SUN MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 14: TOPIC "LOCAL/STATE OPTIONS"

We are now turning out attention to your local community, as well as to NH.

Here is are the two questions for this week:

A. SHOULD EXPANDED GAMBLING BE AN OPTION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY? Why? Why Not?

<< If yes, tell us specifically what benefits it bring to your community.

<< If no, tell us specifically what problems or concerns you have about its
affect on your community.

<< Please be specific with regard to your community - not in general.

B. SHOULD THIS BE AN OPTION FOR THE STATE OF NH ? Why? Why Not?

If you want gambling in your local community, do you also want it elsewhere in
the state as well?

If you do not want gambling in your local community, is it okay for someplace
else in the state?

We need for you to really be specific to your local community.

This helps others to understand your sense of the special qualities of your
community that make it a good choice for gambling . . . or not a good choice.

Looking forward to a great discussion!

I have only lived in Salem for four years, but understand this town has been
asking for expanding gaming for Rockingham Park many times before and has even
had a town vote on three separate occasions winning an approval all three
times. So yes we have a current facility ready to be renovated to house the
slots. If this is not passed this facility will probably close, opening the
land up for sale and a development of housing and or retail space. How will
Salem handle that?

One question I have to the opponents of expanded gaming..please offer other
options you would consider to help create revenue our State so desperately
needs. I have heard why you would not want this, but what other solution do you
have?

Jane Lang

Salem

To: nh@forums.e-democracy.org
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 8:03:02 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [NH] SUN MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 14: TOPIC "LOCAL/STATE OPTIONS"

We are now turning out attention to your local community, as well as to NH.

Here is are the two questions for this week:

A. SHOULD EXPANDED GAMBLING BE AN OPTION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY? Why? Why Not?

<< If yes, tell us specifically what benefits it bring to your community.

<< If no, tell us specifically what problems or concerns you have about its
affect on your community.

<< Please be specific with regard to your community - not in general.

B. SHOULD THIS BE AN OPTION FOR THE STATE OF NH ? Why? Why Not?

If you want gambling in your local community, do you also want it elsewhere in
the state as well?

If you do not want gambling in your local community, is it okay for someplace
else in the state?

We need for you to really be specific to your local community.

This helps others to understand your sense of the special qualities of your
community that make it a good choice for gambling . . . or not a good choice.

Looking forward to a great discussion!

Martha Parker
Grantham
Info about Martha Parker:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/5dCFr4vW9BVye5VyiCUKod

View all messages on this topic at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/73xzxuaeovjdlZn6EQ9ZNi

Rest of post

A. SHOULD EXPANDED GAMBLING BE AN OPTION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY? Why? Why Not?

I think expanded gambling should be an opportunity for any community that wants
it, but at the same time the infrastructure needs to be in place. Foxwoods was
built in a remote area in Connecticut which did not have good road access and
that caused problems for other communities in the area. Infrastructure costs
and r evenue sharing need to be worked out in a way that benefits both the host
community and the state as a whole. It makes the most sense to me to expand
gambling at the existing tracks since they already have the facilities, but I'm
not a NIMBY. Dover has a poker room and there is a Bingo hall just over the
line in Somersworth. If either of these venues wants to add a few slot
machines or video poker, I have no problem with that, but both venues are in
areas of town that already have traffic problems, so making changes that would
generate additional traffic would not be desirable.

The turnpike goes right through Dover, so if there is land available and
accessible, and someone wants to build a slot parlor in a location that won't
cause traffic problems for us, why not? Bangor, Maine is not a large community
and they seem to be doing this quite successfully with positive results for the
local community and the state, so I don't see why this wouldn't work in a
community like Dover.

B. SHOULD THIS BE AN OPTION FOR THE STATE OF NH ? Why? Why Not?

I think expanded gambling should be an option for any community that wants it,
although there should be a regional aspect to any construction that will cause
traffic problems, or that relies on other communities for things like water and
sewer. R evenues need to be shared among affected communities and towns should
not be able to approve construction on their own if it will cause
infrastructure expenses in other nearby towns.

