Collateral damage
If this were any industry other than gambling that wanted to invest billions in the Commonwealth, this would be a no-brainer, one of Governor Slots' top policy advisers told me on Monday at the formal unveiling of the boss's three-casino gambling starter kit strategy. If any industry other than gambling were going to be required to set aside 2.5 percent of its gross revenues just to care for the victims it leaves behind, we would send it packing. It would, indeed, be a no-brainer.
Use Deval Patrick's numbers. The administration puts the current number of problem gamblers as high as 310,000 - or about the population of Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, and Somerville combined. And that number, the governor says, will be going up. Congress's National Gambling Impact Study Commission estimated that problem gamblers roughly double within a 50-mile radius of a casino. And Governor Slots, spreading his bets, wants three. Add Quincy and Lynn to that list, at least.
To pay for the human collateral damage in the name of economic policy, the governor has proposed a "best in class" program to support gambling prevention and addiction services. (That's like the tobacco companies not wanting your kids to smoke.) Patrick would take 2.5 percent of the casinos' estimated $2 billion in revenue - or $50 million a year - to deal with things like an increase in domestic violence that come with gambling. That is roughly equal to what the Department of Public Health gets for both its early intervention and women, infants and children's nutrition programs combined. Does being number one in rehabbing our losers allow us to sleep better at night?
What's next? Do we legalize drugs and set aside 2.5 percent of the revenue for the addicts? Imagine the Commonwealth's cut at a 30 percent tax rate? Patrick says no to the gas tax and yes to the casino tax. Is this what his progressive base was expecting when he campaigned for property tax relief?
Patrick says we need the jobs and the dough. But consider an analysis that came out of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston last year as Rhode Island weighed a destination resort casino in West Warwick. In a memo, Heather Brome, a policy analyst, wrote: "The empirical evidence we reviewed suggests that, in most cases, large casinos in highly populated areas, such as the proposed West Warwick casino, have little secondary economic impact."
The Fed memo said that casinos can provide a boost if they attract tourists, but even then the benefits go to the casino, not the surrounding area. The memo quoted Las Vegas casino mogul Steve Wynn, who didn't mince words when he warned local businessmen what a casino would mean to them in Bridgeport, Conn.: "There is no reason on earth for any of you to expect for more than a second that just because there are people here, they're going to run into your restaurants and stores just because we build this [casino] building here."
The Fed analysis noted that with the exception of Rhode Island, which has gone headlong into slots at its racetracks, all the New England states receive between 2 and 7 percent of their state revenue from gambling, largely unchanged over the last decade. Rhode Island gets more than 10 percent of its revenue from gambling. "Rhode Island is the only state in New England whose share of revenues from gaming has increased substantially during the period," the Fed said.
In 2005, sales from the lottery and video lottery terminals were $1,966 for every adult in Rhode Island, about 70 percent more than any other state, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. There is a recipe for success: Let's be more like Rhode Island, not only the smallest but the dumbest state in America.
Steve Bailey is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at bailey@globe.com or at 617-929-2902. 