Casinos in North Jersey - YES OR NO

Sweetsnuggles said:

No. I think casinos (and lotteries) take money from those who can least afford it.

Probably.

People also drink. Bars and liquor stores take money from alcoholics and most likely those least able to afford. Lets prohibit bars and liquor stores in NJ or at not allow not any new ones.

People will gamble. We have NJ residents gambling in NY and PA, creating employment and tax revenue for those two states. I'd rather the tax revenue and employment be created and kept in NJ.

I agree with sweet snuggles. There's plenty of places to gamble already. Additional Casinos serve no useful purpose.

hoops said:

I agree with sweet snuggles. There's plenty of places to gamble already. Additional Casinos serve no useful purpose.

+ 1

To the liquor store comment: Gambling addiction is probably more like an addiction to smoking. The majority of those who are already addicted find it extremely difficult to quit. The aim in controlling this addiction and the associated social and economic problems is to get fewer persons to start gambling in the first place. Why make it easier and more attractive to gamble by having casinos closer to home? Those looking for convenience can currently gamble from the comfort of their home or local public computer at one or more of the internet casinos. They don't need a casino closer to home to make it easier for them to gamble.

The useful purpose, the argument goes, is to take gambling revenue that's currently going to other states and bring it to NJ. If there are already plenty of casinos nearby, why should we be missing out? Now that I've read up on this a bit, I'm struggling to find fault with this line of thinking. (Also interesting that the main opposition effort is being funded by a Malaysian conglomerate that owns a casino in NY.)

hoops said:

I agree with sweet snuggles. There's plenty of places to gamble already. Additional Casinos serve no useful purpose.

One thing for sure is that Atlantic City missed the bus in terms of using casino revenues to make the city a destination and not just some place where sad-looking people play the slots. Nothing will fix that now.

Assuming no tax impacts, I am inclined to vote for this proposition. Let's keep some of the casino money in the state. Otherwise, it will be going to neighboring states.

imonlysleeping said:

(Also interesting that the main opposition effort is being funded by a Malaysian conglomerate that owns a casino in NY.)

Funny, that. If we were to completely legalize all drugs in the U.S., the opponents would be funded by drug lords.

A fairly balanced list of the arguments for and against. Economic measurement is difficult to achieve and social impacts even harder.

https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/03/Chapt9.html

Given the historic, pervasive corruption in New Jersey at nearly all levels of government, and given that corporations (as they should) look to maximize profit over all other considerations, I don't for even a half a second think that any of this would be managed for the benefit of the people of New Jersey.

We don't need another patronage pit demanding resources, promising to bring prosperity but in reality only bringing it to the chosen few.

I am a very big fan of a light hand from government- and I am in this case too- go ahead and legalize gaming state wide and see who builds a facility out in the open and in competition. Never going to happen. No way to pick the "right" winners, and that's the true goal.

joan_crystal said:

hoops said:

I agree with sweet snuggles. There's plenty of places to gamble already. Additional Casinos serve no useful purpose.

+ 1

To the liquor store comment: Gambling addiction is probably more like an addiction to smoking. The majority of those who are already addicted find it extremely difficult to quit. The aim in controlling this addiction and the associated social and economic problems is to get fewer persons to start gambling in the first place. Why make it easier and more attractive to gamble by having casinos closer to home? Those looking for convenience can currently gamble from the comfort of their home or local public computer at one or more of the internet casinos. They don't need a casino closer to home to make it easier for them to gamble.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Given the historic, pervasive corruption in New Jersey at nearly all levels of government, and given that corporations (as they should) look to maximize profit over all other considerations, I don't for even a half a second think that any of this would be managed for the benefit of the people of New Jersey.

Look at previous projects.

For example, do you think the Meadowlands sports center was not of benefit to the people of NJ?

tjohn said:

imonlysleeping said:

(Also interesting that the main opposition effort is being funded by a Malaysian conglomerate that owns a casino in NY.)

Funny, that. If we were to completely legalize all drugs in the U.S., the opponents would be funded by drug lords.

