Propaganda & Hallucinations: All Things Travel: Out-Of-State Casinos Beating Plainridge Slot Bar

One only had to consider comparisons from the AGA's [American Gaming Association] web site. 

These words from former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger and Gov. Michael Dukakis: 

After jobs, the argument for casinos is that they provide a new state revenue stream. But the numbers don’t add up.

Commonwealth Magazine reported that in order to reach the revenue estimates when the bill was unveiled — of between $1.4 billion and $1.9 billion — somewhere between $5.6 billion and $7.2 billion must be bet and lost at the two proposed casinos every year.

In Las Vegas, it takes 266 casinos to bring in $11.6 billion in gross revenue, which translates into $924 million in tax revenue. Even the $300 million to $600 million now estimated here is a stretch based on that data.

To read the article in its entirety:
What’s the big hurry? 


The projections are deliberately OVERSTATED to sell PREDATORY GAMBLING to voters and to dazzle elected officials. 

FROM: 

We tried to tell them....

All Things Travel: Out-Of-State Casinos Beating Plainridge Park

December 31, 2015 3:00 AM By Bob Weiss

BOSTON (CBS) — As the year comes to a close, Plainridge Park Casino is finishing in fourth place in the New England gaming race behind Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut and Twin River in Rhode Island.

Related: Keller @ Large: Plainridge Park Casino A Flop

The numbers don’t add up for Massachusetts’ first gaming establishment.

At a time when the state’s unemployment is low at five percent and the average family is paying about $600 less each year to buy gas, gamblers are choosing to travel out-of state.

A couple of other gambling options may also be hurting Plainridge. Fantasy sports are an easier alternative for younger players, and the availability of higher price lottery scratch tickets may be a factor.

The popularity of Connecticut casinos can be seen in the prices that Mohegan Sun is charging for New Year’s Eve and January weekends. One-third of their guests are expected to come from Massachusetts by car and bus.

New Year’s Eve is priced at $799 for a room, and Jan. 1 is sold out at Mohegan.

On Jan. 9, the announced price is $499. However, frequent customers will pay less. If you come Monday or Tuesday during the first week of the year, your reward’s card might entitle you to a free room depending on availability.

At Foxwoods, they are getting ready for the second Boston Red Sox fan weekend of fun and games featuring retired players before the start of spring training on Jan. 23.

On recent visits to both Plainridge and Twin River on a Monday afternoon, people playing the slots didn’t draw a crowd.

What was crowded was the live action of Blackjack at the tables in Rhode Island. The food options at Twin River are better.

Then, there is the situation of the ATMs at Plainridge.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has made it so banking machines will not be allowed at casinos, and that’s true. They’re not allowed on the floor where slot machines are located, but if you step into the food court or near the entrance, that’s where you’ll find them.

The original estimate was that Massachusetts’ first casino would take in more than $200 million in its first year. However, the year-end figure could be nearly half of that amount.

In Plainridge on New Year’s Eve, a big night out, the casino is offering $25,000 in free slot play, or $2,016 every hour.

Resort casinos in Everett and Springfield will show much higher results. People are always looking for new ways to lose their money at a resort casino.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/12/31/all-things-travel-casinos-plainridge-park/

Kansas: Consultant findings prompt reaction

Consultant findings prompt reaction

• 
  
• By Andrew Nash
  The Morning Sun

  
  Posted Jun. 12, 2015 at 9:15 AM 
  
  Pittsburg, Kan.

  On Wednesday, the Kansas Lottery Gaming Facilities Review Board heard the findings of a nearly half-million dollar analysis by its consultants.

  Now, the three casino bids for the Southeast Gaming Zone and those that heard the consultants are reacting to the numbers and figures put out by Union Gaming Analytics and Cummings Associates.

  Perhaps the most surprising finding of the consultants was the difference between the casinos’ revenue projections and the projections of Union Gaming and Cummings Associates.

  While all three casino bids were considered too high by those analytics, the projections by Camptown Casino and Kansas Crossing were both within 10-20 percent.

  The same could not be said for Castle Rock Casino, which expected $83 million in revenue. Union Gaming projects revenues of $47.8 million, and Cummings projected $59.9 million.

