discretionary funds for local services such as schools, police and fire protection, parks and public works. Even if every single gambling dollar now spent in Connecticut were to revert to Massachusetts, that would not make up for even a 10 percent decrease in lottery income. The former president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has stated that cities and towns will see no new revenues as a result of casinos.

Meanwhile, state and local expenditures would increase for law enforcement and public safety, the treatment of gambling addiction and its consequences, unemployment benefits and subsidies for businesses adversely affected by casinos, and a multimillion-dollar regulatory apparatus just to keep an eye on the casinos.

Casinos hurt public safety. In Norwich, Connecticut, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) arrests doubled after Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods opened; today, nearly 25 percent of drunk driving arrests in the area involve casino patrons. One national study found that, within a few years of opening, casinos account for about 8 percent of the crimes in the counties they occupy.

 

…money dropped into slots does not stay local: It’s shipped off to headquarters to the tune of $300,000 of foregone consumer spending per year, per slot machine.

Gambling addiction doubles within 10 miles of a casino. Casinos depend on gambling addiction and problem gamblers for their business success. They use marketing science to determine how best to attract those most likely to become addicted.

An estimated 20 to 40 percent of casino revenue comes from addicts. Overall, about 90 percent of casino profits come from 10 percent of their customers.

And gambling addiction can be devastating to addicts and their families. Gambling addicts have the highest rates of suicide of any addicted population, and personal bankruptcies rise by more than 18 percent in the area around a casino. Communities of color experience higher gambling addiction rates, even after adjusting for income, and casinos disproportionately harm the poor and vulnerable.

Some argue that this decision can and should be made city-by-city, not by state policy: “If Springfield wants a casino, it is Springfield’s right to have one.” This is not a matter for pure local choice, however, because the effects are not at all localized. The drunk-driving injuries and deaths won’t be confined to Springfield; nor will be the larger Massachusetts state budget costs, the mental health burdens, the net job losses, or damage to the state’s safety net. A Massachusetts city ought to have every right to build a local swimming pool but not to add a toxic chemical to our water supply or a casino to our Commonwealth.

So, what a deal! We have a chance in our state to invest in a declining industry that will harm our economy, reduce property values, kill more jobs than it adds, lower incomes, injure public safety, reduce net government revenues, increase a major mental health burden and selectively harm the poor.

Or, we can stop it.

Donald M. Berwick, MD, is president emeritus and senior fellow at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Boston and is former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/10/27/no-to-casinos-yes-on-ballot-question-3-donald-m-berwick

 

Casinos: A Losing Bet For Massachusetts

• Mon, Oct 27, 2014
• by Donald M. Berwick

Donald M. Berwick, MD, is president emeritus and senior fellow at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Boston and is former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
learn more

Donald M. Berwick: "We have a chance in our state to invest in a declining industry that will harm our economy, reduce property values, kill more jobs than it adds, lower incomes, injure public safety, reduce net government revenues, increase a major mental health burden and selectively harm the poor. Or, we can stop it." (Mait Jüriado/flickr)


Casinos should have no place in Massachusetts, and Ballot Question 3 is our chance to stop them. (A “yes” vote on Question 3  TWEET says “no” to casinos and repeals the law that permits them.) If you care about the state’s economy, jobs and the overall health of our state, this is not a close call.

Consider first that the casino industry is in decline. Moody’s recently downgraded the industry’s outlook from “stable” to “negative.” Six out of 12 casinos in New Jersey have filed for bankruptcy; four large casinos in Atlantic City have closed this year, and another soon will.

If Massachusetts tries to rely on casino revenue, it will become a stakeholder in the gambling industry itself, tied to failing casinos. Delaware has had to spend $8 million to bail out its casinos, and Rhode Island projects losses of over $422 million in casino revenue over the next five years.

 

If Massachusetts tries to rely on casino revenue, it will become a stakeholder in the gambling industry itself, tied to failing casinos.

 

Casinos harm their local economies. In its 3,000-page review of the economic toll that casinos take on their surrounding communities, the U. S. International Gambling Report series found consensus among 40 economists regarding casinos’ net negative effect on economic development. No research study not affiliated with the industry-funded American Gaming Association has found otherwise. The Massachusetts Restaurant Association, the Boston Business Journal and the Wall Street Journal oppose casinos.

