Casinos in North Jersey - YES OR NO

jerseyjack said:

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.

The added revenue brings added expenses. There is no evidence the long term bottom line will result in a positive. OTB was a failure in NY. The Lottery revenue is flat and has had zero impact on reducing other taxes. However if the goal was to build a casino that was geared towards the rich (think Monte Carlo) and had minimum entrance fees of over $50,000 -- well then I would be in favor. Then it would become a tax on the rich rather than trying to suck more money out of those who can least afford it.

The NJ lottery is worse than flat. It's been losing money ever since it was privatized by Governor Christie. It's mind boggling, but there you are.

fabulouswalls said:

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..

It was working quite well in A.C. until the competition arose. The competition, based on offering the same product (gambling) but with a shorter drive, is winning.

jerseyjack said:

fabulouswalls said:

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..

It was working quite well in A.C. until the competition arose. The competition, based on offering the same product (gambling) but with a shorter drive, is winning.

It could have worked well, but as a practical matter, AC continued to be an impoverished city except that it now has a glitzy veneer along the beach and an unsustainable budget. Now, if the gaming money had been spent on making AC a destination, maybe things would have turned out a little better.

What's wrong with privatization? Dontja understand, the gub'mint can't do anything right?

mjh said:

The NJ lottery is worse than flat. It's been losing money ever since it was privatized by Governor Christie. It's mind boggling, but there you are.

...Until online gambling starts "winning".

Regardless of the venue, the majority of gamblers continue to lose.

The argument about whether it is OK to gamble vs drinking etc is a separate issue from whether we as voters should back a venture. We are being asked to vote. Since casinos have failed miserably in this state and since the population is stagnant or in decline and since on-line gambling will continue to grow and erode the revenues of physical casinos, there is no prospect that this will be a useful venture. Add to that the politicians in this state have successfully diverted revenues away from benefiting taxpayers and helped their rich friends get richer.

A yes vote will simply allow gambling and the site and details to be worked out at a later date. You know and I know that whatever the ballot says, the problem is always in the implementation. There is no way that anyone is going to build a casino without asking for government aid -- what property will it be built on? Will the state use its power of eminent domain and condemn private property? If it is public property already, why not have the developed pay a lot of rent? If infrastructure is needed, why not have the developed pay for it? Will there be tax breaks? Of course there will be tax breaks. How much revenue will be generated that can be considered a benefit to the state of NJ? Based on the record in Atlantic City, I will wager very little, especially after any and all bailouts.

Again, go to any casino and see who uses the facility -- poor people. It was the same in NYC with OTB. Did any of you go to OTB? It is the same. Some casinos are hooked up with race tracks. Go to the rooms where you can bet on any horse race in the country. Do you see anyone with lots of money? No. You see people who are looking for a quick few bucks -- and they lose a great deal of the time. These same people can do a lot of this gambling on line -- and they will as the "community" in a casino is not the thing that draws them in. It is the chance to make a few bucks. They can do that at home.

I do not want to give a blanker yes to the state of NJ and developers who will -- it is inevitable -- find a way to have use give breaks, pay for infrastructure, and bail them out. That is inevitable.

If everyone is willing to line up and have your taxes go for this, why not do something different and pay to have all the asbestos removed from all the schools in this district? The gambling thing will not divert a penny to the schools, not one penny.

During my visits to Las Vegas and AC, I saw a number of well to do and rich. Yes, there are poor, but also rich. A bit sweeping to say they are all losers and poor.

Have you ever walked a few blocks from the casinos in AC or between the strip and downtown Las Vegas? Some of the poorest neigborhoods I've seen exist within sight of billion dollar casinos. Of course there are rich people in these towns but there are far more lower class and poor people. In my opinion, casinos seem to exacerbate class and economic issues rather than solve them.

krugle said:

During my visits to Las Vegas and AC, I saw a number of well to do and rich. Yes, there are poor, but also rich. A bit sweeping to say they are all losers and poor.

Jude said:
.... Since casinos have failed miserably in this state ....

I disagree with this statement. They generated millions of dollars into the state treasury. I agree that A.C.'s handling of their take was a disaster. However, the entire project did generate income to the state treasury.

Remember, the casinos would generate income besides that from gambling. There is revenue from concerts, revenue from food and crap sold at the casinos. Revenue from room tax.

That other revenue doesn't apply to if they are allowed to open various 'local' gambling spots. There's no more revenue from 'room tax'; the Performing Arts Centers all around Jersey have failed, so no real hope for concert revenue. Maybe food & crap, but they'll probably be developed in commercial areas where other cheaper food options are available.

It's just not a good business model.

BG9 said:

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.

The only thing I disagree with is I believe gambling, smoking and alcohol are pretty similar. While I see economic advantages to NJ, I strongly agree that having public gambling close to home does make is easier and more attractive to the addicted and the to-be addicted.

