|
Wednesday, July 7, 2004
MAINE VOICES: Douglas Muir
Slot machines still a bad deal for Maine
Copyright © 2004 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. | ||||||
 |
Also on this page: About the Author | |||||
Rep. Gary Moore's column summarized the work of the 2004 Legislature on the racino initiative ("Racino stalled by state inaction," June 21) as a case of Gov. Baldacci and "his anti-gambling allies" trying to derail the racino plan, and Maine's horsemen and women trying to save it. That view does not square with the facts. For one thing, private citizens who oppose slot machine gambling in Maine had little to do with the framing of the revised bill, LD 1820. For us, the main positive result of the 2004 session is that we all now have a clearer idea of how much it will cost to regulate and administer this problem-laden industry. And the horsemen and women were certainly not in Augusta trying to "save the racino initiative." They were there, along with the OTB operators and commercial track operators, grabbing for a bigger share of the gambling revenues than what the voters had approved. They were successful. As reported in the April 29 Press Herald, the distribution of funds was changed in their favor by the Legislature. One percent of the handle corresponds to about $8 million per year. For example, payouts to players went from 90 percent of the "handle," or total amount wagered, to 89 percent, while the payout to the state general fund went from nothing to 1 percent. The owner's share dropped from 7.5 percent to 6.1 percent, while harness racing purses rose from 0.7 percent to 1 percent. The host community will now get 0.1 percent, up from nothing, while state administrative share rose from 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent. The commercial track fund went from nothing to 0.4 percent; the sire stakes fund went from 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent and the off-track betting fund went from nothing to 0.2 percent. Meanwhile, the shares allocated for prescription drugs, agricultural fairs and college scholarships didn't change at all. For members of the general public who do not regulate, work for or own gambling-related businesses (meaning nearly all of us), the passage of LD 1820 means a loss of benefits, dropping from 16 percent of gross revenues to 14.5 percent. The fact that the Legislature changed the "deal" approved by the voters and that these changes reduce the public benefit are two compelling reasons to send the law back to the voters for reconsideration. Another reason to reconsider is that the 2004 Legislature showed a total lack of interest in the large costs imposed upon society by this highly addictive form of gambling. For example, those costs include the cost of bankruptcy, embezzlement and insurance fraud, police and court costs, lost business productivity, misspent household funds and the costs of addiction treatment, family abuse and suicide. According to University of Illinois Prof. Earl Grinols, a nationally respected economist and author of the new book, "Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits," when gambling is allowed to expand, the general public experiences involuntary increases in social costs about equal to the increased amounts lost by gamblers. Increase they will. While the slick pre-election ads assured voters that passage would mean only a "limited number of slot machines" at existing venues, the amount of money lost to the slots in Bangor is projected to be five times larger than the amount now lost on all harness racing wagering in the state (live and OTB). Most of these social costs originate with the out-of-control behavior of pathological and problem gamblers. Unfortunately, the new racino law does not require the state or the operator to identify addictive gamblers or exclude them from the Bangor facility. Nor does it impose loss limits, which several states have found effective in limiting the financial damage that such gamblers do to themselves and eventually to their families, friends and employers. Because of these omissions, there is no reason to expect that the social costs arising from this project will be any lower than they have been in other states. Based on Grinols' data, the general public will have to pay around $6 in increased social costs for every $1 of benefits its members receive. Another reason for a new vote is that many voters supported slots in 2003 only because they believed that the tribal casino initiative would pass and felt that harness racing needed to be defended from this tough new competition. Voters are now free of this overwhelming distraction and can consider the desirability of slot machines as a stand-alone question. For all of these reasons, the grassroots organization No Slots for ME! has launched a citizen's initiative to place a new vote on the legalization of slot machines on the ballot in 2005. - Special to the Press Herald
|
||||||