  Castle Rock officials called the consultants’ reports “flawed” and said they would issue a written rebuttal by Monday, the statutory deadline for a rebuttal. Castle Rock says their projections are based on “multiple market demand and feasibility studies conducted by leaders in the industry.” They also claim to have “in-depth evaluations by financial institutions that have led to committed financing from three national banks that specialize in the gaming industry.”

  “Our team doesn’t feel like that question was adequately answered,” said Rodney Steven II, Castle Rock partner. “We actually were wondering the same thing. Now that we have the consultants’ reports – provided at the close of the daylong meeting – we can see that Union Gaming used an across-the-board formula that led to some faulty assumptions. Included in that is a big misconception that with the 27 percent cut the State of Kansas takes, Castle Rock cannot be competitive, particularly against Downstream Casino. However, Downstream must pay a high interest rate on its nearly $400 million in debt as well as paying defined stipends to each tribal member. This creates an effective tax rate that very likely exceeds the Kansas gaming tax rate. We’re not afraid of the tribal casinos to our south. In fact, we see them as an advantage, because they’ve generated a strong gaming market.”

  On the other hand, the Crawford County Convention and Visitors Bureau feels the consultants’ reports are vindication for their study completed by Jay Sarno Associates. That study predicted Castle Rock would generate about $48.9 million in revenues, and Castle Rock also came out against the methodology and objectivity of that study.

  “We weren’t surprised by the findings from the consultants because we were confident in the numbers provided by the study that we had conducted. We are hopeful that the commission will listen to those numbers and it will help them make the right decision,” said B.J. Harris, Crawford County Convention and Visitors Bureau executive director. “I think that’s why they’ll ultimately choose to put a casino in Crawford County.”

• Harris said that despite the idea that the two Crawford County casino bids — by nature of being smaller — would be more of a “regional” casino rather than a “destination” casino, both of the Crawford County bids are more attuned to the Southeast Kansas region.

  As evidence of that, he cited a recent agreement between the Kansas Crossing bid and the Southeast Kansas Tourism Region to provide $10,000 a year for 10 years in funding to promote regional tourism.

  “I’m not sure I see [the Crawford County bids] as not destination. I think they all will be a destination from a visitor standpoint. The two in Crawford County are more devoted to Southeast Kansas, looking at their proposals through the eyes of operating in Southeast Kansas and providing benefits to Southeast Kansas. If you look at what they’re offering the community and business development and giving back, they’re interested in the benefit of Southeast Kansas in general,” Harris said.

  The LGFRB will hear one last 30-minute pitch by the three applicants on June 23, after which the board will conduct a ballot vote to pick a winner.

http://www.morningsun.net/article/20150612/NEWS/150619939

Foxwood's Milford Scam!

Casino-Free Milford

First we were told at Foxwoods' month long presentations that Milford would receive a property tax benefit of $19 million.... even though the fliers we have been inundated with rounded that figure up to $20 million. Now the draft agreement shows it capped at $18 million.

With the possibility of casino revenue, Milford stands to lose up to $3 million in school aid and who knows how much in general state aid. None of this was discussed in the presentations by Foxwoods or the consultants....so subtract that right off the top!

The overlooked impact is the result of a rushed process, Chairman Buckley said. "This is the problem with working fast," he said. "We need to understand the true, economic impact of a casino scenario, and a non-casino scenario," he said....

This is ALL a shell game....

Casino to Reduce State Aid to Schools by Nearly $3 Million

The casino will increase the town's value by enough money to reduce annual payments by the state to schools by almost $3 million.

Posted by Mary MacDonald (Editor) , August 26, 2013

 

An analysis by the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education estimates development of the Milford casino will result in a nearly $3 million loss each year in state aid to the town for education.

The reason is because the state aid, which flows to towns through the Chapter 70 law, is intended to help less-wealthy communities meet the minimum threshold for adequate student funding. As a community's wealth increases, the state aid decreases. The loss in state aid for general government has not yet been calculated.
The casino is expected to add another $635 million to the Milford total property value. If so, this would result in a decrease of $2.7 million a year in state aid through Chapter 70, said Roger Hatch, an administrator for school finance at the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The loss in general and school aid could be negotiated into the host community agreement. A section for a "School Aid Contribution" has been included in the preliminary host agreement, but as yet, Foxwoods Massachusetts has not agreed to make a payment to offset the loss in state aid.

The property tax benefit to the community as a result of the casino, initially estimated by Foxwoods Massachusetts in community meetings as $19 million, and described in its fliers as $20 million, is now capped at $18 million under the draft host agreement.

