The Stupidity of More Casinos
Representative Dennis E. Williams is sponsoring a new bill tomorrow that would authorize two new casinos in Delaware. That would be in addition to the three already operating in the state (Dover Downs, Delaware Park, and Harrington), and also in addition to the Harrah’s in Chester, and the two casinos in the Philly Northeast section. And that is also in addition to whatever Maryland has got planned. And that is also in addition to Atlantic City. And that is also in addition to possibly more casinos in Pennsylvania.
ENOUGH!
I am not a moral prude who objects to casinos because they are immoral, or because they have the affect to vacuuming money up from those that can least afford it. In fact, I like gambling on occasion. And when I want to gamble, or play the ponies, or the slots, or some blackjack, I know where to go. It is a 20 minute ride from door to door to Delaware Park. It is also a 20 minute ride north to Harrah’s. If you live in Kent Co., you are close to Dover Downs. If you live in Sussex, you are close to Harrington. So I do not see anyone being in a desperate need to have a casino located closer to where they live. And where would you put it? I guess Dennis Williams will say the riverfront in Wilmington and somewhere along the shore in Sussex.
I want to see the three existing casinos in Delaware succeed and provide revenue to the state. Has it not crossed the minds of Dennis Williams or anyone supporting more casinos that if you add more options in the state, it will dilute the revenue from the other three sites? I mean, building two new casinos is not going to make more people go to casinos to spend money. Delaware is a small state with three casinos. I doubt there is an untouched gambling market anywhere in the state or in Maryland, New Jersey or Pennsylvania. If people have wanted to gamble, they have already gone and are going to Dover Downs, Harrington and Delaware Park. Williams is betting there is some idiot out there who has wanted to gamble but somehow objects driving more than 20 minutes. Please.
Our legislators need to stop looking for quick revenue fixes. You can’t really tax cigarettes any more than we already have. You can’t build more casinos without hurting the others. It is time our politicians get some courage and raise taxes on the rich.
If we expand “gaming” it should be through”
“no-lose lotteries.
But even that is distant second place to getting our wealthiest companies and individual to pay thier fair share for all the blessings of living in Delaware.
BTW – I’ve read that the Japanese government makes so much from cigarette taxes that they have taken to promoting smoking. I see us headed in that direction.
OK – DELDEM – I see your point – but could one not make the same argument for:
1. Liquor stores – the state regulates and licenses them
2. bars – the same issue
3. cigarette stores
4. gas stations – how many wawas do we reallly need?
5. any other business especially ones that the state licenses
Isn’t capitalism and a free market goos for state revenue? why is the state allowing what amounts to a monopoly?
Persoanlly, I really dont care, I dont smoke and I dont gamble and my drinking is minimal (probably should up that)
it really just an intellectual question – and to play devils advocate
Hey, Del Dem: Some idiot has stolen your sign-on to post an incredibly dumb piece on gambling.
He wrote, “I want to see the three existing casinos in Delaware succeed and provide revenue to the state. Has it not crossed the minds of Dennis Williams or anyone supporting more casinos that if you add more options in the state, it will dilute the revenue from the other three sites?”
Did it cross the mind of the author of this post that no matter how many casinos we authorize, they ALL will give the same slice of proceeds to the state? It is literally impossible for the state to take in less money with more casinos. As to which casinos succeed and which fail, why should I care as a taxpayer? If they pay for a license (current proposals do not contain that provision, so I do not support them) and then go out of business, how have taxpayers lost in the deal?
“I mean, building two new casinos is not going to make more people go to casinos to spend money.”
You don’t know that, and you can’t summon any evidence that would prove it. Every time a casino opens, it generates more revenue than can be accounted for by drops in handle at existing casinos. Because, believe it or not, while you don’t mind driving 20 miles to gamble, some people do. But they won’t object to driving 5 miles.
Here’s a simple way to figure out how dumb your position is: Imagine saying we won’t allow any new restaurants because we have enough already. We won’t allow any new liquor stores, or cigarette outlets, or supermarkets, because we have enough already.
Gambling, despite what you’ve heard, does not bring more social problems than alcohol does. Yet we allow anyone who wants to open a new liquor store to do so, provided they don’t violate any of the restrictions we’ve set up (none within a mile of an existing store, IIRC).
What you are preaching is pure and simple protectionism for businesses that, before the state gave them the key to the bank vault, were going belly-up. I see no reason whatsoever to give failed businessmen a permanent leg up on others who’d like to get into the game.
“4. gas stations – how many wawas do we reallly need?”
BLASPHEMY! Aoine, i used to like you…..
Alright. Given that argument, why limit new casinos to 2? According to your logic, they should be allowed on every corner.
Williams is an idiot. New Castle doesn’t need another casino for obvious reasons stated. I wouldn’t mind seeing one near the beaches in Sussex. Of course, that would likely mean the death of the one in Harrington. Tough titty. Harrington was never a destination, and there is a profound lack of quality whores in Sussex County, unless you count the County Council.
Disclosure: I don’t gamble. Nor do I have sympathy for morons who choose to throw away their money. I drink to excess, and am constantly honing those skills, mostly at home.
