08/12/2021
The Economic Development Argument Exposed
From a business-economic perspective, the main issue involved in legalizing various forms of gambling is whether gambling activities constitute a valid strategy for economic development. While the dollars invested in various legalized gambling projects and the jobs initially created are evident, the industry has been criticized for inflating the positive economic impacts and trivializing or ignoring the negative impacts.
The industry's tendency to focus on specialized factors provides a distorted view of the localized economic positives, while ignoring the strategic business-economic costs to the state as a whole. U.S. House of Representatives Committee Hearing on Small Business criticized the impacts that casino-style gambling activities inflict upon the criminal justice system, the social welfare, system, small businesses, and the economy. Utilizing legalized gambling activities as a strategy for economic development was thoroughly discredited during the hearing.
It is to be noted that the State of Florida conducted a comprehensive statewide analysis of the impacts of legalized gambling activities. Its report concurred with the congressional hearing's conclusions.
The reality is gaming historically and currently creates a boom and bust economic cycle, which lends substantial credence to the data which indicates over a period time gambling activities eventually cause: (1) increased taxes, not lower taxes, (2) a loss of jobs from the overall region, (3) economic disruption of other businesses, (4) increased crime and (5) large social and welfare costs for society in general.
For example two studies done in Illinois concluded that for every one job created by a riverboat casino, surrounding communities lost one or more jobs from pre-existing businesses.
In recent economic history, legalized gambling activities have been directly and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers. The field research throughout the nation indicates that for every dollar the legalized gambling interests indicate is being contributed in taxes, it usually costs the taxpayers at least 3 dollars- - while higher numbers have been calculated. These costs to taxpayers are reflected in; (1) infrastructure costs, (2) relatively high regulatory costs, (3) expenses to criminal justice system and, (4) large social-welfare costs.
Social welfare costs can take a major toll on some communities, as legalized gambling activities act as a regressive tax on the poor. Specifically, gambling activities makes “poor people poorer” and can dramatically intensify many pre-existing social welfare problems. Demographic analyses reveal that certain disadvantaged socioeconomic groups tend to gamble proportionately greater amounts of their overall income.
Since the U.S. economy and most state economies are extensive in scope, the socioeconomic negatives associated with legalized gambling activities can remain hidden for long periods of time. However, just because a particular activity is "legalized" by a state government does not mean that the negative business or societal impacts have been eliminated-- or even reduced.
Don’t be fooled by the glitter and promises of economic boom, as casinos are designed for you to be engulfed for as long as your wallet or purse can hold out. What you should worry about is your community and the businesses that will suffer and the many impacts that will change Slidell and St. Tammany Parish forever.
Some point of facts: For the casino to generate 8 million dollars of revenue for the Parish they would have to generate total revenues of approximately $200,000,000 million yearly, of which the casino's on the coast have a combined average of 109,000,000. Even if the Sun, moon and earth were lined up in a perfect eclipse and they were able to meet these over stated goals, Slidell would then reap only 1.2 million dollars. Do you think that will cover the costs of the impact facing Slidell? You can't even clean all ditches out in Slidell with 1.2 million.
The deal made by Masingill, our non-resident, no skin in the game, Director of Economic Development, is third rate and gives Peninsula tremendous loopholes to not comply and/or modify the agreement to there greater benefit.
