Mass. officials note small drop in lottery sales near Plainridge Park Casino

By State House News Service 
on July 23, 2015

By Colin A. Young, STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

BOSTON — With about three weeks worth of data in hand, Massachusetts Lottery officials said Thursday that they have already noticed an impact on state Lottery sales from Plainridge Park Casino.

Plainridge, which offers slot machines and electronic table games, opened last month and Lottery officials have been monitoring sales at the 200 Lottery agents within a 15-minute drive of the Plainville facility, Interim Executive Director Michael Sweeney said.

"We are still seeing strong numbers at retail agents such as convenience stores and gas stations that carry our products. Where we're seeing some early decreases in that zone are in more of your restaurant, bar, lounge-type of places," Sweeney said. "In that particular region within a 15-minute radius drive, lottery sales are positive but they're not at the same level of strength as the area immediately outside of there."

Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, who chaired a meeting of the Lottery Commission on Thursday morning, said she and the Lottery team will be keeping a very close eye on the impact Plainridge has on the Lottery, particularly as other casinos come online in the next few years.

"When I'm watching television and I see Plainridge's ad, I cringe," Goldberg said. "But when the big-branded names come in and they really start to throw those ad dollars behind it, that's when we really need to pay attention."

The treasurer said that, though Plainridge is competition to the Lottery, she likes the fact that it will arm the Lottery with plentiful data it can use if it needs to illustrate a need for a larger appropriation from the Legislature.

"As someone who comes out of a competitive business, when you see your competition approaching you, you don't wait until it impacts you, you proactively own the marketplace," she said. "In terms of accessing increased capital from the Legislature, we're going to have to show them data that we are being impacted. That's why we are monitoring Plainridge very, very carefully, because it will give us initial data that we can access and then move forward."

Any decrease in Lottery revenue would mean that less money would be funneled from the agency to cities and towns across the state -- the Lottery expects to return $983.5 million to the Commonwealth from last fiscal year. Reduced sales could also harm the small businesses that serve as Lottery agents, Goldberg said.

"They are solid, middle-class business owners but they work on very tough margins and we're an important element to them," she said. "Not only in their commissions, but more importantly in the traffic flow that they get into their stores and selling their other products. We drive a lot of that business."

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/mass_lottery_officials_note_sm.html

• Mass. officials note small drop in lottery sales near Plainridge Park Casino
• Boston suit against Massachusetts Gaming Commission 'vicious,' says federal prosecutor
• Veteran-owned businesses make pitch for MGM Springfield casino project work
• New Bedford group abandons casino project, leaving Brockton alone in play for southeastern Massachusetts license
• MGM Springfield prepares to interview veteran-owned companies for casino design and construction work

No town is immune...

Shady land deals. A corrupted licensing progress. Calls for a new vote from the owners of Suffolk Downs. It's a mess. We are now less than four weeks away from a Yes on Question 3 to stop the casino mess. This week was a busy week for us at Repeal the Casino Deal. We released the findings on the devastating impact on local aid for cities and towns with the introduction of casino gambling. Here's a sampling of what's in store (Cape Cod, Worcester County, Attleboro). The casinos are taking aim at our lottery, which distributes nearly $1 billion back to cities and towns in the form of local aid. What does that mean for you and for me? Less money for police officers and fire fighters, fewer dollars for road repair and snow removal. According to our broad analysis, all 351 cities and towns across the Commonwealth will be affected. Even if a casino is miles away, the cuts to local aid will affect your community. No town is immune. It's imperative for us to get this message to each and every community in the Commonwealth-from Provincetown to North Adams and all points in between. We need you now. Your contribution today will ensure that all Massachusetts voters realize that casinos affect us all, not just the host and surrounding communities. Can you pitch in $50 or $100 today to help us spread the word? Casinos are bad for communities, bad for families, bad for us all. Recent polling has shown us closing the gap. Our message is resonating, but we need to finish strong. For other ways to join the campaign, please donate, volunteer to help, and follow us on social media. Thank you for your support! John Ribeiro Chairman Repeal the Casino Deal     Repeal the Casino Deal | PO Box 520162 | Winthrop | MA | 02152

Casino critics forecast lottery losses for towns

Casino critics forecast lottery losses for towns

 

By George Brennan

gbrennan@capecodonline.com

October 09, 2014

 

Cape and Islands towns could lose a combined $1 million in local aid per year if three casinos and a slot parlor attract customers away from the state lottery at the rate projected by a state legislator, an analysis by a group looking to repeal the casino law concluded.

