Clueless; Lets talk Casino again.

[Mike B.]

Gambling: What the experts are saying!

In 2006, Frank Fahrenkopf was President and CEO for the American Gaming Association, and thus stood as the leading national spokesman for commercial casinos.
But would Fahrenkopf want one of his products in his own home town? Here’s his comment:
"People have the right to go to the ballot box and determine what they want the quality of life to be in their own area. Now if someone were to come along and tell me that they were going to put a casino in McLean, Virginia, where I live, I would probably work very, very hard against it. I just don’t -- what’s the old saying, ‘NIMBY, not in my back yard?’ Now I may be in favor of gaming, but I just don’t want it located in a particular area." AGA CEO Frank Fahrenkopf in Cleveland, Ohio, Oct. 24, 2006

Mr. Fahrenkopf knows that gambling…

Lowers quality of life, Causes addiction,
Contributes to divorce, Increases crime,
Cannibalizes jobs, Increases bankruptcy,
Corrupts politics, Damages the economy,
Increases suicides.

If Frank would not want these in his home town, why
would we?

[Mike B.]

In 1994, Donald Trump, owner of the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, was quoted as saying, “People will spend a tremendous amount of money in casinos, money that they would normally spend on buying a refrigerator or a new car. Local businesses suffer because they’ll lose customer dollars to the casino.”
It's estimated that our fellow citizens -- statistically our poorest neighbors -- will have to wager and lose more than $900 million each year for the State of Kansas to get its $200 million payoff.
The following facts apply to the For & Anti casino proponents, the gamblers & non-gamblers alike:
(1) A fool and his/her money are soon parted.
(2) Make no mistake, the house (meaning casino) always wins; it’s a given.
(3) Gambling (or gaming, take your pick) results in economic depravity, not development.
We are going to lose millions of dollars that are now spent at local businesses. State revenues will go down and social impact costs will go up. It will hurt all the entertainment industry, and it will hurt retail.

[Mike B.]

All I'm saying is that we need to look at the entire picture concerning the impact of a casino. I agree some good things will happen, but at what cost?

All I hear are the benefits and all the cost are left out. There will be costs. Nothing is free and everything has a price tag.

I know that trying to convince someone, who is pro-casino and pro-gambling, that gambling isn't all it's cracked up to be, is very unlikely.

But let's also be realistic in our approach concerning gambling.

Everyone needs to be educated to cast an informed vote. Right? Please don't eliminate education because you don't like what you hear from the other side!

[Made in the USA]

Mr. Fahrenkopf knows that packing plants:

Lowers quality of life, Causes addiction,
Contributes to divorce, Increases crime,
Cannibalizes jobs, Increases bankruptcy,
Corrupts politics, Damages the economy,
Increases suicides.

If Frank would not want these in his home town, why
would we?

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Mike B.

Gambling: What the experts are saying!

In 2006, Frank Fahrenkopf was President and CEO for the American Gaming Association, and thus stood as the leading national spokesman for commercial casinos.
But would Fahrenkopf want one of his products in his own home town? Here’s his comment:
"People have the right to go to the ballot box and determine what they want the quality of life to be in their own area. Now if someone were to come along and tell me that they were going to put a casino in McLean, Virginia, where I live, I would probably work very, very hard against it. I just don’t -- what’s the old saying, ‘NIMBY, not in my back yard?’ Now I may be in favor of gaming, but I just don’t want it located in a particular area." AGA CEO Frank Fahrenkopf in Cleveland, Ohio, Oct. 24, 2006

Mr. Fahrenkopf knows that gambling…

Lowers quality of life, Causes addiction,
Contributes to divorce, Increases crime,
Cannibalizes jobs, Increases bankruptcy,
Corrupts politics, Damages the economy,
Increases suicides.

If Frank would not want these in his home town, why
would we?

Funny how you attribute these things that Mr. Fahrenkopf "knows," since I found these questions and replies in an PBS interview.

Q: What is the most misunderstood thing about this industry, do you think?

Fahrenkopf: I think there are...stereotypes that are out there that look back 30, 40 years ago, which are perpetuated by some movies, that come out of Hollywood, you know? "Casino." And you go back to the "Godfather" movies. I mean, for years, the FBI and major law enforcement have said there is not, today, in -- what we call the entertainment, casino/entertainment business -- an organized crime penetration. It's not there.

