Not Worth the Gamble
by Fr. Roger J. Landry - March 2, 2007
When the federal Department of the Interior on February 15 declared the 1,461 members of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe worthy of federal recognition as a sovereign Indian nation, it reignited a debate about casino gambling in the south coast area.
On the day they received the news, the tribe's spokesman openly stated the Wampanoags' desire to buy land in southeastern Massachusetts encompassing their ancestral territory and, with the financial backing of a Detroit developer, construct a casino to rival Connecticut's Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun.
To achieve that objective, three things must happen. First, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would need to legalize class III or "casino style" gaming. Second, the new nation and the Commonwealth would need to negotiate a "gaming compact" regulating, among other things, what percentage of which type of profits would go to the state in lieu of paying taxes; this compact would need to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Finally, the nation would have to adopt a tribal gaming ordinance and get it approved by the chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission.
Momentum in favor of casino has already has started building. Many influential state lawmakers, attracted by the allure of extra money for state programs, have come out in favor of approving casino gambling. The city council of New Bedford, hoping to bring jobs and economic development to the Whaling City, extended an invitation to the tribe to discuss the possibility of a casino in the Whaling City. A January poll by U-Mass Dartmouth's Center for Policy Analysis (CFPA) showed that 57 percent of Bay state residents overall, as well as the same percentage of residents in the south coast, support opening a casino.
But just as Rhode Island citizens last November, after a vigorous debate, rejected by a 63-37 percent margin an amendment that would have given the Narragansett Tribe permission to build a casino in West Warwick, so Massachusetts residents should begin their own thorough study of the issue and thwart the attempts of the Wampanoag tribe and members of the legislature to bring casino gambling to the Commonwealth.
There are many reasons why a casino in our area is not worth the gamble. First there would be a huge social cost resulting from an increase in gambling addictions. The CFPA estimates that the social costs flowing from gambling addiction in our state already cost $170 million annually and other studies have demonstrated that those social costs are much higher within fifty miles of a casino. If a casino were built in the south coast, almost every part of our diocese would be within that fifty mile radius, and we would all be faced with that social bill in elevated rates of depression, alcoholism, theft, broken marriages and families, lost jobs and increased unemployment, defaults on loans and credit card bills, foreclosures, and bankruptcies. It's easy for casinos' high paid media consultants to paint a rosy picture on potential job creation and revenues, but part of that real picture must include hungry families whose food and rent money will be lost at the casino, children whose mom and dad have either become depressed or begun to fight as a result of gambling-related financial stress, or who commit suicide because they don't know how to cope with crushing and mounting debts.
It is true that pathological or problem gamblers are only four percent of the population. The other 96 percent who frequent casinos are able to gamble responsibly. Gambling is a legitimate recreational activity and becomes immoral only when, as the Catechism says, it deprives one of what is necessary to provide for his needs or the needs of others (2413). Even for these people for whom "use" never becomes "abuse," however, there are other issues to consider.
Studies are unanimous in showing that the lower one's socio-economic status, the more likely one is to gamble. That means that if the Commonwealth were to authorize class III gaming and negotiate a "gaming compact" with the Wampanoag nation identical to Connecticut's deal with Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, where the state gets 25% of slot machine revenues, the effect would be a regressive tax on the poor, who would be the source of most of the money the Commonwealth would collect — after, of course, the casino took its 75% off the top. Not only are casinos inefficient ways of raising money for programs — what a state gains through gaming compacts is often lost through forfeited sales and property taxes from companies the casinos drive out of business — but the poor end up losing the most. Many of those with low-incomes look at gambling not just as a recreation, but as an investment they hope will pay dividends toward a better life. But it's a bad investment and, by allowing high stakes gambling, a state becomes a bad investment advisor to one of its most vulnerable populations. The ripple effects of making the poor poorer will obviously affect the rest of the economy.
There are also other social costs to casinos. Many local small businesses — restaurants, retail stores, hotels, entertainment venues, and others — are driven out of business, no longer able to compete. The strain on local communities because of increased traffic can become unbearable even with the best improvements in infrastructure. There's a general rise in crime in the areas around casinos, as addicts seek ways either to recover money they lost or find money to gamble again, and as other people attracted to the crowds, like prostitutes and drug dealers, move in. With the huge sums of money involved, the possibility of political corruption also grows.
With a casino, the house always wins. Those who gamble recreationally know this and wisely go to a casino with a limit they're prepared to lose. It's only the addict who goes to the casino either convinced of winning or without a firm limit of what he or she is prepared to lose. At the end of most days, the gambler will lose. What goes for individuals goes also for communities. If our commonwealth gambles with casino gaming, we will lose more than we gain. If we think otherwise, we haven't learned the wisdom of the average recreational gambler. The house always wins.
Father Roger J. Landry is pastor of St. Anthony of Padua in New Bedford, MA and Executive Editor of The Anchor, the weekly newspaper of the Diocese of Fall River.
