Point: There’s more good than bad to casino gambling

As printed in the Eagle Tribune March 23, 2008

The extremes in the casino debate have hijacked the reality of the debate itself. Those in the opposing camp predict economic devastation predicated by catastrophic social costs. Those in the camp favoring casinos point to them as a panacea for all of the commonwealth’s current fiscal difficulties – the solution to local aid and the myriad other costs currently crippling communities and families. Putting aside these polarizing views, neither of which is likely to happen, let’s take a look at the facts.

Opponents argue that casinos will bring skyrocketing rates of problem gambling, crime, and personal bankruptcy to our state. They envision a scenario with addicts roaming the streets, and thousands of young children left in cars to fend for themselves for hours while their parents gamble away their life savings. In fact, studies have shown that less than 3 percent of the population is afflicted by problem and pathological gambling, compared with 10 percent of adults who are problem drinkers, and 18 percent of adults who are addicted to cigarettes and tobacco. Gov. Deval Patrick is right when he says that we don’t ban these types of behaviors – we regulate availability of these products, and provide services to help those in need.

Indeed, the number of people who may be negatively affected by casinos is dwarfed by those individuals whose mental and physical health would potentially be improved due to increased employment and opportunities for health care where they would not otherwise have those benefits. Employee impact studies of casinos across the country indicate that gaming facilities draw 15 percent to 30 percent of their initial work force directly off welfare and unemployment rolls, which translates into 6,000 people off public assistance rolls in Massachusetts. That is a social savings that far offsets any social costs.

The governor’s proposal to create three casinos would generate $3 billion in new capital investment and at least 10,000 construction jobs. The casinos would generate $2 billion annually in gross gaming revenues, $400 million in gaming tax revenues, and 20,000 permanent jobs for state residents. Others will argue that none of these projections will come to fruition, but even if these numbers are cut in half, they will provide the state with an unprecedented number of new jobs and revenue that we would be hard pressed to find elsewhere.

Some critics have questioned whether casinos constitute “real” job growth opportunities for low-income workers. At present, Massachusetts is one of only three states in the nation to still have fewer jobs than at the end of the last recession. We live in a state where two-thirds of our residents do not have a bachelor’s degree. This opportunity is about providing jobs for people who do not have jobs. It means converting part-time jobs into full-time jobs, and jobs without benefits into jobs with benefits. Resort casinos will do all of those things for real people looking for advancement in their quality of life. These individuals deserve good paying full-time jobs with benefits that provide an opportunity for financial security and growth.

Despite the action taken by the House of Representatives this week in voting down the governor’s proposal, if I was a betting man, I’d wager this is not the last we’ve heard of the casino debate.