A lot of the opponents love to drag up the old stereotype and throw it out. So, that's number one. Secondly is the question whether or not having a casino or gambling in a particular community attracts what we call street crime. That there's something inherent, something endemic about gambling that creates street crime -- people are going to get mugged. There's going to be larceny and so forth. And I think that's been proven over the years, by law enforcement, to be not true.

It's nothing inherent in gaming. Any endeavor, any enterprise that attracts large numbers of people... the crime rate at Orlando went up. It wasn't anything that Mickey and Minnie were doing that caused it, it was just that it was a draw of people to a community. Branson, Missouri is one that I use quite often. A wonderful, wonderful town in the Ozarks with country music. They pride themselves as being the buckle of the bible belt. And very limited alcohol, certainly not in any of the theaters that are there. It's now a country-western Mecca. And their crime rate went up.

It wasn't because of anything that's happening there. It's a very safe place. But, what you do is when you draw large numbers of people to a community, you are going to have street crimes. It's not -- doesn't have anything to do with gambling, inherently.

I think the one that I worked the hardest on, however, has to do with the so-called problem of the compulsive or problem gamblers. The experts tell us -- the counseling groups and physicians who spend time on it -- that it's somewhere between 1 - 5% of the population. People who can't help themselves and will go in and gamble away their money.

The opponents of gaming say, "Well, these people then, they go out and they commit crimes and they go on welfare and therefore they are a drain on society. And therefore we shouldn't allow this to go on. And that's the reason to stop gambling.

Well, forgetting for a moment whether the fact that 95% or more, of the American public doesn't have a problem. Our approach to this was we should take this on head on. And the industry has. When we started the American Gaming Association, one of the first things our board did is said, "Look, if there's a problem out there -- regardless of how small it is -- we have an obligation as corporate citizens to do something about it." And they are doing something about it. They're putting a million dollars a year into what we call the Center for Responsible Gaming, which is located on the campus of the University of Missouri in Kansas City.

The Board of Directors in the center is half industry and half -- the leading people, today, in this country, dealing with problem or compulsive gaming -- physicians, doctors -- former secretary of HSS. The people who really work with this.

Now, we don't do research ourselves, because we know, any study that we do that says American Gaming Association on it, people are going to throw it up on the shelf. What we do is we take that money and we make grants to institutions, that are, hopefully, beyond approach in anyone's mind, to do work and study.

The first grant was just recently given to Harvard University's Medical School Addiction Center to look at all the evidence that's out there to try to find solutions to this problem. This is different. There is no analogies that can be made with tobacco or alcohol or drugs.

In those addictions, people are ingesting a foreign substance into their body. With problem or compulsive gaming, it's more akin to the problems -- I read more and more about and see on television more -- of people who have those little plastic cards, called credit cards and can't control their spending. It's compulsive behavior. And not enough study has been done of that.

We, as an industry, are stepping up to the plate. We're putting our money where our mouth is, and, hopefully -- and that's why I'm so supportive of the federal commission when it gets up and operating because the National Academy of Science is charged to do that research and come up with some solutions and answers.

Q: Tell me about the Arthur Andersen Job Study. Can you boil it down to a simple statement, or two, about what it came to tell you?

Fahrenkopf: Well, one of the arguments that anti-gaming activists have made for years, is that gambling tends to be -- they use the word, cannibalistic -- that... when it comes into a community, what it does is it doesn't create any new wealth or doesn't bring any new money, it just takes money away from other business. That argument has been out there for a long time and kept being pushed by anti-gaming opponents.

We wanted to take a hard look at that because we didn't believe it was true. Arthur Andersen did a macroeconomic study of the United States, going into those new jurisdictions and found that that is not the case. That overwhelmingly what's happened, is the disposable of the income of the American people has gone up dramatically, and gaming is only taking a very, very small part of that. And so it is not driving. It is not cannibalistic.

And, in fact, what it has done -- in most of the markets where it's been looked at--it's actually helped other businesses. Now, that's not to say, that if a casino comes into a community and opens up and it has wonderful restaurants that, you know, some guy whose had a family restaurant down the road for a hundred years, hasn't been able to compete.