 

The report released Wednesday by Repeal the Casino Deal projects Barnstable would lose between $171,000 and $205,000 in local aid, about 11 percent of its total, for fiscal 2015. Other towns losing six figures would include Bourne, Falmouth, Sandwich and Yarmouth, according to the report.

 

The projected loss statewide is $103 million.

 

The numbers are based on a 2008 study done by state Rep. Thomas Conroy, D-Wayland, a casino critic who ran unsuccessfully for state treasurer. Based on Conroy's research, the repeal effort projects casinos would eat away 21.9 percent of state lottery sales if they open in the Bay State.

 

Gamblers who would typically purchase lottery tickets would instead spend their money at casinos, the report says.

 

Jon Carlisle, a spokesman for state Treasurer Steven Grossman, said the effect of casino gambling on the lottery remains an unknown.

 

"It will likely have an impact, but no one knows what it will be," Carlisle said in an email.

 

The Expanded Gaming Act provided for slot parlors to be taxed at 49 percent of gross gambling revenues, with 40 percent of that money going to local aid. For the state's three casinos taxed at 25 percent, 20 percent is earmarked for local aid.

 

"This was done to ensure that the local aid presently funded by the lottery is not impacted," Carlisle said.

 

A report prepared by Spectrum Gaming, a casino consultant hired by the state in 2008, concluded lottery sales would be affected in the short term near casinos, but "long term our view is the lottery will not be significantly affected." The report pointed to "cross-marketing plans" as a way to protect lottery revenue.

 

That money won't make up for the lottery shortfall, John Ribeiro, chairman of the repeal effort, said.

 

"When you're talking about local aid, that's money being spent on firefighters, police officers, teachers and roads," Ribeiro said. "This shows a direct hit to every single city and town, no matter how far away you are from casino site."

 

Wooten Johnson, campaign manager for the Coalition to Project Mass Jobs, did not respond to an email seeking comment.

 

On the coalition's website, casino supporters argue gross gambling revenues will add to the money available for local aid, but no specific amounts are projected.

 

The American Gaming Association issued a statement saying casinos contribute $38 billion in federal, state and local taxes nationwide that pay for public services. "It's clear that critics' 'sky-is-falling' scare tactics fall flat in the face of facts," the association said.

 

The analysis by repeal organizers comes less than a month before the Nov. 4 election where Massachusetts voters will decide whether to repeal the law that licenses three casinos and one slot parlor. It also comes as the repeal effort is facing an uphill battle, both in campaign fundraising and in polls that show a majority of voters support keeping the casino law in place. State campaign finance records show casino supporters have raised six times as much cash as those working to repeal the law, with Penn National Gaming and MGM Springfield providing the bulk of the $3 million.

 

Ribeiro is undeterred, saying the odds were stacked against casino opponents in local referendums in places like Palmer and East Boston as well. "We've shocked the world before and we're prepared to do it again," he said. "Our voters are a lot more motivated than the no voters."

 

The Repeal the Casino Deal analysis assumes the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe will win federal approval to open a Taunton casino. Under a compact negotiated between the tribe and Gov. Deval Patrick, approved by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, the tribe would pay 17 percent of its gross gambling revenues to the state instead of the 25 percent that commercial casinos are required to pay.

 

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is seeking casino applicants for Southeastern Massachusetts, known as Region C, through Dec. 1. If a commercial casino is licensed, the projected losses would decrease.

