We’ve entered an ugly phase in the fight against casinos. Our lame duck mayor has tried to paint the city into a corner through backroom deals. The casinos, desperate to break ground before Mayor Nutter takes office, have their public relations machines beating the drums of inevitability in the hopes that the citizens will simply give up. Furthermore, a recent spate of articles have attempted to brand those of us who continue to oppose these casinos as a bunch of crazies who care more about traffic congestion or saving the “soul” of the city than cutting property taxes and creating jobs.
We all want tax-cuts and more jobs, but the promises being made by casinos are fraudulent. The casino industry is selling a glitzy vision of Las Vegas along the Delaware, but the key to Las Vegas’ success and economic growth is that its casino losers take their problems home with them. Pennsylvania’s casinos, on the other hand, are aimed at local gamblers and are unlikely to pull in enough out-of-staters to offset the damage that gambling will do to our economy.
Pennsylvania has gotten into the casino game too late. Connecticut, New York, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Maine, and Delaware already have casinos. Maryland’s Governor is threatening to retaliate by building casinos along the border of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Ohio looks set to approve Indian casinos, and its only a matter of time before New Jersey approves gambling outside Atlantic City and along the Camden waterfront. Obviously, when every state in the region builds casinos, gamblers will choose to spend their money close to home, and no one city or state will become a regional gambling destination.
In the face of heavy competition, Pennsylvania will have to look in-state for a vast majority of its casino customers. While this may help us recuperate the hundreds of millions of dollars that Pennsylvania gamblers lose at casinos in Atlantic City and West Virginia every year, it also means that we will have to absorb all the costs related to increased gambling addiction.
The hard truth is that casinos spread crime and make their profits on the backs of problem gamblers and addicts. The incidence of problem gambling doubles in areas within 50 miles of casinos. Moreover, according to Dr. Earl Grinols, a former senior economist on the president's Council of Economic Advisers, casinos make more than half their revenues from problem and pathological gamblers. Many of those who become addicted spend all they have, and more, feeding a habit that breaks up their families and bankrupts their businesses. In fact, SMR Research, a leading publisher of industry and market research, has identified gambling as the single fastest-growing cause of bankruptcy in the United States.
It takes three or four years for the negative social and economic effects to take hold, but eventually we will all bear the costs of gambling addiction. The state agency charged with reviewing Philadelphia’s budget has warned that regulation, apprehension, adjudication, and incarceration could cost the city between $20,500 and $45,700 per pathological gambler per year. Mayor Street’s Gaming Task force estimates that Philadelphia already has as many as 9,450 pathological gamblers, which means that the city would spend at least $200 million and as much as $430 million every year to deal with the costs of gambling addiction alone. If the number of addicts doubles with the introduction of casinos as experts predict, that would translate to costs of between $400 million and $860 million. This easily dwarfs the $26.3 million per year that Mayor Street and other casino advocates have promised the city in revenues from gambling related taxes and fees.
Digging ourselves out of this deep financial hole won’t be made any easier by the fact that casinos will compete with local businesses and take jobs and tax revenues away from the city. Experts call this the “substitution effect”. People have limited entertainment budgets; the coins that are fed into slot machines add up to millions of dollars that are not spent at local taverns, restaurants, museums, and theaters. While some of that money will go to local casino owners and employees, much of that money will leave the region entirely.
This in turn leads to a net job loss for the city, an increase in crime associated with rising unemployment, and declining city and state tax revenues. This is one of the only industries that has a measured negative economic multiplier effect. Dr. William Thompson, a leading gambling expert at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, has estimated that each slot machine will take $50,000 out of the regional economy. This is the equivalent of the city losing an $18-an hour job with benefits for every slot machine. Since these casinos are essentially fancy warehouses filled with slot machines, they don’t employ nearly enough workers to make up the difference. Both SugarHouse and Foxwoods casinos plan to open with 3,000 slot machines, and each has the option of expanding to 5,000 under the licenses that they received from the Gaming Control Board. These lost jobs will blow a hole in our local economy.
So, why on earth are some of our elected officials working so hard to bring to Pennsylvania an industry that profits from the spread of gambling addiction and bankrupts the cities that host them? Because, they have been seduced by industry-sponsored reports, flashy powerpoint presentations and the endless lobbying of the casino industry. Recently, Ed Goppelt of Hallwatch, a local government watchdog, filed a Right-to-Know request with Governor Rendell asking for the impact studies that he relied upon in deciding whether to sign the Gaming Act. The official response: there were none. It is beyond shameful that the state has failed to conduct an independent cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not these casinos are actually a good deal for the citizens of Pennsylvania.