But that's no different than if a new mall comes into a community. And in that new mall there's modern motion picture center where there's six or seven screen. There's a new shoe store. There's a new restaurant. When that new mall comes into a community, that old theater that was once there; the old shoe store; the old restaurant are likewise going to suffer. I mean, it happens to be a free market, capitalist system.

And so why the Arthur Andersen study was important -- not only was to show that there's a tremendous, positive financial impact to businesses and to the state and local jurisdictions by way of taxation -- but that it is not cannibalizing other businesses as the opponents have said for so many years.

It appears that your research on the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling website didn't paint the whole picture about how he "feels" or what he "knows."

[Bubba]

I also found this in a statement to a Rhode Island Special House Commission to study gambling.

Creating Jobs and Strengthening the Economy


The commercial casino segment of the industry directly employs approximately 365,000 people, who earned $11.5 billion in 2001, including benefits and tips. Those figures do not include the more than 450,000 construction-related and indirect jobs generated by casinos from local purchases of goods and services.

The commercial casino industry contributed $25.7 billion in total revenues to the economy in 2001. Although we don’t have more recent figures, a 1997 PricewaterhouseCoopers study commissioned by the AGA found that from 1993 to 1995, our industry spent almost $13 billion for construction and purchases of property, furniture and equipment, including improvements and refurbishments. The investment-to-profit ratio for the major casino companies is often as high as 3-to-1. In Atlantic City alone, casino gaming generated investment of more than $6 billion since its inception in 1978. In Mississippi, more than $7 billion has been invested in construction of casinos, hotels, restaurants, showrooms, retail outlets, golf courses and other amenities. As you can see, this industry has a significant impact across the entire economic spectrum.


Generating Tax Revenue for Community Improvements


Along with creating jobs and generating capital investment in our communities, the commercial casino industry pays its fair share of taxes, which help fund education, urban renewal, infrastructure improvements, benefits for the disabled and the elderly, historical renovation and other programs.

In 2001, commercial casino companies paid $3.6 billion in direct gaming taxes to state and local governments, which doesn’t include the income, real estate and other normal taxes paid by all businesses, nor does it include the billions of dollars in taxes paid by our employees.

As the federal commission report indicated:

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission heard from a number of local officials in jurisdictions where casinos are located. Among those who informed the commissioners with their testimony were Elgin, Ill., Mayor Kevin Kelly, Mayor Scott King from Gary, Ind., as well as mayors from Bettendorf, Iowa, and Alton, Ill. The commission also heard from Mayors A.J. Holloway, Bobby Williams, Bob Short and Eddy Favre of Biloxi, Tunica, Gulfport and Bay St. Louis, Miss., respectively. Without exception, these elected officials expressed support for gambling and recited instances of increased revenues for their cities. They also discussed community improvements made possible since the advent of gambling in their communities and reviewed the general betterment of life for the citizenry in their cities and towns.


Weighing Benefits and Costs

Now that I have provided you with an overview of the benefits we provide to our communities, let me next address the claim of enormous social costs associated with our industry. Again, I will cite the federal commission’s research.

The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC) found that “[G]ambling appears to have net economic benefits for economically depressed communities.” Adam Rose, a professor at Penn State University who also conducted research for the commission, found that “… a new casino of even limited attractiveness, placed in a market that is not already saturated, will yield positive economic benefits on net to its host economy.” And, as I indicated earlier, NORC determined that “[t]hose communities closest to casinos experienced a 12% to 17% drop in welfare payments, unemployment rates and unemployment insurance.” Its community database analysis also found that spending on social services was no different in places closest to casinos than in places further from casinos.

While opponents of our industry have made outlandish claims about social costs of $200 billion annually, the commission-funded research conducted by NORC placed the annual cost to society of pathological gambling—from casinos, lotteries, pari-mutuel wagering and charitable gaming, as well as illegal gambling—at about $5 billion. While $5 billion is not an insignificant number, it is helpful to keep it in perspective with the annual cost for alcohol abuse, which is $166 billion, and the annual cost for heart disease, which is $125 billion.

