Home » Opinion » Editorials
Casino money: Robbing Peter to pay Paul
Casino backers claim that flatlanders will flock to New Hampshire to play in the glorious gaming palaces. From where will they flock? Massachusetts? That state is getting three of its own casinos and one slot-machine parlor. It will have one casino in each region of the state, including a big one in or near Boston. Why would any Bay Stater come to New Hampshire to gamble once those casinos (approved by law in 2011) are built?
Vermont has less than half of New Hampshire's population, and Maine's is roughly equivalent to New Hampshire's. Both of those states have median incomes that are more than $10,000 lower than New Hampshire's. We are going to count on hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue from the handful of our poorer eastern and western neighbors who are willing to drive here on the weekends to play slots and roulette?
No, the bulk of the money will come from Granite Staters. Casino backers acknowledge this when they talk of casinos retaining the money Granite Staters already spend at casinos in Connecticut.
That is why organizations like the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association oppose expanded gambling. The NHLRA board overwhelmingly opposes casinos, noting that "casino gambling revenues will come at the expense of other recreational activities in our seacoast, lakes and mountains throughout the state. This will lead to reductions in rooms and meals taxes and losses in retail expenditures," NHLRA chairman Joel Bourassa wrote to the group's members last week.
Bingo. Casinos would rob Peter to pay Paul. In New Hampshire's case, Peter represents restaurants, bars, entertainment venues and charities that benefit from the existing small-scale charitable gaming operations. Paul represents billionaire casino owners and the state. That is not a good trade off.
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Minimum wages: Maximum spin - 11
- A CIA bombshell: Feinstein and the Fourth - 1
- Supervised visitation: The metal detector problem - 1
- Charter cap trap: A restriction to repeal - 0
- Taken for a ride: Hooksett’s Pinkerton deal - 4
- Bedford’s road bond: A good deal for a big fix - 1
- Legislative ethics: NH way works better than most - 0
- Blue shame: Obamacare's big change - 19
- Obamacare's new trick: Only temporary relief - 21
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Sens. Shaheen, Ayotte slam latest push for online sales tax - 0
- Bedford girls basketball team spreads the scoring wealth - 0
- New Hampshire high school athletes on the run (and jumping) in NYC - 0
- Ian Clark's High School Hockey: Teams anxious to play - 0
- Manchester Mayor Gatsas: Vote tells me Hooksett is satisfied with Manchester schools - 0
- After Pinkerton rejection, what's next for Hooksett students? - 0
- Nashua aldermen approve pair of union contracts - 0
- Was a crime committed? Nashua police are not certain - 0
- Nashua must decide on parkway project's bridge aesthetics - 0
SCORE workshop offers social media tips
Minimum wages: Maximum spin
Hooksett votes down Pinkerton schools deal
Hooksett has five new school board members
A CIA bombshell: Feinstein and the Fourth