Milford Selectmen in a meeting on Monday are expected to discuss the draft agreement for the first time. The selectmen meet at 7 p.m. at Town Hall. The meeting will be televised on Milford TV.

Chairman Bill Buckley said Sunday that the loss in state aid was not included in the economic analysis conducted by the casino consultants, or evaluated by the town's consultants. The overlooked impact is the result of a rushed process, Buckley said. "This is the problem with working fast," he said.

"We need to understand the true, economic impact of a casino scenario, and a non-casino scenario," he said.

http://milford-ma.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/casino-to-reduce-state-aid-to-schools-by-nearly-3-million?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001&evar4=picks-2-post&newsRef=true

The Playbook Failed

Unspoken in the Playbook of Predatory Gambling is: RUSH!

It doesn't often fail.

What went wrong with the casino (a hypothesis)

June 5, 2013. 4:38 pm • Section: City Hall

 

In his two-plus years as mayor, Jim Watson has not botched a file as badly as he has the question of whether Ottawa should get a new casino. He may have done things some people don’t like, but he’s generally done them cleanly, keeping things moving through city council and avoiding ugly, pointless confrontations. That’s widely seen as part of the Watson brand: he’s a highly competent politician. He knows what he wants and he almost always gets it.

But the casino is different.

Watson has supported an expansion of gambling in Ottawa since long, long before it was was on anybody else’s agenda. Watson made a point of saying that in a scrum with reporters Tuesday, noting that he advocated for table games to augment the Rideau Carleton Raceway’s slot machines when he was an MPP and nobody would give him the time of day on that particular thing. And then he backed it as mayor, getting city council to ask the province to let the raceway add table games very early on, in a move that was ultimately overtaken by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.’s expansion plans.

This suggests his belief that Ottawa would be better off with more, and more interesting, gambling is genuine. It’s not a pose, not a political favour for friends at Queen’s Park.

So when the OLG came along with its modernization project, Watson probably thought, “Hey, great.

Let’s get going.” But being a canny politician, he’d have known there’d be some pretty vocal opposition to the idea. Maybe not from a majority of residents, but from enough people to kick up an unpleasant fuss, frighten some politicians, and maybe put a new Ottawa casino at risk.

Let’s say you figure 25 per cent of the population is against expanding gambling, 25 per cent are actively for it, and half the people just don’t much care one way or the other. We have slot machines at the racetrack, where you can place bets, and nobody’s talking about shutting either of them down.

The casino in Gatineau is a major attraction and nobody really calls for it to be shut down, either. So if you want to expand gambling and you figure most people don’t care about it but a vocal minority will make things unpleasant, what do you do?

You try to get the expansion approved as fast as possible. Lingering on the question won’t change very much except give that vocal minority of opponents more time to make things ugly. So get on with it, get a vote passed, and drop it from the agenda till OLG presents a specific proposal to debate.

But then a couple of things went wrong.

First, opposition to a new casino is probably stronger than 25 per cent, and the rush to get a council vote out of the way activated a bunch of that opposition in a way that an even slightly slower process might not have.

Second, despite how quickly the City of Ottawa got the thing done, the OLG‘s process turned into a gong show. Toronto’s drawn-out debate kept the issue on the periphery of the news in Ottawa. Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan resigned and were replaced by the much less gambling-friendly Kathleen Wynne and Charles Sousa, who are a lot less willing to bulldoze criticism and opposition.

The question of how much money the City of Toronto would get from a casino turned into a real debacle that culminated in the dismissal of OLG chairman Paul Godfrey (who’s CEO of Postmedia Network Inc., which owns the Citizen) and the mass resignation of the rest of the board.
So instead of a quick vote, a brief outcry and then silence for 18 months, we got a constant drumbeat of casino-related news that reminded everyone over and over and over again that Ottawa hurried to a vote in way other cities didn’t.

The first was a miscalculation. The second was a serious of unfortunate events that nobody could have foreseen. And here we are, with Watson fighting a rearguard action to preserve the Rideau Carleton Raceway and interest in a casino collapsing like a deflating balloon.


http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/06/05/what-went-wrong-with-the-casino-a-hypothesis/

Gambling on Gambling Revenues

Funding a 'public' project based on unpredictable Gambling Revenue might not be the best fiscal plan.