A. SHOULD EXPANDED GAMBLING BE AN OPTION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY? Why? Why Not?
From Ken Oros, Salem, Yes. A start...
<< If yes, tell us specifically what benefits it bring to your community.
Key positive... location, and facilities in existence. exit 1 off Rte. 93 to
Rockingham Park. Exit 2 off Rte. 93 to empty commercial space.
For the old Digital/Cisco property, maintained. Has room for casino and theatre
and parking in place.
Gaming has been part of Salem and NH for decades.
Shopping mall across street from Rockingham Park for additional venue.
Would bring new jobs for renovations. Would it bring new jobs for
operations/restaurants/retail? And not be replacement to existing jobs, I hope
so but do not know the answer to that.
I would like to see expanded entertainment, shows and concert venues. Expanded
tourism to NH and Salem.

Would look for assistance in town infrastructure as far as roads, water, waste.

B. SHOULD THIS BE AN OPTION FOR THE STATE OF NH ? Why? Why Not?
Yes it should be an option for anyplace in NH.
The new Senate bill outlined Seabrook and Belmont with existing locations.
New locations, 2 up North and 1 in Hudson @ green meadows. Is Hudson too close
to Salem to have any impact? I do not know.
Why new locations up North when we have the Balsams and Mt Washington
facilities? I do not know.

Rest of post

Better options for econ development and job recovery for NH: build on our
strengths: an educated workforce, strengthen capital availability for
innovative companies to move here/grow here; foster product service innovation;
focus on sectors that feature high wage/high skill jobs where products can be
exported to other states/nations; build high speed broadband throughout the
state.

The problem with allowing a slot casino in a specific town, even a town that
wants one, is that such a facility has usually wide-spreading regional impact
on education, infrastructure, transportation. Current casino proposals provide
no means to regional impacts to be assessed, planned for, and for sufficient
cost-mitigation monies to be allocated either to host or to nearby towns.

As to alternate revenue for state: first is to dispel that notion that casino
money is added to the economy from some magic heretofore unavailable source.
Money lost in slot machines comes from the existing pool of consumer disposable
income as casinos add no wealth, skills, or increased incomes. This money is
displaced from existing businesses in the region around casinos, who are hurt
and who will be compelled to reduce jobs and consumer money moves from their
business into slot machine losses.

There are dozens more means to raise state taxes and sound argument that the
state should scale back many years of spending growth beyond the rate of
inflation by delivering public services in more innovative ways. All of these
options are difficult, but none has the problems of slot machine addiction.

One data point I would love anyone supporting slot casinos to contemplate in
some other manner than by saying the Ontario Government (source of this data)
is wrong:

Rest of post

The other solutions include:

A : A smaller N.H. Govt. that does not spend every penny it gets, then load on
the "Fee's" in lieu of an Income Tax. Which N.H. has been threatened/
Blackmailed
with for over 74 years...
B :Actually encouraging and enableing Buisness start ups with less penalising
regulations and Tax. Why not ask U.N.H. to come up with solutions to our
dependence on Foreign oil instead of "talking - up" the idea of Predatory
Gambling. If America can not produce anymore, we might as well encourage our
children to learn how to Flip
Burgers, wash dishes, make beds, pump gas for minimum wage and "tourists" who
WILL BE CHINESE because China will own U.S. dumb schmucks.
C : Times are Hard. E-Bay and Craigs List are doing well, Lets all find a way
to make money without haveing to fear a N.H. Govt. who will steal our Hot Dog
Stand if we dont comply with every title of the regulations.... I have a long
memory!
D : Elect a New Govenor...perhaps someone like Craig Benson, who will "Fry some
Bacon"....

Rest of post

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:16 AM, <<email obscured>> wrote:

Those are thoughtful questions. I would suggest that we all need to keep a
more watchful eye on those in our legislature who have and are continuing to
pass legislation with undefined financial packages and not caring what the
cost will be to the citizen.

In 4 years we have gone from an 87 million dollar surplus to a now 1/2
billion in debt and they are continuing to spend. This new health care
commission has an astronomical price tag and will be passed on to the
residents of NH (hidden tax)380 million per year is the projected cost to
have legislators - recommend services and prices for our health care needs.

All the taxes that have been imposed and the services that have been cut
have happened in the last 4 years because of spending beyond our means to
support. We have doubled the number of state government employees in the
last 4 years.