 

David Guarino, a spokesman for the repeal effort, said the analysis used the gross gambling revenues projected by the gaming commission. Even using the rosiest projections, the losses to cities and towns are great, he said.

 

"This is a conservative analysis," Guarino said.

 

Follow George Brennan on Twitter: @gpb227.

 

 

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20141009/NEWS/410090320/-1/NEWSLETTER100

 

 

Another Massachusetts Failure!

The decline in LOTTERY SALES was previously predicted, never discussed, never addressed because Casino Cheerleaders were too busy cramming the flawed legislation through!

The failure to address it appropriately would be compensated for with INTERNET GAMBLING ADDICTION? Does anyone see a flaw in that prescription? More Government Sponsored Addiction?

Experts say casinos could drain Lottery sales

Photo by:

Patrick Whittemore
‘THERE’S NO QUESTION’: Lottery chairman Steve Grossman, above, says casinos will have an impact on the state Lottery.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Lottery officials — now touting record sales — are bracing for a hit on revenues when casinos open their doors in Massachusetts, raising new fears that cities and towns already pleading for more state money will lose desperately needed local aid.

“There’s no question when casinos are up and running, it’s going to have an impact,” said Treasurer Steven Grossman, who also serves as the Lottery chairman. “No one knows how big of an impact.”

The Lottery announced yesterday that it posted its second-highest profit level last fiscal year, bringing in $952 million on record sales of $4.8 billion — $25 million more in profits than projected.

The majority of those dollars, by law, go directly to cities and towns as local aid — funding roads, police and senior services.

Experts say the source of those funds could be in jeopardy.“It will take a hit,” predicted gambling expert I. Nelson Rose, a Whittier Law School professor, referring to state lottery revenues. “Every time any form of gambling opens up, it tends to expand the market. In other words, there’s more gambling, but the trouble is there’s more types dividing it so each individual one tends to go down a little.”

Massachusetts Lottery Executive Director Paul Sternburg said, “I expect some of our sales will go to the casinos initially. But if the Lottery and the casinos do more for the state than the Lottery alone, it’s a win for the state. I expect sales will start to come back and return to their normal level down the road.”

Municipalities have been nervously watching budget talks — Gov. Deval Patrick initially vetoed $177 million in local aid during his recent tax dispute with the Legislature. Although that money was restored, only $200 million of a proposed $300 million in road funds was approved.

And while local aid was ultimately up by $21 million this year, that comes after six years in which cities and towns lost more than $400 million, according to the Massachusetts Municipal Association.

Kathleen Conley Norbut, a Massachusetts casino critic, said losses in local aid would be another “whack” to towns that people “haven’t given the attention that it certainly warrants.”

Celeste Myers, co-chairwoman of the group No Eastie Casino, agreed.“If we reduce those dollars, the impact comes right off the top,” Myers said.

Grossman noted that even if the revenue loss cuts into local aid, gambling — the Lottery, casinos and slots combined — is projected to bring in $300 million and 15,000 more jobs overall that the state isn’t seeing now.  Those projections have already been proven to be GROSSLY OVERSTATED!

And while that money will not be mandated for local aid as lottery revenues are, Grossman said lawmakers can redirect gaming revenue to cities and towns.  But they won't!

“I don’t think the Legislature will allow the cities and towns to see that cut in lottery revenues and profits be reflected in a cut to local aid,” Grossman said. “Local aid is still the lifeblood of cities and towns.”

However, with the advent of casinos, the Lottery will have to make adjustments to maintain revenues, Grossman conceded, including potentially moving into online games. BECAUSE MASSACHUSETTS DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH LOTTERY GAMBLING ADDICTION!

Lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow the Lottery to test some online gaming models, but Grossman said he would support online gaming only if it could be done in a way to shield the state’s 7,400 Lottery agents from losing sales.

