Clueless; Lets talk Casino again. - Page 3 - DodgeBoard.com

lurker · #21 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

You cannot regulate stupidity and irresponsibility.

Nope, but we sure do elect them.

Detector · #22 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 07:59 AM

Honestly Mike B I think everyone here can see what you are trying to say but you are not addressing their response as to why they still feel a casino would be a good thing.

We understand the casino will come at a cost, and we understand that some people, obviously that don't live in a town with 2 packinghouses, love to preach the doom of a small town when gambling arrives. We also know we already have the crime ridden streets and get nothing back for living with it.

I believe a casino will go a long way toward ridding the city of the problems that have plagued us for ages.

Clueless · #23 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detector

Honestly Mike B I think everyone here can see what you are trying to say but you are not addressing their response as to why they still feel a casino would be a good thing.

I agree with Detector completely. Mike B - I think we get trapped in our rhetoric sometimes and too quick to quote others which leads to incomplete presentation of ideas. Earlier, Bubba found clear and convincing text that refutes the cannibalization of business and jobs. You have editorialized before about problems cause by gambling in Atlantic City, yet you don't make a comparison to a single facility in a rural community. Why? Is it because the story changes and doesn't support your beliefs? You have to admit, nothing between Atlantic City and Dodge is comparable.

For instance - I received some interesting data on crime. Boonville, MO is a smaller town than Dodge and has had a single casino of about the same size since 2001. Their crime rate has actually fallen and is 54% of the national average of crimes per thousand population. Dodge City is 130% of the average. You have to wonder, maybe we will lower our crime rate.

Bubba · #24 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

.....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....

Mike B. wouldn't talk bad about the packing plants because his livelihood depends on them being in business here!

jeezeweeze · #25 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba

Dodge City would benefit from a nice place of entertainment that the casino, restaurant and hotel would provide. If you want to give Dodge City a chance to survive, you should vote YES for the casino. If you want Dodge City to speed down its path of death then go ahead and vote NO for the casino.

I wish there had been one when I lived there... but I have a couple of ??

Is this gonna be a "latino casino" ?? wont it be an attraction for the latinos that call DC home.........I"m not meaning that as a racist thing... so please don't take it that way..... but isn't that a problem with most of the public locations now...in other words.... will the "English" speaking patrons eventually stop coming ?? But thinking about it...casinos are so loud that may not be a problem..

Someone said a casino will bring 700 new jobs... and of course a really nice casino has a KILLER buffet or restaurant so from what I hear from you guys is DC hasn't really got a service industry going on...so where will the staff come from ??

Bubba · #26 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clueless

I agree with Detector completely. Mike B - I think we get trapped in our rhetoric sometimes and too quick to quote others which leads to incomplete presentation of ideas. Earlier, Bubba found clear and convincing text that refutes the cannibalization of business and jobs. You have editorialized before about problems cause by gambling in Atlantic City, yet you don't make a comparison to a single facility in a rural community. Why? Is it because the story changes and doesn't support your beliefs? You have to admit, nothing between Atlantic City and Dodge is comparable.

For instance - I received some interesting data on crime. Boonville, MO is a smaller town than Dodge and has had a single casino of about the same size since 2001. Their crime rate has actually fallen and is 54% of the national average of crimes per thousand population. Dodge City is 130% of the average. You have to wonder, maybe we will lower our crime rate.

Mike B's letter to the editor in the Globe that touted all the crime and despair in Atlantic City was also refuted a few days letter by another letter in the Globe. It showed how the crime, poverty and despair was there long before the casinos got there. It also showed by stating facts how the gambling had helped the dying town of Cripple Creek, Co go from a virtual ghost town to a thriving community.

Mike B. · #27 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 10:11 AM

Bubba,

Please get your facts straight.

First of all, my livelihood does not depend on Cargill Meat Solutions or Nation Beef Packing. Neither company employs me. I am employed by the USDA as you well know. These plants (both of them) could close tomorrow and I'd still have a job and still recieve a pay check.

Secondly, if you have listened to me at all you would know that in the past I've said that ...the packing houses have brought a blight to our community and that is just one reason why they put alot of money back into our community...to compansate for the problems they have had a hand in creating.