We have made it financially unattractive to businesses to come to NH with
our high taxes and now we are going to tax our LLC's with a potential of
13.5% profit tax. Many of our LLC's are what keep NH residents employed.
They cannot sustain this tax level and it definitely is a deterrent for new
businesses.

New Hampshire is an agrarian & logging state. Animal husbandry is on the
rise with new technology that is coupled with sustain ability making it far
more profitable than in past history. Food coops are on the rise and
getting larger every year as more NH residents find the advantages both
financially and health wise to buy locally. This movement is creating jobs
and businesses. All of this attracts tourist who love the the family
setting that has been the hallmark of New Hampshire. Agrarian culture
understands hard work, are not prone to steal, believe in helping their
neighbor, have strong family ties are very community aware- all of these
traits have been mentioned in these threads.

Why not allow the logging companies to do what they do best - cut trees.
Logging practices are more informed and they do a good job of replacing and
monitoring what has been cut. We, the people of this state, have had our
hands tied in so many ways by thinking that cutting trees is bad and paper
mills are bad. Papermills do an excellent job at managing forests if their
hands aren't tied with over regulation.

One of the fastest and easiest ways to get NH out of debt is to shrink
government programs and then the state government itself.

Growing government with casinos is not going to get NH out of this created
financial travesty. This mess we are in is not caused solely by forces
outside the state but by our own legislators spending with out restraint.

Reducing taxes and government spending will enable our state businesses to
be creative and come up with solutions to our fiscal problems.

I'll take these points one by one-- "60% of slot machine profits come from
gambling addicts who cannot stop themselves and whose losses severely impact
5-10 non-gamblers around them, ie family, employers, etc."

Absolute, 100% lie! NORC estimates that “5 percent to 15 percent of the
industry’s gross revenues were from pathological gamblers, with the higher
number attributed to pari-mutuel facilities, not casinos.” (National Opinion
Research Center at the University of Chicago, Gemini Research, The Lewin Group,
Gambling Impact and Behavior Study, Report to the NGISC, April 1, 1999)

Again, these preposterous claims by the anti-gambling crowd is simply more
fear-mongering. Every single reliable study, from the National Gambling Impact
Study Commission to Harvard Medical School’s Division on Addictions & the
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, has proven
without a shadow of a doubt that the number of pathological & problem gamblers
COMBINED is only between 0.7 and 1.29 of the population. This number has NOT
increased as slot machine proliferation has increased.

Furthermore, a government study that compared prevalence rates in Connecticut
in 1991 versus 1996 concluded: “… probable pathological gambling rates may
actually have fallen in Connecticut, and have certainly not risen, during a
period in which one of the largest casinos in the world was opened in the
state.” Similar results were found in follow-up studies conducted in South
Dakota, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, Washington, British
Columbia, New Zealand and South Africa. Nationally, the 1976 federal gambling
commission found that the number of “probable compulsive gamblers” was 0.77
percent of the U.S. adult population, virtually identical to the findings of
the latest federal commission, despite the significant growth of gambling
opportunities during that time.

Another erroneous assumption is that the more people gamble, the more likely
they are to become pathological gamblers. In fact, the NORC research in 1999
found that while many more people have gambled at least once in their lifetimes
(68 percent in 1975, compared to 86 percent in 1999), the number of people who
had gambled in the past year had remained relatively unchanged (61 percent in
1975, versus 63 percent in 1999). As the Public Sector Gaming Study Commission
pointed out in its final report issued this year, “These findings mean that
Americans have become much more likely to have experimented with gambling, but
this experimentation has not turned them into people who gamble regularly or
routinely.”

Rest of post

____________________________________________________________________

-- By placing slot machines close to where people live, more people use them
(exactly like movie theaters, supermarkets, etc). More exposure means more
revenue, but also means more addiction. Mid range estimate for 6 casinos in NH
would be an increase of 10,000 gambling addicts.

An extensive study performed at the University of Delaware in 2002 concluded
that approximately 1,700 Delaware residents are pathological gamblers, and this
group could benefit from treatment. "Because of the relatively small number of
pathological gamblers, the total costs and consequences of pathological
gambling are relatively low."
__________________________________________________________________

--Money lost in slot machines comes from the existing pool of consumer
disposable income as casinos add no wealth, skills, or increased incomes. This
money is displaced from existing businesses in the region around casinos, who
are hurt and who will be compelled to reduce jobs and consumer money moves from
their business into slot machine losses.

Again, not only a complete lie, but also a total reversal of the truth! Every
study proves unequivocally that slot machines create an enormous boom in
tourism thus enhancing business significantly in the communities. A study
published in the Journal of Shopping Center Research in 1997 corroborated these
claims, reporting that "32 percent of people said they went shopping while on a
visit to a casino, while 69 percent said they ate at a local restaurant." A
study published a year later at the Wharton School of Business at the
University of Pennsylvania looked at hundreds of U.S. malls in casino and
noncasino communities and found no significant effect on sales before or after
a casino came to town.

Results from a recent survey in Bangor, Maine also reveal the positive effect
of expanded gambling on the community. “Empirical results suggest that a
one-dollar increase in monthly net gaming revenues is associated with a $0.29
and $0.12 increase in sales at Bangor-area restaurants and hotels,
respectively.” Again, another typical example proving that expanded gambling
promotes tourism and benefits the local community--not the opposite!

West Virginia promotes their slot machines right in their tourism headline;
“West Virginia has something for everyone. Arts and crafts, mountain biking,
fairs and festivals, historic attractions, float trips and slot machines. Find
out why we call it Wild & Wondereful.”

And there’s good reason it’s highlighted so visibly—tourism officials say
gambling has had a ripple effect. Gambling getaways are packaged with the
state's other tourism outlets, which focus on weekend stays for skiing and
whitewater rafting. In a matter of years, Charles Town Racetrack in Jefferson
County, West Virginia, transformed from a has-been track to a regional
attraction, generating more than one-third of the $717 million in slot revenues
earned by the four tracks in 2002. The track gets about 4 million visits each
year - 95 percent of them from out-of-staters who wouldn't have come if not for
the slots.
____________________________________________________________________

We've gone through this time and time again...it's getting a bit old. There
are legalized slot machines in 39 states and sufficient data to prove these
communities are not harmed by the expansion of gambling. Some data is easily
skewed, but preposterous claims such as 60% revenue from problem gamblers,
suicide and rape increases, links to bankruptcy--are a total crock!

I apologize for my absence from this forum, I was an eager participant in the
Salem meeting on Feb 13, and I was looking forward to these conversations. I
am in the middle of a ten day business trip through the Midwest, and I just
have not been able to follow along with you all.

However, the topic of Local/State Options is the place for me to present what I
think is a key compromise in this issue, and this option should be presented to
the governor and legislature.

The original plan to add slot machines at the (then) four racetracks soon
exploded into a six or seven site monstrosity that would include up to 17000
machines, and I can see why that might cause some concern around the state.
I'm sure it seems like there would be a casino around every corner.

However, there is only one plan currently viable, with financing in place,
ready to go. The Rockingham Race Track has been a gambling establishment for
over 100 years, it was, at one time, internationally renowned, is now an
historic treasure, with very responsible ownership and management, and enjoys a
close relationship with the people of the local community. Salem has twice
approved, at the polls, an expansion of gaming at the track. Like any other
business facing competition in a new electronic age, the track has devised a
plan to meet the challenges facing the business in the 21st century. They
should have the right to modernize and expand their business (and payroll!!).
They have the support of the community. They have the perfect site, and I
can't see that their location, at the entrance to NH on I-93, would impact the
quality of life throughout the rest of the state.

The legislature, and governor, should immediately craft a plan that will seize
the opportunity available at Rockingham Park, and table for now the remaining
controversial aspects of the gaming plan. Let Rockingham get up and running
and serve as a test bed for the gaming regulatory system in the state.

This is really a home rule issue, and Rockingham Park and the Town of Salem
should be able to develop this opportunity to their interest, and the citizens
of the State of NH will only benefit.

Thanks for letting me get that idea into the conversation and thanks to all of
you for carring enough to be involved.