- See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/07/experts_say_casinos_could_drain_lottery_sales#sthash.nARiBoZe.dpuf

Gambling opposition extends to Lottery

To the editor: Dale Bergevine misrepresents me ("Gambling foes can't have it both ways," Monday, June 25):

First, I've fought expanded predatory gambling for years. I've worked against the Lottery - a regressive tax on the most vulnerable in our society - since 1980.

In my letter of June 19, I simply made the point that even the chair of the state gaming commission has concerns about local aid diminishing whenever and wherever a slot barn is licensed. That doesn't mean I support the Lottery; I was trying to provide information.

I've spoken with many legislators and experts in the field - pro and con. I did what a good citizen does: I educated myself, learned about what comes with expanded predatory gambling, gave testimony to the Legislature when it debated the gambling bill, and became active in my community and my state to oppose something I fear will be extremely detrimental.

As a board member of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, I support groups opposed to slots around the commonwealth. Unfortunately, when I oppose slots elsewhere, I'm called a "carpetbagger"; in my own town I'm accused of NIMBY. (If I lived on South Street, would I be entitled to an opinion?)

I've seen the ravages of predatory gambling up close; the decimation doesn't stop "within a half mile" of a casino. Those living within a half mile will see our property values decrease most, and we will endure the noise, light and air pollution, but we won't be the only ones to suffer the impact.

Why have I exposed myself to abuse, ridicule, and vandalism in this struggle?

Because I believe the slot barn will have a deleterious effect on our town.

Period. Yes, Plainville will see short- term revenue from the spoils of predatory gambling (our "Enabler's Fee"). But the long-term costs have yet to be determined. As a citizen, I think it's my job to question that. Wherever I live.

On the other hand, Mr. Bergevine insists that Plainridge and the state are offering our town, "Beneficial, positive changes ... in a nice, neat package."

Isn't it pretty to think so?

Mary-Ann Greanier, Plainville

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/vip/opinion/letters_to_editor/gambling-opposition-extends-to-lottery/article_9d61be92-6999-50dc-a013-a598bb42be6b.html

County officials criticize casino plan

County officials criticize casino plan for failing to protect local jobs

An array of opponents, from South Florida to the state capital, has lined up swiftly in response to proposed legislation to bring gigantic “destination resort” casinos to South Florida, despite promises of economic development and an infusion of jobs.

The Miami-Dade County Commission was ready to slice the bill to shreds earlier this week as it spent three hours reviewing it and getting public reaction. Meanwhile, others criticized the bill as too light on regulation and incomplete when it comes to policing casinos.

The County Commission decided to send a letter to the sponsors of the legislation, Rep. Erik Fresen and Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, demanding they give local government more control over the mega-resorts, allow the county to get a share of the revenue, and carve out protections for the region’s pari-mutuel industry. Absent that, the bill could face their collective opposition, commissioners warned.

“What this means is that you have no say,’’ Commission Chairman Joe Martinez told his colleagues after the county attorney read summaries of the bill. “What this means is that the money does not stay here.”

Dave Ramba, a lobbyist for the Broward County-based Seminole Tribe, questioned why the bill took two months to produce since legislators left the job of writing the regulatory rules to a new seven-member State Gaming Commission and a new Department of Gaming Enforcement.

“They spent a lot of time on the creation of more government and very little time on what the commission’s job is going to be,’’ he said.

But Bogdanoff, a Fort Lauderdale Republican, and Fresen, a Miami Republican, said Friday their intent was not to release a perfect bill but to get the conversation started and have the debate over modifications aired in the open.

“I anticipated I would have to wear a bull’s-eye on my back — as well as Rep. Fresen — because there will be 100,000 people shooting at this bill,’’ Bogdanoff told the Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau.

Pennsylvania: Food Fight Over Mitigation Funds

Control of casino funds key issue in Montgomery County commissioners race
By Jeremy Roebuck

Inquirer Staff Writer

For a political race to control Montgomery County's future, the election contest between commissioner candidates Bruce L. Castor Jr. and State Rep. Josh Shapiro has become strangely fixated on a set of votes in the past.