So just here alone I've given two examples where you have pasted on false information.

Are you trying to tell Ford County that there is no cost to be paid for a casino in our County?

Tell you what Bubba, I've also stated in the past that I believe the casino issue will pass in Ford County. The statement "the casino always wins" is true.

Here's the deal. If a casino is built, I'll give you $100.00 in return I expect you to go to the casino every day for a month and gamble for two hours with that $100.00 After a month if you have increased that $100.00 any amount I will pay you another $100.00 for being a good sport. If you lose it all you pay me $200.00 for the use of my money. Deal or no deal? You choose! Of course since you are a good, honest and truthful man this arrangement would be an "On your honor" agreement, since ther would be no way for me or anyone else to check in on you keeping your word! I would trust you to do what is right! Deal or no deal?

Bubba · #28 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike B.

Bubba,

Please get your facts straight.

First of all, my livelihood does not depend on Cargill Meat Solutions or Nation Beef Packing. Neither company employs me. I am employed by the USDA as you well know. These plants (both of them) could close tomorrow and I'd still have a job and still recieve a pay check.

Secondly, if you have listened to me at all you would know that in the past I've said that ...the packing houses have brought a blight to our community and that is just one reason why they put alot of money back into our community...to compansate for the problems they have had a hand in creating.

So just here alone I've given two examples where you have pasted on false information.

Are you trying to tell Ford County that there is no cost to be paid for a casino in our County?

Tell you what Bubba, I've also stated in the past that I believe the casino issue will pass in Ford County. The statement "the casino always wins" is true.

Here's the deal. If a casino is built, I'll give you $100.00 in return I expect you to go to the casino every day for a month and gamble for two hours with that $100.00 After a month if you have increased that $100.00 any amount I will pay you another $100.00 for being a good sport. If you lose it all you pay me $200.00 for the use of my money. Deal or no deal? You choose! Of course since you are a good, honest and truthful man this arrangement would be an "On your honor" agreement, since ther would be no way for me or anyone else to check in on you keeping your word! I would trust you to do what is right! Deal or no deal?

Fact is if there were no packing plants the USDA would have no need for your employment. I'm not saying no packing plants in Dodge City, I said no packing plants period. Will that ever happen? Of course not. But as you can see, the correlation to packing plants and your job are clear. Without packing plants, your livelihood would be affected.

If you would have read my earlier post, and Army of One even talked about it. Going to a casino is a form of entertainment, and I would expect to spend (lose) money for the privilege of being entertained. So, would I accept your deal? The short answer is NO. I have no expectation of coming out ahead at the casino (but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen). I am paying the casino for entertainment, a nice place to pass some time and do some things that I would enjoy doing. Besides, I wouldn't be going to a casino everyday for a month no matter what. I don't have a compulsive personality. I love movies, but I don't go to the theater everyday. I love books, but I don't read a book everyday. I love to shoot my guns, but I don't set up targets and do it everyday. You know the old saying about too much of a good thing.....

Mike B. · #29 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba

Mike B. wouldn't talk bad about the packing plants because his livelihood depends on them being in business here!

Bubba, go back and re-read your post. You said,..."here"...You did not say packing plants period.

Do you think the USDA's only area of employment is meat inspection?

Again, my livelyhood would not be affected by the plants closing.

I will not argue this insignificant point any more.

The point is that real costs are associated with casino gambling. I have only heard of the benefits and none of the costs. I know good things will happen when a casino comes to Ford County, but let's also be responsible enough to be able to discuss and deal with the repercussions.

Bubba · #30 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike B.

...The point is that real costs are associated with casino gambling. I have only heard of the benefits and none of the costs. I know good things will happen when a casino comes to Ford County, but let's also be responsible enough to be able to discuss and deal with the repercussions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike B.

...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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba

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....

...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.
...

...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."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba

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

Quote:

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.

You may consider your "costs" refuted.

Your "supposed" costs are more accurately defined as myths. Misinformation, if you will, from the NCALG, to try to scare people into thinking that the gambling industry is bad. When, in fact, that a number of government studies show the opposite to be true. None of your "supposed" costs have ever been proven by independent government studies.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode