Issue Position: Gambling

Issue Position

Gambling Is Not the New Hampshire Way

The proposal receiving the most attention in the State House to address the state budget shortfall was gambling. Supporters of the idea, including many of my fellow Senators, claimed that legalizing gambling in New Hampshire would jump start our weak economy by creating jobs and replenish the state treasury with revenue from licensing the facilities and their gaming machines.

To achieve both of these goals, proponents of the measure proposed legislation to build six gaming establishments in different areas of the state and fill them with 17,000 video slot machines and many other casino games. This ambitious gaming proposal would have made New Hampshire the largest gaming center north of Atlantic City.

When this initial proposal did not meet with success, supporters scaled back their plan in an attempt to win new converts by reducing both the number of sites and the number of gaming machine. However, each time the numbers were reduced, the amount of proposed revenue to be generated from gambling also decreased.

In the end, as it turns out, legalizing gambling wasn't needed to help balance the state budget. In fact, even if one of the proposals had passed, the limited moneys generated by gaming would not have been available this year to help reduce the state's deficit. Most analysts believed it would have taken a minimum of 12 to 18 months before any gambling revenues would materialize.

I am opposed to legalizing casino gambling and video slot machines because I believe that gambling would have a devastating effect on our economy, our communities and our political environment, destroying the unique character we have come to love and appreciate in New Hampshire. Gaming might generate additional state revenues and economic activity, but it would also generate additional economic, social and political costs.

New Hampshire's economy is very dependent upon tourists. The dollars generated from our room and meals tax provide the third highest source of revenues to the state, just below our business profits and business enterprise taxes. Visitors and tourists only have a limited amount of dollars to spend on entertainment and recreation. Spending those dollars in a gambling casino means they don't have those dollars to spend eating out, shopping, and at other entertainment venues which are owned and run, for the most part, by New Hampshire people. For example, introducing gambling at Seabrook could very well reduce visitors to Hampton Beach, just at the very time $17 million is being spent to upgrade and expand amenities at the beach. Most of the businesses at Hampton Beach are locally owned and hire New Hampshire workers. This is equally true for many other areas of the state.

Gambling would also increase the size and cost of government at both the state and community level in order to deal with problem gambling. Additionally, the costs for improved infrastructure and other documented economic consequences in the communities where the facilities would be located and in the communities adjacent to the facilities would increase, adding a greater property tax burden at the local level. At the state level, Governor Lynch's Commission on Gambling concluded in its final report that the state did not have in place the regulatory and enforcement tools to oversee the operation of gaming facilities. Finally, in some other states out-of-state gambling interests with deep pockets have begun to unduly impact the political process.

Source