The scuffle over who will control the local share of profits from the soon-to-open Valley Forge Resort Casino and who is to blame for the current arrangement - which takes the county's share and deposits it into a state-controlled account - sparked over the weekend the most contentious back-and-forth between the candidates since the start of the race.

Shapiro, a Democratic state legislator who represents the Abington area, condemned Castor for letting partisan bickering get in the way of doing what's right for the county.

Castor, meanwhile, blamed Shapiro for casting a vote in 2009 that he says took control of the money away from local officials.

As is often the case in politics, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Since casinos opened in Philadelphia, Bucks, and Delaware Counties, each has paid a 2 percent share of all profits from slots and table games to local governments to mitigate the impact of the gaming halls in the area. However, under state gaming laws, Montgomery County's share for Valley Forge - set to open in the spring - has been slated for diversion into state-controlled entities.

Originally, the county's local share was to be funneled into an entity run out of the Governor's Office, the Department of Community and Economic Development. A 2009 revision to gambling laws changed that, directing the money to another agency - the Commonwealth Financing Authority.

Montgomery County officials have called on their 23-member delegation in Harrisburg to change that law to give them direct access, like all the other neighboring counties with casinos.

Amid this background, Shapiro introduced a series of amendments last week that would hand control of the local share of revenue to county commissioners. He maintained he "led the fight" in 2009 against the bill that changed how the money was distributed.

But according to transcripts of the legislative record, Shapiro, while outspoken on his opposition to gambling, never spoke on the House floor for or against the distribution of the Valley Forge local share.

When pressed on the issue Monday, Shapiro reiterated his "no" vote on the overall bill, while defending another vote in support of the specific amendment that moved control of the local share from the Governor's Office to the CFA - a bipartisan panel made up of gubernatorial and legislative appointees.

"To characterize any of my votes as being anti-Montgomery County is not only wrong, it's a lie," he said.

Castor, meanwhile, has publicly insisted that Shapiro voted to take the money away from commissioners. But no version of the law ever gave Montgomery County complete control of the Valley Forge local share.

When confronted with the distinction, the incumbent commissioner argued that DCED approval for how the funds are spent gave local officials more say than the setup with the CFA, a body prone to become bogged down in partisan debate.

Castor has also challenged Shapiro's current amendments to give the local share directly to the county. The idea, he says, was his first and one Shapiro once described as "laughable."

In truth, a Shapiro campaign representative was specifically talking about Castor's proposal to use the local share to fund improvements to Route 422 when he was quoted using the term "laughable."

The estimated $1.5 million the county is expected to receive annually from hosting the Valley Forge casino would hardly cover a fraction of the total $800 million price tag for fixing the highway, the representative argued.

(Castor maintains he meant the money could be used to pay debt service on public bonds for highway improvement.)

"It sounds to me like the guy got caught flat-footed and is spinning to get his way out of a tight situation," Castor said Monday.

In many ways, the issue - based in bureaucratic intricacies and political machinations in Harrisburg well off the radar of the average local voter - is an odd one to take such prominence in the debate.

But it is one of the few issues with direct county impact on which both candidates have a crystallized record - Shapiro for his votes in Harrisburg, Castor for his statements. What's more, each candidate points to the matter as indicative of why his opponent would be wrong for county leadership.

From the start of the campaign, Castor has painted Shapiro as a tax-happy Democrat. The 2009 gaming vote is just another example of his wrongheaded fiscal decision-making, Castor said.

"We support the efforts of our entire legislative delegation in Harrisburg in making sure Montgomery County receives its fair share of casino revenues so that the next administration . . . can undo the financial damage created by the borrow-and-spend policies of the past four years," Castor's campaign said in a statement Monday.

For his part, Shapiro has criticized Castor's often contentious relationship with his colleagues. Arguing with Shapiro over who voted for what and when, even though both agree on the changes the legislator proposed to state gaming law, is only the latest example.