No, casino opponents aren’t a bunch of crazies. Quite the opposite: we are the only sane ones asking the tough questions in this debate.
-- Anne Dicker
Candidate for State Senate, Co-founder of Casino-Free Philadelphia, and former site site selection analyst.
Cross-posted with more information at my website www.annedicker.com
Agree in part. Disagree in part.
And perhaps you can help me out here.
I agree there are certain unexplored social costs of gaming, which in a perfect world would have been developed prior to Act 71 becoming law. I also agree that some of the "casino opponents" are not crazies.
Those being said, I am not anti-gaming as much as I am in complete disagreement with the sites. I think most people along the river are in a similar position--that re-siting is the number one priority.
Where do you see this issue coming down? Is re-siting and option you would agree with, provided more appropriate locations are found or another community wants a casino near it? Or, do you believe that due to all of the above, a casino free Philadelphia is the only goal worth pursuing? If that is the case, how do we get ourselves to Philadelphia without casinos when most Philadelphians are ambivilant to the idea of gaming anyway. There is no real evidence to support Philadelphians are anti-gaming, but there is some notion that many, if not most, would not want to live near one.
Thoughts?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
The research says...
Gaetano -- the polling data for the last year says that half of Philadelphians believe casinos will do more harm than good. Less than that believe otherwise. It's been about half-and-half -- and that's while this myth about casino revenue keeps being perpetuated by various politicians, casino spinsters, and others. You expose the casino revenue myth and what? *Poof* to the argument for casinos.
So far, the studies say casinos will bring only revenue loss to the city -- and maybe to the state, too (the state, afterall, is going to have to bailout the city after our budget comes up short). The City is only getting a tiny sliver -- $26.3 million. That quickly gets wiped out by the 80-150 cops that the city hires (somewhere around $20million -- not including the extensive training costs), adding up additional traffic wranglings, and enforcement costs for increased gambling (such as dealing with increased bankruptcy).
Expose its a net loss to the city and public policy could quickly switch that direction.
Casinos are bad public policy
And siting them in the middle of neighborhoods just makes a terrible situation worse. That's why I've put a huge effort in supporting the 1500 feet rule - which, while not forcing casinos out of Philadelphia, would at least force them from neighborhoods.
BTW - We already have a big gambling addiction problem in Philadelphia look only at yesterday's Daily News about the payroll clerk who allegedly stole $500,000 from the Ridley School District to pay off her gambling debts.(http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/12844727.html) Imagine how much worse things will be when casinos are within walking distance of 100,000 people.
Diminishing Revenues
I am not sure if anyone saw this article from the NY Times regarding casino profits. The relevant passage for this issue, to me, is found early on:
As well as this nugget about Foxwoods:
I understand that revenues are effected by economy as a whole; however, Anne's point about increased competition from other local casinos is relevant. How realistic are the projected revenues that the gambling lobby and Street's administration tout? Moreover, as Atlantic City seeks to reinvent itself as the Las Vegas of the east, how lucrative will mid-market slots parlors really be?
K. Parker
She's still right!
Anne's still right, and slots warehouses for depressed lonely seniors still suck!
Come on you guys, go to her website and give her some dough before the filing deadline MONDAY. Now's the time to do it!
Contribute...
www.annedicker.com
Then Anne can go to Harrisburg and be Josh Shapiro's bodyguard!!!! Come on, the guy needs some backup!
New Sites
As Gaetano notes, the question isn't so much whether we want to bell the cat (a slot machine bell, the case being) but where the bell should go. I think I have an idea, one that I will steal from the television show The Wire. In that show, set in Baltimore, they have a portion of a run down neighborhood set aside called Hamsterdam, where drug dealers can do as they please. The police will not interfere.
I think we should adopt a similar concept in Philadelphia. Set aside some particularly blighted area of the city, let the casinos buy up the land, with the proviso that they make it profitable for any remaining inhabitants, and build it up. That way, the casinos would have a place to operate, and the property values of neighborhoods such as Fishtown would not go down.
This approach might also limit, though not cure, the risk of increased gambling addiction in the city. The casinos would be surrounded by the worst slums in Philadelphia, which means that only people who are already hardcore gamblers would bother going.
The Expatriate
It doesn't work that way...