“…why limit new casinos to 2? According to your logic, they should be allowed on every corner.”
Works in and around New Orleans. You can pull up for some gas, order a Po’Boy, and play the slots all in the same store.
Starbucks found that the number of stores increases the number of premium coffee drinkers even when the stores are across the street from each other.
Economist are studying it, but they think that a large number of stores makes people feel like they are a part of a premium coffee culture rather than simply thinking of themselves as customers.
If you increase the number of casinos, you increase the number of losers; simple as that. And most of them can’t afford to lose what they do.
I like the proposal for Del Pointe – a family resort with a casino attached. It will mean jobs for Sussex County and I might just buy a bus or two to drive people to and from the beaches.
@Ben…I’m sorry. 🙁 ill buy u a coffee and a round of blackjack to make up for it…
No limit on the coffee 5 dollar min on the blackjack
Oh my I nearly wrote Bj….
@mis….ouch on the whores….must not be looking in the right bars….
There are plently around…price…
House and two cars in Kennett Square.
@geezer….didn’t I say all that?
You just rephrased it…differently.
Suppose it’s true that Delaware and the surrounding region cannot generate enough business to sustain more than three casinos in DE. Why does that mean that the three operating casinos in DE get to have a monopoly on the business? That doesn’t follow. When the DE Chamber of Commerce came out w/ the protectionist stance advocated here, I became convinced that casino expansion in DE should go forward. When the Chamber of Commerce contravenes a free market priniciple like encouraging competition, you safely bet (to pun) that something shady is afoot.
So far as I can tell, this is a grab for the building trades, the (new) casino operators and for some new revenue in the form of fees to the casinos.
I’m all for jobs, but let’s do infrastructure before hulking buildings designed to take money from people bad at math.
I got no interest in casino operators, new or existing.
And from the revenue standpoint, I’d rather not generate revenue regressively if we won’t consider it progressively.
That’s an idea; “Paygo” for regressive revenue generators. Every dollar raised regressively has to be matched by a new progressive dollar of revenue.
aoine: I was working on mine between tasks. Shows that logic is contagious.
“According to your logic, they should be allowed on every corner.”
Yes, they should, but I’m not the kind of ideologue who argues that if I can’t change the laws to exactly match my prescriptions for society then I don’t want them changed at all. If two news ones is all they’ll allow, I consider that a fine start. But mostly I despise the political power the three existing casinos enjoy. The legislature made them rich; now the legislators act as if they must do what these state-made multi-millionaires desire. More casinos will dilute that power, and actually put the three racinos into a more competitive environment. And before you squawk, I’d rather Delaware skim some of what they currently make than let every single new casino be one that opens in another state.
“I’m all for jobs, but let’s do infrastructure before hulking buildings designed to take money from people bad at math.”
From the state’s standpoint, infrastructure costs money; casinos bring in money. Hmmm, let’s see…which one will cause us budget problems and which one won’t?
also in addition to the Harrah’s in Chester, and the two casinos in the Philly Northeast section. And that is also in addition to whatever Maryland has got planned. And that is also in addition to Atlantic City. And that is also in addition to possibly more casinos in Pennsylvania.
In many ways, *this* is the point of adding new casinos. I really don’t care about new gambling venues — other than making the point that relying on these revenues for operating expenses is stupid. BUT, the addition of other venues well in reach of NCCo or Sussex has a better chance of keeping the Delaware gambling industry competitive. The report that the GA got a couple of years back made this point. Because at some point, the business at Dover and Harrington will take a hit due to folks deciding to go to more convenient venues in PA or MD. By the time you know for certain that these casinos are losing market share, it will be too late to get it back by adding new venues here. Add two more casinos in more accessible places and sooner or later you *will* be back to 3 casinos. Maybe 4. But it is hard to see 5 surviving in this ecology. And you are watching the GA decide to protect the current three now, so that they can come back later and tell you why new operators need taxpayer funds to build casinos in places where people want to be.
The two new casino venues across the line in MD have been doing quite well. One of those venues is owned by the same people who own one in this state, yet they are against the 2 new ones bacause “three is enough”
These casinos are being funded privately, run privately, and in the case of Del Pointe, on private land, much like any other business. The state risks very little in allowing another one two or three casinos to operate here. We live in a capitalist free market society. The cat is already out of the bag as to whether Delaware is a gambling state. There is little to no debate when a Burger King opens across the street from a McDonalds. Competition improves the market place.
I think the current casinos dont want new ones because it would force the old ones to up their game and reinvest more than they want to. Dover Downs and Harrington didnt start seriously advertising down here in Sussex until Del Pointe came up.
I’m with Miscreant.
Let’s all drink to excess,gamble ’til we’re broke,strip off our clothes,run around naked and pass out in a great big pile!
I honestly don’t understand the logic of the opposition to more casinos.If the gambling population is finite then the pie will be divided into more pieces…some casinos may fail, others will succeed. In this case the state does not benefit nor it is harmed. If more casinos expands the universe, the state benefits. I have heard legislators make arguments regarding the state’s interest, but these arguments make no sense and are made by those who are aligned with the existing casinos.