"Instead of embracing an idea that's good for Montgomery County, Bruce has resorted to what he does best," Shapiro said. "Bickering."

Letting casino wolves run wild

Letting casino wolves run wild

I am a strong supporter of Gov. Deval Patrick, but I think he's facing a big mistake with the casino-gambling bill now headed toward a conference committee at the State House.

While many courageous legislators (Sen. Jamie Eldridge, Sen. Susan Fargo, Sen. Kenneth Donnelly, Sen. Barry Finegold, Sen. Karen Spilka and others) fought against this bill, it passed both chambers in recent days. United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts (www.uss-mass.org) has found the following:

n The gambling bill put tens of millions of dollars at the disposal of the Gaming Commission without any accountability to taxpayers.

n The bill takes away the rights of voters in Boston, Worcester and Springfield to vote on whether to approve locating a casino in their own communities.

n Only 33 percent of the revenue will be spent as local aid to cities and towns, compared to the 68 percent to local aid from the Massachusetts Lottery.

n The Lottery will suffer losses with expanded gambling, which means reduced local aid to cities and towns.

n Moody's Investor Service has recently reported that revenue projections, by proponents, have been over-inflated and are unlikely to occur.

n Massachusetts residents would have to wager and lose an additional billion dollars per year to reach the revenue projections that have been "promised" with this proposal.

n Casinos are cannibalistic and jobs will be lost.

It's not too late to halt this sellout to a predatory industry. Massachusetts can recover without lowering our standards. In our hearts, we all understand how concentrating wealth leads to the erosion of real community when the super-rich wind up controlling our politics.

Gov. Patrick, please stop this bill. Don't let these wolves into our Commonwealth.

PAUL GAUDET

Lowell

Conroy: Casinos are a loser

Conroy: Casinos are a loser
By Tom Conroy/Guest columnist
The MetroWest Daily News

SUDBURY — Last week, the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted to authorize the development of three resort casinos and one slot parlor in Massachusetts. As I have said before, I do not believe that this is the right direction for Massachusetts, and I spoke out against this legislation on the floor of the House to urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. Unfortunately, the majority of my colleagues voted in favor of this legislation, and the Senate is expected to pass this bill soon, and the Governor is expected to sign it into law.

Expanded gambling in the Commonwealth is being touted as a jobs bill, yet there is a better way to create better jobs in better industries that are better for Massachusetts.

I have consistently opposed the legislature’s proposals for expanding gambling in the Commonwealth. In 2008, I wrote a detailed, 20-page report analyzing the qualitative and quantitative costs and benefits of Governor Patrick’s initial three resort casino proposal.

The cost-benefit analysis I did shows that expanding gambling in the Commonwealth is not a winning proposal for the people of Massachusetts. The costs are consistently understated, while the benefits are frequently overstated in terms of both revenues and jobs. We only have to look at other states’ experiences of late — check out Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others — to see that expanding gambling in not a winning economic proposition.

During my tenure in the legislature, my top priority has consistently been preserving and increasing local aid to municipalities in order to support education, public works, and public safety. The cost-benefit analysis I did shows that three resort casinos in Massachusetts could steal from the lottery approximately $200 million that gets distributed as local aid to our towns.

That could put at risk hundreds of thousands of municipal employee jobs across the state: teachers, firefighters, police, public works employees, and others. We shouldn’t be gambling with local aid by moving forward with casino gambling.

When all the costs are tabulated, including the added costs of a new state government bureaucracy, new infrastructure needs, enhanced public safety efforts, and social costs, it is not clear that even the highest revenue estimates will be enough to substantially offset the costs associated with these proposals. I filed an amendment that would protect local aid by requiring the casino and slot parlor licensees to offset any cannibalization of lottery revenues/local aid, but the amendment was rejected as overly pessimistic.

I also oppose expanded gambling because it will have a devastating effect on small businesses across the Commonwealth. Supporting an industry that will undermine our state’s biggest job creators while offering an uncertain and unstable revenue source is not a smart economic policy for Massachusetts.