A. Should expanded gambling be an option for your community? Why? Why not?
I am definitely in favor of expanded gambling in Manchester. Doesn't
Manchester revel in calling itself "ManchVegas'? I always laugh when I hear
this because Manchester, NH is nothing like Vegas. For all the negatives about
Vegas, I personally found many positives. The community was alive with activity
for all ages. Expanded gambling would provide jobs at the casino itself and I
believe attendance at the gambling venue would benefit local business and even
provide encouragement for new business to locate in close proximity.
Personally, I am concerned with job creation. I hear about all these
incentives to create construction jobs but I am not a construction worker and I
don't wish to be one and I didn't send my kids to college to become
construction workers either, not that there is anything wrong with being a
construction worker, but in NH those types of jobs are seasonal. Both of the
Connecticut casinos have retail and hospitality included on the premises as
well as spas and hotels. If a venue were to be developed in Manchester local
retailers, restaurants, and other service providers would certainly reap
economic benefits. People would come here instead of going to Connecticut.
Manchester already has the Verizon Wireless arena, the baseball field, the
Palace Theatre and new hotels; a casino in my opinion would be a welcome
addition.

B. Business is business and should be able to locate where there is demand
and/or perceived demand. I don't believe restrictions should exist that would
hamper job creation. I believe there are plenty of locales within the state
aside from Manchester that could use an economic boost and as I've said
previously the devlopers should be responsible for absorbing and contributing
to costs for infrastructure.

Rest of post

Hello all,
I didn't want to get into this but...some far fetched comments
which skew the truth bother me.
"Again, these preposterous claims by the anti-gambling crowd is simply more
fear-mongering."
"has proven without a shadow of a doubt that the number of pathological &
problem gamblers COMBINED is only between 0.7 and 1.29 of the population. "

A great example of playing with the facts, the very same (albiet out dated)
study also says that 7% of people WHOM GAMBLE become addicted. (less than 2% of
the general population, yes,because most "normal" people don't gamble)

If your family & friends gamble, their is a better than 1 in 20 chance you are
around a problem gambler.

Yes, you probably KNOW one but because they don't "show" the symtoms like other
addicts most folks are not aware. Problem gamblers only surface at the "end",
when the financial wreckage is complete ! When they have polished off every
cent they could get a hold of.

What "damage" does this do besides the obvious to that indivdual ?

Disposable income is the obvious one that no longer finds the local economy.

If it is a small businessman/woman (which is quiteoften), then usually there is
the loss of other incomes & jobs when the business is bled dry of money.
(who pays their unemployment, you & I)

When a problem gambler "maxs" out all their credit cards, who pays for it ?
Again you & I, through higher interest rates. Banks do not take those losses.
They are shifted to us.

When A parent or grandparent "bails" out their child or grandchild so they
don't lose their house do to a gambling problem, isn't that money taken from
the local economy ?

When they "willingly give away" their retirement to save a loved one, is not
that a "social cost" and a detriment to the quality of life?

When gamblers have their houses foreclosed on, are people so naive to believe
that they don't believe that we all pay for that ?

When their utility bills are "blown off", don't we all pay higher rates to
offset those "losses" to the utility ? Of course we do that's how those
utilities stay afloat.

Problem gamblers spend far beyond "their own disposable income" and I don't
believe that should be discounted. A problem gambler takes down all their
family & friends with them just like any other addict.

Their stress, their financial woes, their health issues, etc. become absorbed
and shared by their loved ones and paid for with their loved ones money.
That money is gone forever from the state.

When it is one of YOUR family or YOUR friends you will understand but by then
of course it will be too late. (there is a reason over 1,000 men & woman are at
Gamblers Anonymous meetings EVERY night of the week in New England, not many
really but less than 3% of problem gamblers seek help)

For me it seems we are "trying to put a band aid on compound fracture" here.
I just do not believe enough revenue will be generated what with Massachusetts
& other adjoining states probably "legalizing" all gambling before New
Hampshire.

I too would prefer we "fix" New Hampshire from within; I agree the state
could/should make itself more attractive to "normal" businesses first and
foremost before climbing on the gambling bandwagon.

Obviously our state government is oversized and ineffective but until local
groups want to take responsibility for changing it, nothing will change.
It won't "fix" itself.
Why give away millions & millions in infrastructure to gambling operations when
we are unwilling to do that for private businesses.
Just makes no sense to me.

I keeping thinking of the one woman at our Portsmouth group who said " I just
can't help it but I buy scratch tickets & play the lottery because it's there
in the store every day, but it's not really gambling anyway".
That thinking scares me, we are all potential problem gamblers. It doesn't
discriminate by education, income, status, locality, etc. like ANY compulsion.