Thread drift but what the hell..... Would Al Capone been as wealthy if there never was prohibition? Would Pablo Escobar be as wealthy if cocaine was legal?

BG9 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Given the historic, pervasive corruption in New Jersey at nearly all levels of government, and given that corporations (as they should) look to maximize profit over all other considerations, I don't for even a half a second think that any of this would be managed for the benefit of the people of New Jersey.

Look at previous projects.

For example, do you think the Meadowlands sports center was not of benefit to the people of NJ?

Not the same subject, but ask the Izod center, it's abandoned or demolished friends, and the developers getting monster tax breaks and subsidization through bonding for the new mall that question (if it's going to be so profitable, why the subsidization? Hmm!)

Was great for some people though!

http://www.northjersey.com/news/meadowlands-at-40-complex-at-a-crossroads-1.1650652

Jackson_Fusion said:

Given the historic, pervasive corruption in New Jersey at nearly all levels of government, and given that corporations (as they should) look to maximize profit over all other considerations, I don't for even a half a second think that any of this would be managed for the benefit of the people of New Jersey.

We don't need another patronage pit demanding resources, promising to bring prosperity but in reality only bringing it to the chosen few.

+1

Sure, gambling will happen, but why nurture it so more will happen?

a good pro-casino op-ed by a Montclair State professor, appeared in today's Ledger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html?_r=0

As of 2010........

"But befitting its name, Giants Stadium is the granddaddy of phantom facilities. Taxpayers in New Jersey, already under pressure from declining local government revenues, this year will pay $35.8 million in principal and interest on the $266 million in remaining bonds for the Meadowlands Sports Complex, which opened in 1976 and includes the Izod Center and ahorse racing track. Those bonds will not be paid until 2025.

For its first decade, the complex was a success. But its fortunes faded as horse racing declined, the Nets and the Devils left for Newark, and the Jets and the Giants built their own .6 billion stadium next door, which will host its first National Football League regular-season game Sunday."

As of 2016, Giants Stadium is long gone and the Izod Center is abandoned and most likely will be demolished but we are still paying for them for another 10 years.

BG9 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Given the historic, pervasive corruption in New Jersey at nearly all levels of government, and given that corporations (as they should) look to maximize profit over all other considerations, I don't for even a half a second think that any of this would be managed for the benefit of the people of New Jersey.

Look at previous projects.

For example, do you think the Meadowlands sports center was not of benefit to the people of NJ?

Will vote NO.

The state should legalize marijuana. would bring in more revenue.

Gambling has never been proven to be a help.

Mark

I ain't in this one, but I would vote no. Not because I'm against jobs or gambling but because anyone who has been in one of these non-Vegas casinos like Mohegan Sun knows they're as depressing as ****.

ridski said:

I ain't in this one, but I would vote no. Not because I'm against jobs or gambling but because anyone who has been in one of these non-Vegas casinos like Mohegan Sun knows they're as depressing as ****.

Amen.

I'd vote "yes" on this. And FWIW I've heard arguments in the past of "how would you feel about a police officer or a surgeon showing up to work stoned" and my response is "I'd feel the same way as I would if they showed up to work drunk."

mikescott said:

The state should legalize marijuana. would bring in more revenue.

NO

ridski said:

I ain't in this one, but I would vote no. Not because I'm against jobs or gambling but because anyone who has been in one of these non-Vegas casinos like Mohegan Sun knows they're as depressing as ****.

That they are. I was at a company offsite in AC once and walked past the slots in the morning where there were legions of zombies feeding the slots.

As an aside. The ability to do many economic activities on-line should at least be part of the decision making process for this project.

Malls: they as a class of businesses are not doing well. Why? In NJ two primary reasons: on-line sales are huge and the population of NJ is in decline. Hence, any new mall development is a non-starter.

Bookstores: Amazon has killed off many such businesses. Words in Maplewood is supported by loyal residents, but Amazon has crushed many independent bookstores as did the big chains like Barnes & Noble before Amazon.