Study after study confirms that casinos are not Sugar-Plum Faeries of economic development:
By the Numbers:
52 % - percent of casino revenues that come from active problem and pathological gamblers. [1]
50 miles - the radius around a casino in which the incidence of problem gambling doubles. [2]
#1 - rank of gambling as the single fastest-growing cause of bankruptcy in the United States. [3]
100% - personal bankruptcy rates are 100% higher in counties with casinos than in counties without casinos. [4]
3-4 years - time it takes for the negative social and economic effects of casinos to take hold. [5]
1:3 - the ratio of Atlantic City's retail businesses that closed within 4 years of the introduction of casino gambling.[6]
$200 million to $430 million per year - the anticipated costs to the city of Philadelphia of dealing with the rise in crime due to gambling addiction based on the number of existing pathological gamblers. [7]
$400 million and as high as $860 million per year - the costs to the city if the number of addicts doubles as expected.
$26.3 million per year - the amount that Philadelphia expects to receive in revenues from gambling related taxes and fees. [8]
$50,000 or one $18 per hour job per year -- what each slot machine is expected to cost the city.[9]
References:
[1] E.L. Grinols and J.D. Omorov, "Development or Dreamfield Delusions?: Assessing Casino Gambling's Costs and Benefits," The Journal of Law and Commerce , University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Fall 1996, pp. 58-60.
[2] National Gambling Impact Study Commission, “Final Report” Sec. 4, p..5.
[3] “The Personal Bankruptcy Crisis, 1997: Demographics, Causes, Implications & Solutions," SMR Research Corporation, 1997 pp. 116, 124.
[4] Gross, Ernie and Morse, Edward. “The Impact of Casio Gambling on Bankruptcy Rates: A County Level Analysis,” 2004 p. 1
[5] Grinols EL, Mustard DB. “Business Profitabity versus Social Profitability: Evaluating Industries with Externalities—The Case of Casinos,” Managerial and Decision Economics, 2001
[6] Robert Goodman, The Luck Business: The Devastating Consequences and Broken Promises of America's Gambling Explosion (New York: Free Press, 1995), p. 23.
[7] Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, Staff Report on the City of Philadelphia’s Five-Year Financial Plan for Fiscal Year 2008 - Fiscal Year 2012, July, 26, 2007, pp. 21-22
[8] Parmley, Suzette. “Delays of casinos costing millions,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 10, 2007
[9] Thompson, William. “Bad Bet, With Slots, the Budget Wins -- But the Economy's a Loser,” July 18, 2004; Page B01
Be Clear Here . . .
You're post is not in support of a re-siting effort, correct? If those studies above are correct, then they will happen no matter where casinos are placed--even if in the middle of an urban forest and 2000 feet from any residential structure. Isn't that correct?
Your post is in support of a casino free effort--the two are different. To the extent the later is possible, politically, then it is a relevant conversation. My questions are aimed at determining (1) how likely is it that in 10 years, regardless of the studies you cite you, we will have a Philadelphia without any casinos; and (2) if that is not the case, shouldn't we all be focusing on protecting the communities with the most to lose, target areas, homeowners, those most likely to become problem gamblers, etc.?
I can understand you believe a lack of gaming is the best cure, but if it is not a likely reality, why not shine a light on re-siting and protecting communities in the event casinos are placed.
Frankly, I do not believe we will see a Philadelphia without a casino. Maybe I'm not as optimistic as you. But, I think the relevant time to fight casinos from coming to Philadelphia period was from 2004 to Decemember 20, 2006. Now that money has been paid for license fees, construction costs, the Gaming Act has been found constitutional, the Society Hill civil rights lawsuit, which was a big leap of faith to begin with, is falling apart, etc., I think it is too late to make Philadelphia casino free.
But, it isn't too late to make things better than they are or to move casinos to places that want them or to more appropriate locations. Daniel and you may disagree on this point. But, essentially, we are making two different statements. I'm looking at it from a re-siting view. You're looking at it from a view of preclusion.
And, even in some of the communities, there are fractures, in the northern communities especially. My understanding is that Fishtown is pretty evenly divided over Sugarhouse and other groups have splintered since last year. There is even more support to move Sugarhouse to the Pinnicale site. The south is a bit touchy, but I'd venture to say that there are dealings with Foxwoods.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Anne and I agree
Are casinos in Philadelphia that I don't know about? Because, unless they are, I believe we can keep Philadelphia casino-free. Lots of projects have been proposed and are later taken back; even at later stages than this.
And, to be clear Gaetano, I find it offensive when folks spend so much time telling people "to accept reality." Reality is shaped by our actions and our beliefs. It is not written in stone by pundits, media, or certain politicos.