I believe that instead of gambling with our Commonwealth’s economy in such a fragile economic climate, we should be focused on investing in industries that are exportable — such as high-tech manufacturing, life sciences/bio tech, and renewable energy — and that fit the Massachusetts brand. In addition, we could create as many as 200,000 jobs over five years if we were to address the billions of dollars of unmet public transportation and infrastructure needs we have in this state.

Despite my consistent opposition to expanded gambling in 2008, 2010, and this year, at least four of my ideas to strengthen protections for casino employees, casino patrons, local communities, and local aid were included in the final casino legislation that was approved by the House of Representatives this session.

I hope that you will take the time to contact your state senators and the governor to share your perspectives on expanded gambling legislation, as this bill is moving quickly through the legislative process.

Tom Conroy is state representative for Lincoln, Sudbury, and Wayland and can be reached at Thomas.conroy@mahouse.gov or 617-722-2430.

Missouri: Law enforcement officials say caseload higher since casino opened

Law enforcement officials say caseload higher since casino opened
By EDWARD HUSAR
Herald-Whig Staff Writer


LaGRANGE, Mo. -- Ever since Mark Twain Casino in LaGrange opened for business 10 years ago, law enforcement officials in Lewis County have seen an increase in bad checks charges and domestic violence cases.

"Our bad check cases at least doubled since the casino opened," Prosecuting Attorney Jules "Jake" DeCoster said. "The people go and blow their paycheck at the casino, and then they write bad checks for their gas and groceries. We've had a number of people who have gotten into real financial difficulties because of the gambling problems they have."

DeCoster said he also has noticed an increase in domestic violence cases since the casino opened.

"The husband goes and blows his paycheck at the casino, and when the wife objects, he takes it out on her," he said.

DeCoster said the sharpest annual jump in bad check and domestic violence cases occurred during the first year the casino opened.

"It hasn't continued to increase, but it hasn't gone back down," he said.

Lewis County Sheriff David Parrish said he, too, has noticed an increase in caseload for his deputies since the casino opened.

"There hasn't been a major influx of fraud cases or theft cases," Parrish said. "But every year, we see a handful of cases involving people who are being served civil papers for maybe losing their house or not paying a credit card, and we know some of those people to have gambling issues."

Parrish said the Sheriff's Department over the years has dealt with several cases involving people "who have gambling problems that lead to them taking some money from someone else to help pay bills. But other than that, it hasn't been what I would call a major, major problem."

Before the casino was licensed to operate in LaGrange, DeCoster and Parrish both testified before the Missouri Gaming Commission to express concern that the casino would significantly increase their caseloads. They were hoping the commission would put pressure on the city of LaGrange to share some of the tax revenue the city would receive from the casino for serving as the "home dock city."

The state's gaming law specifies that a cut from the casino's revenue be given to the home dock city, but it says nothing about county agencies that may be affected by the opening of a casino.

Early on, the LaGrange City Council responded to these concerns by giving the Sheriff's Department a couple of used city squad cars. One year, it gave the prosecuting attorney's office $25,000 to offset the higher caseload. However, DeCoster said no other funding has been provided because city officials eventually decided it wasn't justified.

The prosecutor and sheriff have simply absorbed the extra casino-related costs into their budgets.

"We're just dealing with it," DeCoster said.

Parrish said his office has no qualms with the city of LaGrange or the casino.

"The city of LaGrange has tried to work well with the sheriff's office. They have a pretty good Police Department right now that helps run things in town, and the folks who run the casino have always been very good to work with," he said. "If I still had a chief complaint, it would be with the Missouri Gaming Commission for allowing this casino to be put here without ensuring that the citizens who surround the city of LaGrange, or the county, had something to offset any costs that we might have a result of the casino.