Thanks for listening.

Please reference the source this information was obtained from: "We have
doubled the number of state government employees in the last 4 years."

Rest of post

Gene said it all, the only place ready willing and able is Rockingham Park.
With over 100 years of gaming and a community that voted 3 times over the last
10 or 12 years in favor, by a 3 to 1 margin to welcome expanded gaming, whats
the problem? Now there are people from all over the state looking to dive in. I
am really tired of people from other parts of the state, some over 100 miles
away ( or more) dictating to us ( we the people) that we can't increase gaming
in OUR area ! How about if Concord lets the counties have a say with a BINDING
resolution vote. That way ( we the people) would have a say what is welcome or
not in OUR communities. I'm sure that people from the Portsmouth area or Keene,
Plymouth or Gorham wouldn't like our reps imposing their will on their
communities. Let the hosting Towns be the most influential part of the decision
process in Concord. TY

Rest of post

----- Original Message -----
From: <email obscured>
To: nh@forums.e-democracy.org
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2010 6:58:01 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [NH] SUN MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 14: TOPIC "LOCAL/STATE OPTIONS"

I apologize for my absence from this forum, I was an eager participant in the
Salem meeting on Feb 13, and I was looking forward to these conversations. I
am in the middle of a ten day business trip through the Midwest, and I just
have not been able to follow along with you all.

However, the topic of Local/State Options is the place for me to present what I
think is a key compromise in this issue, and this option should be presented to
the governor and legislature.

The original plan to add slot machines at the (then) four racetracks soon
exploded into a six or seven site monstrosity that would include up to 17000
machines, and I can see why that might cause some concern around the state.
I'm sure it seems like there would be a casino around every corner.

However, there is only one plan currently viable, with financing in place,
ready to go. The Rockingham Race Track has been a gambling establishment for
over 100 years, it was, at one time, internationally renowned, is now an
historic treasure, with very responsible ownership and management, and enjoys a
close relationship with the people of the local community. Salem has twice
approved, at the polls, an expansion of gaming at the track. Like any other
business facing competition in a new electronic age, the track has devised a
plan to meet the challenges facing the business in the 21st century. They
should have the right to modernize and expand their business (and payroll!!).
They have the support of the community. They have the perfect site, and I
can't see that their location, at the entrance to NH on I-93, would impact the
quality of life throughout the rest of the state.

The legislature, and governor, should immediately craft a plan that will seize
the opportunity available at Rockingham Park, and table for now the remaining
controversial aspects of the gaming plan. Let Rockingham get up and running
and serve as a test bed for the gaming regulatory system in the state.

This is really a home rule issue, and Rockingham Park and the Town of Salem
should be able to develop this opportunity to their interest, and the citizens
of the State of NH will only benefit.

Thanks for letting me get that idea into the conversation and thanks to all of
you for carring enough to be involved.
Gene Bryant
Salem
Info about Gene Bryant: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/BRmvleO3NCC4QSE9VQEHG

View all messages on this topic at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/54tqQcIj6P9xoAVAiSj5iv
-----------------------------------------
  To post, e-mail: nh@forums.e-democracy.org
  Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
  in subject, then send to: nh@forums.e-democracy.org

  More information about New Hampshire Community Conversations - Through Mar.
15:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/nh

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

What’s At Stake: Community Conversations on the Benefits and Risks
of Expanded Legalized Gambling in New Hampshire is sponsored by the
University of New Hampshire: http://whatsatstake.unh.edu

Hosting and additional support provided by http://E-Democracy.org

The discussions have pulled me from anti-gaming to a slightly more favorable
pro-gambling stance, but not in my town or other small towns.

I would not want gambling in my town even if my property taxes were eliminated.
It seems to me that citizens have a responsibility to pay for the services in
our towns and state and taxing gamblers and new gambling enterprises is not the
direction to go. We should be reviewing the cost effectiveness of the current
government services before we go looking for questionable activities to
initiate and tax. I worry that follow-on revenue initiatives could really get
creative- How about pit bull fighting? I have been to Vegas and Foxwoods a few
times and enjoyed the "entertainment", but I could not justify taking money
from citizens that may not be able to control their addiction just to reduce
our individual responsibilities. There are plenty of fun things to do in NH
without slots and I have seen and read of too many families broken by gambling
additions. Just because other states do it does not justify NH to follow.
Lets "live free" from increased gambling in NH and entice worthwhile industry
to our state that will supply jobs to our graduates and residents.

