Dear Editor:
While the American Gaming Association does not take a position on the decisions of individual states to expand or reduce gambling, we do take strong issue with your undocumented mischaracterization of the social and economic impacts of gambling [“The Casino Jinx” editorial, Nov. 29].
There is overwhelming evidence from new gaming jurisdictions across the country - from Illinois to Mississippi - that casinos have brought significant benefits, creating employment opportunities, economic development and capital investment. Last year alone, the commercial casino industry generated $3.5 billion in tax revenue, which helped finance improvements to schools, libraries, roads, parks, and police and fire departments, among other enhancements. A recent survey conducted for the AGA by national pollsters Peter Hart and Frank Luntz found that 70 percent of residents from casino counties believe that casinos have had a positive impact on their communities, and 68 percent said that, if given the option again, they would vote to keep casinos in their community.
As to the negative impacts that you alleged, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, a federal panel that studied this issue from 1997 to 1999 at a cost of $5 million in taxpayer money, concluded in its research that the presence of casinos does not correspond to increases in crime or bankruptcy. Additional research conducted for the commission by the highly regarded National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “[g]ambling appears to have net economic benefits for economically depressed communities.”
Other independent government research documents this case further. A 1999 U.S. Treasury Department study also found no link between casino gambling and bankruptcy. And suicide statistics kept by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services show that New Jersey has one of the lowest suicide rates in the country - yet it’s home to Atlantic City, which is second only to Nevada in total casino revenue. Even the U.S. Department of Defense, in a recent examination of the impact of slot machines on U.S. military bases overseas, concluded that “the vast majority of patrons view slot machine play as an alternative recreation opportunity” and that there was “no correlation between accessibility to Service operated slot machines and instances of poor financial management.”
The statements in your editorial are not the result of a careful analysis of the data but rather the result of stereotypes and assumptions, which are beneath a paper like The New York Times.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
President and CEO