Vikings stadium: Lagging funds from gambling concern lawmakers

By Patrick Condon
Associated Press
Posted: 01/16/2013

A leading Democratic state lawmaker said Wednesday, Jan. 16, that he is growing more concerned about the reliability of tax revenue from electronic gambling machines that is supposed to help pay for construction of a new Minnesota Vikings stadium.

"I'm more concerned than I was before the hearing," said Rep. Joe Atkins, DFL-Inver Grove Heights, after the House Commerce Committee -- which he chairs -- met to review the recent rollout of the electronic pull-tab games in bars and restaurants.

Tax revenue from those games is supposed to fund the state's $348 million share of the $975 million Vikings stadium slated for downtown Minneapolis. But the tax revenue from the games, which started to become available in September, fell short of projections by about half through the end of 2012: While $35.2 million was projected to come in, the games returned only $17.2 million in tax revenue.

Backers of the new games said they need time to get more popular and expand to other bars.

"We would ask for your patience," said Allen Lund, executive director of Allied Charities of Minnesota. Legal gambling in bars is operated by Minnesota charitable organizations, from youth sports clubs to veterans groups.

"When all the distributors who want these products have it to sell, those numbers will go up exponentially. If we could get some patience, we would appreciate it," he said.

Atkins, who voted for the Vikings stadium plan when the Legislature approved it in the spring, pointed out that lawmakers have only a few months if it becomes necessary to retool the bill. He said it was still too early to make that call, pointing out that the stadium bill did include backup revenue sources in the form of a sports-themed lottery and a stadium suite tax.  But Atkins also said he believes that even recently downgraded revenue projections on the games still are too optimistic.

State gambling regulators initially had projected that the games would be available at 2,500 sites around the state by October. But today, they are available at only 120 sites; the 2,500 goal has been pushed to July.

"I think, at this point, that 2,500 by July seems very aggressive," Atkins said.

Tom Barrett, executive director of the state's Gambling Control Board, said charitable organizations have been slow to sign on to the electronic games because they are faithful to longtime distributors of paper games. He predicted that interest would accelerate once his agency approves more distributors for electronic games, beyond the two now allowed to operate.

So far, the availability of the electronic games has not lessened the popularity of traditional paper pull-tabs, which some had predicted. Barrett said sales of paper games rose in the last fiscal year and are on track to rise another 8 percent in the current one.

The groundbreaking for the new stadium is tentatively set for October, with opening hoped for by 2016.

Atkins instructed Barrett to apprise lawmakers on a regular basis of revenue collections on the games. He pointed out that the current session will end in May.

"Our window of opportunity, if changes become necessary, closes in four months," Atkins said.


http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_22389677/vikings-stadium-lagging-funds-from-gambling-concern-lawmakers

Overstated Projections

The graphic below illustrates the consistently overstated projections by the Gambling Industry.

Please note that this only considers REVENUES and not the wild projections about JOB CREATION.

If the 'experts' or the Gambling Industry were penalized for the overstated projections, how fast do you think their projections would become more honest? 

They've done much the same in Massachusetts where lawmakers wave the phony numbers as if they're real when any not so bright person [like myself] can easily refute them. In Massachusetts, those overstated projections, based on flawed assumptions, were generated by Spectrum and Clyde Barrow, among others.  




 “Stateline is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news service of the Pew Center on the States that provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy.”
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/infographic-have-gambling-investments-paid-off-85899375402

Infographic: Have Gambling Investments Paid Off?

By Mary Mahling, Special to Stateline; Ben Wieder, Staff Writer

Return to related story "Gambling revenue promises rarely met"

Exaggerated revenues and jobs

Just as the Gambling Industry, EXPERTS and Casino Cheerleaders have done in Massachusetts, they are doing in Illinois - making up phony revenue projections and irrational job figures.

Much like Massachusetts, instead of sensible fiscal reform and enacting legislation to reduce corruption, Illinois instead believes money will fall from the heavens at no cost.


Ignoring the increased crime, poverty, Gambling Addiction, and yes, even increased SUICIDES, we have lost our moral compass when we believe preying on others makes fiscal sense.