Agree - This is very hard to dispute. Most people who are in a Casino on a weekday, likely live within 30 minutes of that casino. But more directly, Casinos are just a crap, corrupt industry that attracts the least desirable, businesses, people and politicians. It should be reserved for ****** states who have no better ideas at improving their economy.

jerseyjack said:

fabulouswalls said:

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..

It was working quite well in A.C. until the competition arose. The competition, based on offering the same product (gambling) but with a shorter drive, is winning.

It wasn't working well. People travelled to AC at their own risk and the reason that competition killed AC is because it was overwhelmingly poorly managed and governed. They had an opportunity to build something good in AC (beach, resort, etc.) but corruption and poor management left bad casinos and a decrepit city behind.

And Donald Trump was one of the main players in AC. If AC had been a success he would be claiming his casinos were the primary reason - but they were a total failure and his name was one of the most prominent. If he wins in November, expect more of what he did in AC.

i don't see this helping anyone but the developers and politicians. In the end the taxpayers will have to bail someone out.

fabulouswalls said:

i don't see this helping anyone but the developers and politicians. In the end the taxpayers will have to bail someone out.

There doesn't have to be taxpayer exposure.

Is the issue of Freedom relevant. We have a free market economy and a supposedly free society. If someone wants to go into the gambling business why should the government prevent her from doing so?

Is gambling more harmful to people than other types of businesses that are legal?

As long as we don't spend taxpayer money on the vice industries, let them proceed.

Gambling isn't going away. Marijuana and alcohol aren't going away. Sex work isn't going away. Legalize and monitor the lot of it.

LOST said:

Is the issue of Freedom relevant. We have a free market economy and a supposedly free society. If someone wants to go into the gambling business why should the government prevent her from doing so?

Is gambling more harmful to people than other types of businesses that are legal?

I understand that. But that doesn't mean there won't be.

tjohn said:

There doesn't have to be taxpayer exposure.

Everything dies, that's a fact.

But maybe everything that dies, some day comes back.

Put your makeup on, make yourself real pretty.

And meet me tonight in Atlantic City.

(It's an ironic song lyric, to inform anyone who doesn't recognize it.)

LOST said:

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.

Did anyone ever see anything other than murky nothing in that damn Bathysphere?

mikescott said:
The state should legalize marijuana. would bring in more revenue.

spontaneous said:

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."

Are you saying you expect officers and surgeons will start showing up for work stoned if pot is legalized? What do you think is stopping them now? And since alcohol is legal, prohibition isn't currently stopping them from showing up drunk, and for the most part, they are not showing up drunk. So what are you saying? I don't follow.

I think the criticism that legalization brings more impaired people is partially based on the fact detecting stoned people is more difficult than detecting drunk people, Easily administered objective tests exist for detecting drunk people. Not so much for stoned pot smokers (is there a pot breathalyzer).

Tom_Reingold said:

mikescott said:
The state should legalize marijuana. would bring in more revenue.

spontaneous said:

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."

Are you saying you expect officers and surgeons will start showing up for work stoned if pot is legalized? What do you think is stopping them now? And since alcohol is legal, prohibition isn't currently stopping them from showing up drunk, and for the most part, they are not showing up drunk. So what are you saying? I don't follow.

Apparently one of the sites that hopes to get a casino if the ballot measure passes is the Newark Bears stadium site:

http://www.placenj.com/2016/10/exclusive-casino-hotel-planned-near.html

That is precisely the point. The short drive is what is giving the competition an advantage over AC. The only way to compete is by allowing gambling in North Jersey.

With NY and Con opening casinos, they will attract NYC gamblers. So having something closer to NYC in NJ would help keep some of the casino business in state. I don’t think that allowing gambling in North Jersey would hurt the AC casinos, which are doomed anyway given the gambling activity in nearby states. Gambling in North Jersey would be good for the NJ taxpayer.

jerseyjack said:

fabulouswalls said:

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..

It was working quite well in A.C. until the competition arose. The competition, based on offering the same product (gambling) but with a shorter drive, is winning.

I think there is a huge difference between Mohegan/Foxwoods and Atlantic City. Except for Borgota, I find the rest of the casinos in AC to be smoky, dirty and depressing. Mohegan and Foxwoods are clean, good restuarants and bars, spas, with a very diverse group of patrons. I've done girls weekends at both where we did very little gambling, but still had a blast. I've gone to concerts in AC and couldn't wait to get out of there after they were over.

The problem with AC is that they cruised on the fact that they were the only business this side of Vegas. When other options came into play, they suffered because it's a dump where no one thought to make any improvements for 30-40 years. I have to do more research on this issue, but I don't think pointing to the failure of AC is instructive at all. I think looking to see how places like Foxwoods and Mohegan affect the surrounding community, etc. is much more telling, as I assume anything built in North Jersey would be similar.

But there always is taxpayer exposure because our politicians don't have the guts to say no to special interests.

fabulouswalls said:

I understand that. But that doesn't mean there won't be.

tjohn said:

There doesn't have to be taxpayer exposure.