Now, what does this have to do with casinos?

First, as a poster mentioned, going to one is not exactly a great experience. The patrons tend to be not well off. Yes, lots of lights and noise, but they sit at the slots just pushing the buttons until the money runs out.

Second, there is a real and growing effort to shift gambling to on-line away from casinos. The ads are aimed at younger populations since they find the in-person casino experience to be stultifying.

The population that goes to casinos tend to be elderly and poor. Go to a few and let me know if you see young adults spending a lot of money.

Atlantic City was and is a dump. Buses took people to the dump for almost nothing. And the casinos failed not because it was a long trip, but because it is they offer, in essence, a degrading experience.

I see no reason to vote yes. So what if some go to PA to gamble. If they go to PA why didn't they go to Atlantic City?

The industry sees a future of only the elderly sitting drone-like at the slots. The on-line effort is aimed at a clientel that just won't go to casinos. On-line gambling may even eat away at the elderly clientel as they find it simpler.

jerseyjack said:

a good pro-casino op-ed by a Montclair State professor, appeared in today's Ledger.

I read that last night. It was a very underwhelming argument. His "points" were generalities, and not very convincing. For half of them, he seemed almost half-hearted in presenting them.

everyone seems to be a bunch of grumps. I have fun in AC.

While not really an argument against per se, I will echo the comments regarding AC, MS, Foxwoods etc being crushingly depressing places. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that I'm not the only one that feels that way.

To me, they have all the warmth and light of a turnpike rest stop. I'm not a new agey guy and everything peceived tells more about the perceiver than anything else but to me they just gush bad energy.

Summary! I don't like them but I don't care that others do. I don't want one in North Jersey for fiscal reasons noted earlier but if the question is "do you think they're bad from an intangible/non financial standpoint" on balance I do.

krugle said:

everyone seems to be a bunch of grumps. I have fun in AC.

Do you gamble? I had more fun in AC when my parents took me there as a child before there was gambling.

Well, I suppose if there was no taxpayer involvement at all, what's the harm.

Of course, if anybody votes for casinos thinking they will solve any money problems, then I've gotta bridge...

Jackson_Fusion said:

While not really an argument against per se, I will echo the comments regarding AC, MS, Foxwoods etc being crushingly depressing places. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that I'm not the only one that feels that way.

To me, they have all the warmth and light of a turnpike rest stop. I'm not a new agey guy and everything peceived tells more about the perceiver than anything else but to me they just gush bad energy.

Summary! I don't like them but I don't care that others do. I don't want one in North Jersey for fiscal reasons noted earlier but if the question is "do you think they're bad from an intangible/non financial standpoint" on balance I do.

tjohn said:

ridski said:

I ain't in this one, but I would vote no. Not because I'm against jobs or gambling but because anyone who has been in one of these non-Vegas casinos like Mohegan Sun knows they're as depressing as ****.

That they are. I was at a company offsite in AC once and walked past the slots in the morning where there were legions of zombies feeding the slots.

So the question is, do you want them to increase your depression in Pa and NY and let those state keep the tax revenue or do you want them to depress you in northern N.J. and keep the tax money in N.J. ?

Either way, you will still be depressed.

If there argument for allowing more casinos is that they will solve some sort of fiscal problem, then vote no.

The only way casinos make sense is if:

1. They can be built anywhere

2. They can be built without any public assistance of any sort including tax breaks.

I don't believe this will help the state or the taxpayer base. Likewise, I don't believe 100% of the gas tax increase will actually be used to fix our roads.

I also believe it will cause economic distress to any area they decide to build a casino. This kind of development brings tons of traffic to an area but only for gambling. Any surrounding areas will be adversely affected by the increase in noise and traffic. If they couldn't make it work in a beautiful beach resort like A/C after all these years why would anyone think it will work in North Jersey?

tjohn said

Well, I suppose if there was no taxpayer involvement at all, what's the harm.

Of course, if anybody votes for casinos thinking they will solve any money problems, then I've gotta bridge..