Dear Mayor,
Your statement
in The Spec that gambling already exists is a terribly weak rebuttal to
the opponents. Statements like that suggest to people that you haven’t given
any thought to defending your claim or refuting the opposing argument. It
speaks nothing to the question of whether or not gambling has negative social
impacts in Hamilton. Therefore, it doesn’t answer the question “will the casino
have a negative social impact?”, it just skirts the issue. Don’t infuriate the opponents by giving unsound
arguments and failing to address their concerns. Present a grounded argument
and the opponents will listen (most of them anyway).
You told opponents to dial back
the emotional debate. From what I can surmise, it’s the proponents who argue
baselessly and the opponents who are well-founded! But I’ll present to you my
debate, emotionless and supported by evidence and expert opinion. The most
powerful evidence are the observations and conclusions from an exhaustive list
of studies. It just so happens that such a comprehensive report by Williams,
Rehm, and Stevens exists. I doubt that you’ll take the time to read it, but
I’ll give you the opportunity anyway (click to download) and provide you with the important conclusion:
...the overall impact of gambling in a particular
jurisdiction in a specific time period can range from small to large, and from
strongly positive to strongly negative. That being said, in most
jurisdictions, in most time periods, the impacts of gambling tend to be mixed,
with a range of mild positive economic impacts offset by a range of mild to
moderate negative social impacts. (emphasis theirs)
In other words,
a comprehensive analysis of the socioeconomic effects of gambling reveals that
investing in gambling is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. It's
a gamble that typically results
in only modest economic benefit that is outweighed by negative social impact.
Are you willing to gamble Hamilton’s future on a casino that the evidence says
is more likely to fail than succeed?
In light of the
fact that most casinos are failures, I urge you to really scrutinize casino
proposals. Are the projected numbers deliberately misleading? Are
proponents dismissing or downplaying the legitimate concerns of the opponents?
Expert economists (including Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson)
agree that casinos aren’t good for a local economy unless they attract new
tourist dollars. Are you certain that a downtown casino will attract new
tourists to Hamilton? What will make people choose Hamilton over Niagara Falls?
Or Toronto? Or Las Vegas for that matter? The proponents are failing to make a
convincing case that the casino would attract more tourist dollars, and until
they do, they will fail to convince anyone with good economic sense that
Hamilton should proceed with a casino deal.
The concerns
are real, based on real observations of real casinos. Most casinos derive the
bulk of their revenue from the existing local economy. 40-60% of gambling
revenues come from problem and pathological gamblers. 65-80% of casino revenues
come from 10% of casino patrons. These aren’t intangible feelings but are
alarming facts that rightly have many people concerned. The rebuttals by
proponents are superficial, unfounded arguments which often fail to even
address the core issues. Statements like “gambling already exists” and “problem
gamblers are a minority of the population”. Yes, gambling exists, but that
doesn’t mean a casino couldn’t exacerbate crime rates. Yes, problem gamblers
are a minority of the population, but they are a minority that casinos are
designed to prey upon. A minority that furnishes the majority of gambling
revenues. A minority that is a significant burden on society, including the 30%
of the population that doesn’t gamble at all.
When it comes
down to it, we know you’re no expert. You must rely on the expertise and
judgment of others. But that doesn’t mean you should be naive. A proposal is by
people with vested interest in their own financial success, not the needs of
the city. You need to really analyze it to see through all the smoke and
mirrors. Look beyond the information the proponents feed you. Look to sources
that have no compelling reason to be biased one way or the other.
What do the
citizens say? A recent poll of 5,402 residents indicates that 56% of Hamiltonians are opposed to a downtown casino.
What do expert
economists like Paul Samuelson and Earl Grinols say? They report that gambling
is detrimental to socioeconomic progress.
What does the
empirical evidence say? Williams et al. have already examined and summarized it
all. The evidence says that investment in a casino is a gamble that usually
doesn’t pay off.
Do right by
your city's citizens. Examine things closely and address their legitimate concerns with a
legitimate response.
No comments:
Post a Comment