In Atlantic City, one-third of retail businesses closed within four years of casinos’ arrival in 1978, when there were 311 taverns and restaurants. Twenty years later, there were 66.

In Norwich, Connecticut, median family income fell by $20,000 per year after a casino opened nearby. Mayor Wesley Johnson of Ledyard, Connecticut, the home of Foxwoods, says, “There has been no economic development spin-off from the casino.” And a study by the Realtor Association of Pioneer Valley estimates that average home values near a Western Massachusetts casino could fall by as much as $3,300.

What of the argument that casinos create jobs? “Bogus,” according to The Boston Business Journal, which debunked the claim that Massachusetts casinos will create 20,000 jobs, “…because the diversion of billions of dollars in one sector is destined to cause job losses in other sectors.” And, most of the jobs that casinos do provide rank among the worst paying in America, according to Forbes Magazine. A full-time gaming dealer, for example, has a median annual salary of $18,480.

Slot machines generate 60 to 90 percent of casino revenue, but money dropped into slots does not stay local: It’s shipped off to headquarters to the tune of $300,000 of foregone consumer spending per year, per slot machine. Those are dollars that are drained from and not returned to the local economy. As a result of that drainage, according to University of Illinois researchers, one job is lost per slot machine every year.

Casino proponents claim that a Massachusetts casino will prevent “leakage” of government revenues to other states. It’s true that Massachusetts residents contributed approximately $77 million in gambling money to the Connecticut treasury in 2013. But only a fraction of that would be retained in Massachusetts if casinos opened here.





In fact, revenue projections for the Massachusetts casino deal are based largely on data from Las Vegas-style destination resort casinos, which bring in almost entirely outside money. Massachusetts casinos, in contrast, will draw mostly on local dollars, not dollars from other states.

Estimates of what casinos will add to state and local government revenues are inflated. Casinos in Massachusetts will cannibalize from the state lottery, which cities and towns depend on for discretionary funds for local services such as schools, police and fire protection, parks and public works. Even if every single gambling dollar now spent in Connecticut were to revert to Massachusetts, that would not make up for even a 10 percent decrease in lottery income. The former president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has stated that cities and towns will see no new revenues as a result of casinos.

Meanwhile, state and local expenditures would increase for law enforcement and public safety, the treatment of gambling addiction and its consequences, unemployment benefits and subsidies for businesses adversely affected by casinos, and a multimillion-dollar regulatory apparatus just to keep an eye on the casinos.

Casinos hurt public safety. In Norwich, Connecticut, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) arrests doubled after Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods opened; today, nearly 25 percent of drunk driving arrests in the area involve casino patrons. One national study found that, within a few years of opening, casinos account for about 8 percent of the crimes in the counties they occupy.

 

…money dropped into slots does not stay local: It’s shipped off to headquarters to the tune of $300,000 of foregone consumer spending per year, per slot machine.

Gambling addiction doubles within 10 miles of a casino. Casinos depend on gambling addiction and problem gamblers for their business success. They use marketing science to determine how best to attract those most likely to become addicted.

An estimated 20 to 40 percent of casino revenue comes from addicts. Overall, about 90 percent of casino profits come from 10 percent of their customers.

And gambling addiction can be devastating to addicts and their families. Gambling addicts have the highest rates of suicide of any addicted population, and personal bankruptcies rise by more than 18 percent in the area around a casino. Communities of color experience higher gambling addiction rates, even after adjusting for income, and casinos disproportionately harm the poor and vulnerable.

Some argue that this decision can and should be made city-by-city, not by state policy: “If Springfield wants a casino, it is Springfield’s right to have one.” This is not a matter for pure local choice, however, because the effects are not at all localized. The drunk-driving injuries and deaths won’t be confined to Springfield; nor will be the larger Massachusetts state budget costs, the mental health burdens, the net job losses, or damage to the state’s safety net. A Massachusetts city ought to have every right to build a local swimming pool but not to add a toxic chemical to our water supply or a casino to our Commonwealth.

So, what a deal! We have a chance in our state to invest in a declining industry that will harm our economy, reduce property values, kill more jobs than it adds, lower incomes, injure public safety, reduce net government revenues, increase a major mental health burden and selectively harm the poor.

Or, we can stop it.