"The Gaming Commission should be able to set aside some funding to assist the county. The state gets its cut. The city obviously gets its cut. The casino gets its cut. The Missouri State Highway Patrol puts officers on there making $70,000 a year to be security guards. So all those people are necessary, apparently, until you get outside the city limits of LaGrange. Then the Gaming Commission doesn't feel like the sheriff's office should have any of that revenue to offset the cost of even one investigation that might be a white collar crime of some sort."

DeCoster said his office routinely gets called on to handle court cases that involve people charged with trespassing for entering the casino after they have placed themselves on a "voluntary exclusion" list that's supposed to prevent problem gamblers from coming inside.

DeCoster also said he sees cases where casino customers are charged with stealing by claiming the credits left behind on a slot machine by a previous patron. "I get a lot of those," he said.

DeCoster said one time he was called upon to prosecute an 85-year-old woman who was charged with stealing when she picked up a $10 bill she found on the casino floor, not realizing that any errant money is considered to be the casino's property.

The woman was let go.

DeCoster admits he would have a hard time finding a jury willing to convict someone of a crime for picking up money off a casino floor. Most Lewis County jurors, he believes, would consider that "finder's keepers."

New Hampshire: More sense than Beacon Hill

From our friends and neighbors up north at the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling --

Thank you for your calls to our Executive Councilors ... and thank you to the New Hampshire Executive Council.

This afternoon, the EC voted 5-0 to kill the proposed "Late Item" contracts with gambling industry consultants to design a regulatory structure for potential future slot casinos.

It turns out that the rejected contracts would have totaled $50,000, but over coming months would have mounted to $250,000, had the Council approved. Worse, the money to pay for these contracts would have been diverted from state aid to local education.

In discussion before their vote, all five Councilors instructed the Lottery Commission and the NH Gaming Regulatory Oversight Authority to spend less money on casino consultants, to steer clear of cart-before-the-horse efforts to grease the way for slot machines, and to focus instead on improving and streamlining regulation of ONLY the types of gambling we now have.

GSCAEG strongly supports the direction articulated by the Executive Council and is happy to work with the Lottery Commission, the Gaming Authority, and the legislature to assure passage of any necessary legislation to better regulate and reduce regulation cost of gambling we now have.



Pssstttt...our friends up north conducted an Independent Cost Benefit Analysis. Maybe Massachusetts should do likewise.

Exploding Myths: Lottery

In response to this thread:

Comment of the day: some reality-based numbers on casinos

Ryan Adams quite correctly pointed out the value of the Lottery to Massachusetts cities and towns:

another glaring thing here, beyond the jobs,
is the state lottery. Too many people are completely ignoring what slot machines would do to the state lottery which, like it or not, this state depends on at this point.

In Las Vegas, it takes 266 casinos to
bring in $11.6 billion in gross
revenue,
which translates into $924 million in
tax revenue.

The state lottery of Massachusetts brings in more revenue than Las Vegas's 266 casinos.

If it takes a 10% hit -- which is a fairly conservative number -- it will be very difficult for the state to bring in enough slot tax revenue to offset the 100 million we'd lose to the state lottery.

IMO, it's impossible to break even with the state lottery losses after you take into consideration the hundreds of millions that would have to go into a Gaming Commission, extra personnel for the State Police and Attorney General's Office (to the tune hundreds of employees, if NJ is any indication), and mitigation expenses for local communities. This is what Dan Bosley's been screaming about for years, though he's been largely ignored. We don't make any money from this, period.

So, when proponents say, "well, we allow the state lottery, why shouldn't we allow casinos?" tell them it's a bit more complicated than that. Barring a solution that would prevent the state lottery from being cannibalized, or would tax slot machines at a rate similar to that of the state lottery, no one should be able to use the state lottery as a defense of supporting slots when it's one of the biggest examples of why we can't afford slots in Massachusetts to begin with.

The Spectrum Gaming Report, for which Massachusetts taxpayers paid $189,000 projected Lottery losses of $144 million - their figure, not mine. That represents a direct reduction of local aid to cities and towns.

Spectrum: $144 Million Lottery Loss/Local Aid Cuts