John Cook
Editorial Assistant
Mother Jones/ Backtalk
731 Market Street
Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Mr. Cook:
Although your “Easy Money” series on the U.S. gaming industry reveals some truth about the industry, it is filled with many half—truths, inaccuracies and biased information.
The phrase “easy money” that titles your series and is strewn throughout your piece is an inappropriate connotation of the industry. The gaming entertainment industry is a business, and like any other business venture the premise is to provide our customers with an entertainment experience and also to derive a profit for our shareholders. The industry employs more than one million men and women in this country with good—paying jobs (the average wage is $26,000), many of them in economically—distressed areas, offering opportunity to people who have had little hope in many years. These people work very hard for the money that puts food on their tables and roofs over their heads. Additionally, the tax revenues provided to state and local governments refurbish communities and provide for hospitals, housing, schools and day care centers, to name just a few. The state of Georgia earmarks lottery proceeds for the Hope Scholarship Program, which provides free college scholarships to all students who graduate from high school with a “B” average. Money well spent, I would say.
Your use of Joliet, Ill. as an example of a community negatively effected by gaming is a poor choice. In fact, a recent economic impact study of new gaming jurisdictions conducted by Arthur Andersen found that Joliet has experienced significant positive economic impacts as a direct result of gaming. The study found the creation of thousands of new jobs that pay high wages and employ a larger proportion of minorities and women than other employers. Tax revenues have gone to pay for community services and played an extremely important part in the city’s budget, and the number of people on public assistance programs has dropped dramatically. Furthermore, the introduction of casinos in Joliet has led to growth in retail sales, commercial and new housing construction, restaurants and more. This alone, disputes the so—called “substitution theory,” which gaming opponents and your article make an argument for, stating that gaming simply takes from other established businesses without creating true growth of its own within the economy. You obviously didn’t talk to the city manager of Joliet to fact—check your reference about the city — otherwise the truth would have been made clear to you.
It’s unfortunate that Mother Jones didn’t examine John Kindt’s research more closely. As my old boss Ronald Reagan used to say in regard to the Soviet Union: “Trust, but verify.” In this case, you trusted a little too freely and neglected to verify. When one takes a deeper look at the presumptive studies conducted by self—proclaimed experts such as Mr. Kindt, one will find contrived economic models used to reach desired results, rather than current, available, actual statistical data from gaming cities and towns across the country. His theory that every $1 in tax revenue from the gaming industry creates $3 in social costs is totally false. The recent study by Arthur Andersen revealed that in addition to Joliet, Ill., social costs have fallen, not risen, in Bossier City/Shreveport, La. and Biloxi/Gulfport, Miss., after the introduction of gaming. In all three areas, there has been a sharp decline in public assistance, such as welfare, food stamp and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs.
The assumption that gaming causes crime, as Mother Jones reports, begs the question: did you actually check the data on this? In accepting without question this charge from gaming opponents your editorial ignores the facts as established by statistics and law enforcement authorities. There is nothing inherent in the nature of casino gaming — or in the collective character and behavior of millions of Americans who enjoy this form of recreation — that causes crime. When crime does go up in new gaming jurisdictions, the explanation is more often than not that any city that hosts thousands of new tourists daily is likely to experience an increase in street crime. Just look at Orlando, Florida after the opening of Disney World for a graphic example. In the majority of new gaming jurisdictions, crime has decreased over time and dropped well below the rate it was prior to gaming’s arrival. One has to look no further than East St. Louis, where the crime rate plummeted an incredible 49.6 percent after gaming was introduced, or Joliet, Ill., where crime dropped 18.2 percent, or Alton, Ill., where crime decreased by 2.6 percent, or Dubuque, Iowa, where crime went down 2.5 percent with the advent of gaming. In Mississippi, statistics show that between 1990 and 1994, crime rates were largely static in areas where there is gaming, while crime rates in other parts of the state climbed.
In addition, it is obvious that in writing the “Bad Odds” editorial, no attempt was made to conduct any balanced research about the gaming industry, but instead Mother Jones once more relied totally on the reports and alleged statistics of anti—gaming advocates like Robert Goodman. Mr. Goodman has been proven by independent journalists and academics to have no basis for the views reflected in his writings. In fact, during testimony before the U.S. Congress, Mr. Goodman was forced to admit, “I am the first to say my research is hardly comprehensive.”
You are clearly entitled to your own opinion as to whether gaming is good or bad. It is, however, unfortunate that you rely on half—truths and full lies and a total failure of seeking balanced information in reaching your conclusions. Gaming may not be right for every community — it is not a magic economic silver bullet; however, if made part of a carefully—crafted economic development plan, gaming can help revitalize communities and allow them to prosper.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
President & CEO
American Gaming Association