Jack Pot?
I’m not in favor of giving the current casino operators a perpetual monopoly, but I’m also not a fan of trying to gamble our way back to prosperity by adding more casinos.
BTW – Since studies have shown that casino gambling is a tax on poor people, I wonder if anyone will suggest that rich people should have their taxes raised as well?
While I think that legitimate questions can be raised about the desirability of having any gambling venues in a state, I think that granting a select few a legal monopoly in a state is offensive. If Delaware is going to permit gambling in the state, the state government and the legislative process should not be used to instantiate and protect a cartel.
Once again in the “impossible to raise taxes” era, we get to pick between two very crappy choices.
I hear ya, Jason. It does seem like vested interests configure events so that all the otions seem bad. That’s a measure of how far our political and legislative systems are beyond the people’s democratic control.
“BTW – Since studies have shown that casino gambling is a tax on poor people, I wonder if anyone will suggest that rich people should have their taxes raised as well?”
More like a tax on idiots. Should that be the case, may they be taxed hard and often.
Or at least it’s a tax on people who are really bad at math.
The casinos have developed a highly sophisticated system of coercion. As a result “80 percent of gambling revenue comes from households with incomes of less than $50,000 a year.”
Contrary to what the state’s study said, the addition of two new casinos in the area — the Hollywood casino in Perryville, Md., and Ocean Downs in Berlin, Md. — have hurt the bottom line at Delaware’s venues.
Well, duh.
Which means that Harrington and Dover probably see the writing on the wall if there is an expansion. And that perhaps the others see that the window to capture any additional market share is closing. And even that might be too late.
Rickman says…… “three is enough, four is fine, if I own it and its across the state line”
Casinos and lotteries are totally parasitic. It’s a lousy way to raise revenue.
…and it really is a tax on the stupid, but it’s OK to protect idiots from themselves.
Any information on the effect of Harrah’s Chester on Delaware casino traffic? I am not a casino person, but if I was, I’d consider it. It’s much closer to Claymont and Brandywine Hundred than Delaware Park. The location sucks, but you can’t see the state prison or the crap along Route 291 when you’re inside.
Anon said – Rickman says…… “three is enough, four is fine, if I own it and its across the state line”
you all do realise what that means…for those that don’t – the owner of Delaware Park, also owns Ocean Downs….so exactly why is he whining about more casinos in Delaware- Ocean Downs has not affected the revenue in Delaware Park – maybe the revenue in Harrington – but why would he care about that??
Oh, that’s right – its OK for him to compete with the other casinos, like Harrington,, but he himself doesnt want competition to be near him…
he wants the monopoly for himself
rather disingenious, wouldn’t you say…
and we tax alcohol, no one bitchin’ about that – no one twists your arm to drink – or worse, drink and drive and kill other people – that is more a pox on society that gambling…
I’m pretty sure gambling related deaths in Delaware are lower than deaths resulting from alcohol….
I’m laying 5 to 1 Schwartzcopf’s bill goes nowhere.
I would not be so sure gambling related deaths in Delaware are lower than deaths resulting from alcohol. When you factor in broken homes, suicides, homelessness, drug and alcohol addictions you can start to see that gambling has a host of downstream costs that are not accounted for when the states skims its 24 cents from Rickman’s haul. For every “winner” there are tens of thousands of losers.
there certainly are downsides to gmbling – no doubt. Persoanlly, I have never even bought a lottery ticket
but, we don’t seem to regulate other vices we sell. like alcohol? I don’t understand the big flurry over gambling,,, the state “sanctions drinking” so why not gambling – o rprostitution for that matter??
personally, lets legalize marajuian and put the cartels out of business – I would rather see that than the other two anyway.
@skippertee – if I bet at all, I would bet tht he would not pre-file it unless he has garnered the votes to get it thru already – or else, why waste his time…….
Gov. Markell has been hell-bent on relying on more casinos to bolster our state coffers since he took office.
If we are going to keep three, get rid of crappy Delaware Park and Harrington and replace with something upscale and nice near Wilmington and Millsboro.
Dover Downs is a really nice spot. DP and Harrington are S&^! Holes.
Better yet, how bout’ having a ‘real’ plan for Delaware, Jack!
How much money is going towards all the poor who will be addicted? More crime, families not able to pay their bills. This is so sick and disgusting as a method to get more money. If Markell thinks gambling can raise more taxes, why not just legalize and tax pot? Which do you think will bring in more money, and keep more people from being arrested, jailed and costing us more money. Legalize, and TAX!
The question isn’t whether gambling is bad. Of course it is. The question is whether the current casinos should be immune from in-state competition. If we don’t protect existing supermarkets by restricting thenumber of them, why should we protect existing casinos that way?
It’s no secret, the more impoverished an area, the more density of lottery agents. It’s part of the “wagon wheel” sociologists term the anchoring of the dismal future of high poverty areas w/ infiltration of corner liquor stores, and easy lottery access. It’s a hard-earned dollar placed on that ticket–where it’s not a game, but a lousy ROI. And I guess now we’ll probably run busses to help them, run themselves (and those who depend on them), into the ground quicker. Can’t someone just point out, who has the chandeliers, and who has the bare lightbulb?
Invest in people, not in luck.
Geezer–I would think there has to be studies somewhere, suggesting how much population it takes to support solvency of a casino operation. If, and in light of that, I wouldn’t want to be a business owner in a venture that is so highly regulated, and have the added worry the next great FRUMP Ma Haul devastates an existing venue 18 months out. I don’t care so much about “territory” rights, as much as I do about sustainability–and the collateral damage it can cause w/ oversaturation.
Joanne: That’s not my call, that’s the call of people who want to build and operate casinos. If they’re not sustainable, that’s not my problem. If we don’t regulate supermarkets to create winners and losers — and that has a real impact, since without regulation supermarkets flee urban areas, creating “food deserts” that force the poor to pay higher prices for necessities — why should we pick the winners and losers in the competitive marketplace for gambling venues?