As the University of Maryland found in a 1997 study of the impact of casinos on crime and other social problems, communities on the Gulf Coast area of Mississippi and in St. Louis have experienced little change in social costs due to the advent of gaming. Interviews with social service agencies indicated modest increases in the demands for their services. In fact, the principal agency providing mental health services in the Gulf Coast area reported that, “[N]o more than 1 percent of its caseload involved gambling problems; nor did the officials believe many cases had even an indirect relationship to gaming activities.” In St. Louis, the local family service agencies did not experience an increase in caseloads, as they had expected, and “expressed their surprise at how little indication they had of any effect from casinos.” (The Impact of Casinos on Crime and other Social Problems: An Analysis of Recent Experiences; by Peter Reuter; School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park; January 1997; p. V)


Other Alleged Social Costs

Opponents of our industry link gaming with a host of other alleged social costs, none of which has been proven by independent government studies. In fact, the opposite is true, although you won’t hear gaming opponents discuss these findings. As with pathological gambling, it is important for you to weigh this information about alleged social costs.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Mike B.

In 1994, Donald Trump, owner of the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, was quoted as saying, “People will spend a tremendous amount of money in casinos, money that they would normally spend on buying a refrigerator or a new car. Local businesses suffer because they’ll lose customer dollars to the casino.”
It's estimated that our fellow citizens -- statistically our poorest neighbors -- will have to wager and lose more than $900 million each year for the State of Kansas to get its $200 million payoff.
The following facts apply to the For & Anti casino proponents, the gamblers & non-gamblers alike:
(1) A fool and his/her money are soon parted.
(2) Make no mistake, the house (meaning casino) always wins; it’s a given.
(3) Gambling (or gaming, take your pick) results in economic depravity, not development.
We are going to lose millions of dollars that are now spent at local businesses. State revenues will go down and social impact costs will go up. It will hurt all the entertainment industry, and it will hurt retail.

Rebuttal to statement in bold above...

Q: The odds on the lottery are horrendous.

Fahrenkopf: Well, statistical odds are that -- I'm quoting from some studies that have been done by some of the gaming magazines -- that, if you walk into a casino, the casino out of a hundred dollars is gonna owe maybe eight or nine dollars. You're going to walk out over a period of time gaming with more than ninety percent that you walked in with. If you go to a horse track or dog track, they're gonna hold about thirty three dollars, and you'll walk home with about sixty six dollars. But lotteries -- the odds of winning the lotteries are around fifty percent.

So, you know -- but again, people gamble for different reasons. Some like to go in a casino and like to hear the bells going off. Others like to go to their seven-eleven and buy a lottery ticket picking the numbers of their childrens' birthday, their anniversary day, or whatever. So different strokes for different folks.

I can't speak for everybody, but I think that "losing" $10 out of $100 over time is pretty cheap entertainment. Compare that to myself going to the theater, in the afternoon at a reduced admission, and buying a popcorn and a drink, I "lose" $10-$20 pretty easily for a couple hours of entertainment.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Made in the USA

Mr. Fahrenkopf knows that packing plants:

Lowers quality of life, Causes addiction,
Contributes to divorce, Increases crime,
Cannibalizes jobs, Increases bankruptcy,
Corrupts politics, Damages the economy,
Increases suicides.

If Frank would not want these in his home town, why
would we?

AMEN BROTHER...AMEN

[Army_of_One]

Where were all the people that wanted to measure the "social costs" when they built the packing plants?

[Army_of_One]

This is just ME but my wife and I go to the casino's back home KC) about 2 or 3 times a year. Going to a casino is entertainment. Just like going to the city, having a really nice dinner, going to a movie and maybe having a few drinks at a club or in comparison say going to a chiefs game on a Sunday. Either way you are going to drop at least a couple of hundred dollars. We go into the casino with a couple hundred and play for hours. It's entertainment. We don't expect to come out ahead but have more often than not. There will always be people that abuse it. We drive..people abuse that by drinking. We drink but there are drunks, we have the internet and people abuse and misuse it. Anything used in excess in bad and some people will give in to the gambling addiction. These are probably the same people who spends 25% of their checks on lottery tickets hoping to hit it big instead of saving or investing that money. You cannot regulate stupidity and irresponsibility. Virtually everything we have is our society is misused by some and for that they may suffer but why keep those that will benefit from something from having it?

As far as social costs...I don't see any lobby to get rid of the packing plants and to be honest with you almost all of the DC problems can be traced back to the plants in one way or another.....so if anyone wants to talk about social costs that would be a GREAT place to start....