Friday, October 4, 2002 Bangor Daily News
One
Argument Settled
As Sen. Jill Goldthwait strenuously pointed out at Monday’s casino task
force meeting, the economic feasibility study commissioned by the Penobscot and
Passamaquoddy tribes should not have dismissed arguments about the associated
costs as “absurd.” A better word — one more appropriate to the occasion
and that avoids the unnecessary hyperbole cluttering this debate — would have
been “settled.”
The entire, broad and complex argument over whether Maine should have casino
gambling is, of course, far from settled. The argument over the specific
question of whether the state and affected communities can be cushioned from
increased public costs — roads, police and fire protection, and the like —
is now a question of how big that cushion should be.
According to the study conducted by James Klas, a Minnesota-based hospitality
industry consultant, a casino in southern Maine, as envisioned by the tribes,
would generate $727 million annually by its fifth year of operation; the state
would get $130 million in gaming, income and sales taxes. Such a casino would
employ 4,700 workers (making it the state’s sixth-largest employer),
would generate thousands of additional jobs in other businesses and would spend
tens of millions on services and supplies. These numbers are backed by the
real-world experiences at more than 400 casinos nationwide; Mr. Klas’
methodology and findings were found to be well done and reasonable by two highly
respected Maine economists.
What remains for the task force, on this matter at least, is to survey the 26
states with casinos and to determine what would be a fair method of sharing
revenue and what costs will increase. The Klas projection is based upon the
model used in Connecticut, where casinos pay a state tax of 25 percent on
slot-machine revenues. In other states, there is a guaranteed base fee paid to
the state with additional payments made when casino activity rises above a
certain level. Precisely what costs will increase will depend greatly upon
precisely where a casino might be located. However, it is safe to assume that a
set-aside of, say, $30 million a year would create a dedicated fund large enough
to reimburse any public entity for any imaginable increased cost as the result
of a casino or anything even remotely related to one.
The task force would perform an additionally valuable service by surveying the
various mechanisms in use to ensure the revenue sent to the state is shared
fairly with the affected municipalities. The complaints by towns near Foxwoods
that they are not adequately compensated for their increased costs
is not a matter of the casino not keeping its word — the complaints are
against the state of Connecticut.
This 18-member task force was created by the Legislature last spring to assess
the impact of a casino on seven key points of public interest, from traffic to
problem gambling, and to report its findings to the next Legislature. The issue
of increased public costs winds through those seven points; the question is
whether sufficient reimbursement is possible. The task force should accept that
it is and move on to the remaining issues. The only absurd argument is the one
that goes on after it’s settled.