Politically there was (so they said) zeo chance for resiting just a few months ago. Then the political winds changed and resiting is widely on the table. We were part of that effort, including you, way before the curve. We shifted the winds.
Instead of listening to the report of the political winds or using that as our basis for decisions, it's our job as citizens to ignore the reports and just work to change them.
So don't become an anti-anti-casino person just yet; the chips have not fallen yet :-)
We disagree . . .
Daniel, I don't mean to offend you. But, I am not an anti-anti-casino person. I am also not an anti-casino person. I'm not inclined to throw away a new industry--while acknowledging there are social costs to counter benefits, I don't think the experts agree that gaming is a net loss. In fact, there is considerable disagreement on the issue.
Despite having worked on CFP's earliest lawsuit, I am, deep down, a re-siting person. I do not want to preclude gaming from coming to Philadelphia. I don't believe that Philadelphians are on-board with that. I've worked, sometimes (like you) with much personal sacrifice and a significant amount of civic-inflicted pain to help shape the political winds on this issue too, and I've never done it stop gaming from coming to Philadelphia. I've done it to stop casinos from (1) being bad neighbors; (2) being someone's immediate neighbor.
I'd like to say more, but I think my friends at the PNA would have a cow if I did. So, forgive me, but the more I write, the more I pay later.
If you want to stop casinos from coming to Philadelphia, I think that is a great cause. And, I've always been supportive of your work, Dan. I just disagree with the end game is all (though, no casinos does mean no need to resite).
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Bad corporate citizens
Casinos have proven themselves to be bad corporate citizens in Philadelphia - look only to the detectives Sugarhouse sent to our homes intimidating the everyday citizens who signed the 1500 buffer petition, Foxwood's investor Peter Depaul's $200,000 fine for campaign law violations, or the uncalled for use of the Dragonetti Act that Sugarhouse's Dick Sprague employed to quash a federal lawsuit filed by community groups as evidence of their disrespect for our city.
It can only get worse: Look around the country and you will find broken CBAs, casino lawsuits against community groups, and a marked increase in political corruption. Regardless of the fight to re-site, its important to take a step back and re-examine the public policy of casinos before much more harm is done.
Gaetano is gorunded in the
Gaetano is grounded in the real world where grown ups work hard for years to make neighborhoods better and demand casinos are in good sites. They also have jobs, buy homes, raise kids and pay taxes. And some of us where Chanel. ;>)
Anne and her ilk have done more harm than good for the casino issue. She came to the issue late -- much later than AJ Thomson, Bernice Hamel or Ed Kirlin or Dan Akerman, et al. These people were meeting in 2005 about fighting casinos and the proposed sites. Mr. Steir came up with the 1500 foot buffer zone, yet to read the papers, one would think Dicker did. Now, because Dicker is running against Fumo, she is trying to sabotage the entire movement to win an election. Faced with the fact that Fumo is now anti casino, Dicker has nothing to run on.
I oppose these casinos where they are proposed and I also oppose opportunist new comers who want to build a political career on doing something dozens and dozens of people have done as just one small part of their commitment to Philadelphia for years.
And Dan, pardon me, but do you live anywhere near these sites? You are a professional protestor. I think your take on the issues really cannot be taken credibly. Get arrested, talk about alpacas and hold your signs. The grown ups are too busy trying to re-site casinos.
I am beginning to think it is in the interest of Dicker and company to continue the fight instead of come to a conclusion. Come to the towers for drinks one night and I will teach you some history.
Dan is a friend . . .
And I have always been a fan of his work. We may disagree, Dan and I, but it is on the objective.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Mutual fans
Without too much fan waving, I'll state I think Gaetano is great, too!
You couldn't have a feisty movement without some disagreement. It's the finding common ground that makes for such good campaigns.
As always, Mr. Gaetano is
As always, Mr. Gaetano is tres gracious. 100% class act, even after Dicker's minions tried to have him ousted from PNA. It is Mr. Gaetano who should be running for the State Senate. Not Dicker.
Pebbles CANT be a Fumo Plant
If so, Vince needs his money back. Or, our money back. Because Pebbles' (why not use your real name at this point?) incessant attacks on Anne have reached comedic levels.
Pebbles:
1)Why don't you use your own name? It would give you more credibility with readers if you did. And, people tend to not be so vitriolic when they do.
2)I promise you that your style is having the opposite effect of what you seem to be hoping for. Slow down, and relax a little. Whatever you think about Anne's senate run, she is a dedicated activist, and there is not going to be a ton of support for doing nothing but attacking her.