Editorials

Home > News > Editorials

Veto this defiant bill

Gov. Quinn, you need to trust Gov. Quinn on gambling expansion

Gov. Pat Quinn calls for an overhaul of the proposed gambling legislation last October at a press conference at the Thompson Center. (E. Jason Wambsgans, Chicago Tribune / July 15, 2012)

July 15, 2012

Last October, Gov. Pat Quinn rejected heavy pressure to approve a huge expansion of casino gambling that legislators had passed. No, said Quinn, he would veto that bill and any other that violated his "Framework for Gaming in Illinois." That framework includes some excellent ultimatums that Quinn said any expansion bill has to meet. It also infuriates lawmakers — chiefly his fellow Democrats — who fatten their campaign funds with money from the gambling industry.

During an Oct. 17 news conference, Quinn told sponsors of that monstrous bill: "Start over." They didn't. Instead they slightly improved their bill — the way a $99 paint job improves a jalopy.

Again, they passed it. Again, they're pressuring Quinn to sign it. Again, it manages to be too little, too much, and too burdened by spending provisions to ever deliver the exaggerated revenues its sponsors promise: The bill is woefully short on ethics protections. It expands gaming positions statewide from 12,000 to more than 32,000. And while Rep. Lou Lang, the House sponsor, has said the expansion could bring the state $300 million to $1 billion a year in new revenue, that looks preposterous: Three analyses we've seen — two for the state, one for gambling proponents — suggest that after subtracting legislative earmarks, enforcement costs and other expenses, the amount left for schools and capital projects wouldn't even reach $25 million.

Gov. Quinn, this isn't a painless decision, but it's a straightforward one. You need to trust — and enforce — the standards for integrity and scope that ... Gov. Pat Quinn himself articulated last October. Do that and you'll veto this dangerous bill.

Recognize too, Governor, the realpolitik here: This bill is a flat-out attempt to defy your standards.

The sponsors clearly are convinced that if they can generate enough news coverage quoting the inflated revenue and employment projections that their mega-expansion supposedly would create, then you'll cave or they'll find a way to beat you.

But don't take that from us. Take it from the bill's sponsors and the gambling lobbyists who dance them on puppet strings. They had more than seven months after your Oct. 17 dictum to draft and pass a bill you could sign. Instead they've served up slightly thicker gruel than their 2011 bill — no more gambling at Chicago's two airports or the State Fairgrounds, to name two of precious few improvements. But they flouted many of your demands to ensure honesty and integrity.

And now? Having sent you this 2012 bill, they're promising to meet some of your objections in a so-called trailer bill — a piece of follow-up legislation. Right. The gambling puppets double-pinkie-swear that, if only you'll sign their current bill, they'd be thrilled to give you some of what they refused to give you last fall, winter and spring. You were right to tell them Monday that they should have written this bill "right the first time." Or, you could have added, the second time.

As with the 2011 bill, the deeper we dig in the 2012 bill, the more defiance we find. By our reading, the legislation still doesn't let the Illinois Gaming Board terminate a Chicago casino license in case of corrupt practices. It still lacks necessary oversight for contracts at a Chicago casino. And in a nod to another gambling expansion lawmakers foisted on Illinois, it still doesn't require that communities opt into video gambling. Add to those and similar drawbacks the whatever-big-number-you-want-to-hear revenue projections and this bill is just begging to be vetoed.

Yes, Governor, they'll try to override your veto after the Nov. 6 election. But we'll all be watching to see whether lame ducks who'll be leaving the Legislature suddenly find self-serving reasons to support this huge expansion of gambling.

You were right, Governor, to insist last fall that the Illinois Gaming Board, which has successfully protected the integrity of Illinois gambling for more than two decades, needs unambiguous oversight of a Chicago casino. You were right to conclude that Illinoisans will tolerate a gambling expansion, but not one so huge that casinos and horse-track "racinos" cannibalize the current revenues to Springfield. You were right to insist that Illinois either will have the current video gambling rollout and no casino expansion, or a casino expansion but a much more restricted rollout of video gambling. But Illinois won't have both.

We urge this veto as longtime backers of a reasonable expansion plan, a Chicago casino included. Instead these bill sponsors have openly defied not only you, but any definition of "reasonable."

At some point, the gambling lobbyists will see what the rest of us see: These sponsors have spent too long avoiding ethics standards, over-promising revenues and writing bill language to settle their private grudges against the Gaming Board. Their bargaining has won them votes, but it cannot win citizens' trust.

Gov. Quinn, tell the sponsors and the lobbyists what you told them in October: "Start over.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-gamble-20120715,0,574973.story