Concerning alternative locations in NH, I do find a potential case for expanded
gambling at Rockingham as a test case before considering additional locations
because of the historic gaming at the Rock and its border location. I believe
Salem residents should have a vote to accept or reject the introduction.

I will keep an open mind and look forward to reading input from others.

George

Rest of post

I don't see any net benefit to my community from having gambling in the
community. While our local gamblers would gain from having more convenient
access to gambling, my community is not striving to be an entertainment center
and the presence of gambling establishments would harm other business
development activities (whether that is fair or not, I sense there is a
prejudice against local gambling operations when businesses offering the kind
of well-paid, professional jobs we are seeking consider quality of life issues
in deciding on a location). If the direct revenue boost to the community from
gambling is similar to that proposed in Senate Bill 489 (3% of net income in
the case of video lottery gambling) that wouldn't mean much because our
infrastructure is so limited that it couldn't support a large gambling
operation.
I don't think expanded gambling is a good idea for New Hampshire for two
reasons. (1) Gambling is not the kind of activity or entertainment value that
I associate with New Hampshire values. (2) I don't think New Hampshire can
compete effectively with other states in the long run in offering gambling
because we don't have the local population base to support big scale gambling
and we are very unlikely to make New Hampshire a prime gambling destination
that will draw lots of folks from out of state or out of country, particularly
if surrounding states increase their gambling operations. So I suspect that
any hoped for big spike in gambling revenue will be short lasting and that the
gambling industry will soon be able to make the case for reduced taxes so that
they may remain viable in the face of increased competition from other states
and the state will be forced back to the problem of where to get needed
revenue.
If gambling is expanded then I believe the areas impacted by expanded
gambling should have to approve it. As I understand it, the studies show that
gambling sites draw most of their customers from within a 30 mile radius.
Thus, I believe that a majority of the NH communities within a 30 mile radius
of a site proposed for expanded gambling should have to approve the expansion.
I actually would go further than that if there were a framework in place to
make it possible: I would require a majority of communities within 30 miles of
a gambling site to approve it whether or not the communities were all in a
single state. It doesn't seem right to me that a gambling site near a state
border doesn't have to be approved by both states.
Doug Karo

Hello everyone,

As far as "should expanded gambling be an option for your community ?"
I would have to say most definitely NOT on the seacoast;

No whys, only major WHY NOT"s !!! Because questions far, far exceed answers at
this point.

1: living here near the seacoast the roads alone are unable to deal with the
normal summer tourist traffic and local traffic; just ask anyone that has tried
to drive Rte. 1 from Portsmouth to Hampton or Seabrook and back in less than 3
hours between May & October.

It was made clear to me at the forum that because this is "such a political
football that ONLY if expanded gambling was allowed in all 6 locations proposed
would it (expanded gambling) have a chance".

So I ask, if Seabrook Dog Track/Poker Room were to become a slots palace, who
pays for adding another lane to Rte. 107 between Rte.1 and Rte. 108 to handle
all the extra traffic, the developers or the good citizens of this state ??
Who pays for adding another lane to Rte. 1 from the Mass. border up to Hampton
?? Or do we "grin and bear it" because it's such a great cash cow even if
tourists and locals start avoiding those areas and BUSINESSES due to the
ridiculous traffic ???
I've yet to hear one person address these issues for any area in the state.

2: Because I've yet to hear who subsidizes their costs like electricity. Unless
each operation plans to put in their own power plant (hopefully biomass (local
instate fuel option) power plant) does this come come off the PSNH grid that
couldn't keep up with the demand the last few summers?? and does this mean our
"highest in the country" electric prices go still higher ??
Do all residents have to dig a little deeper to pay for the gambling??

3: What about trash and waste, etc. with 3,000-10,000 people coming & going
daily where and how is that dealt with ??
Will they have their own waste treatment facilities or is that the town and
county problem ???
I see so many unaddressed issue like these and all I hear is "don't worry
we'll have so much money coming in that these aren't concerns".

4; Where are the guarantees?? If someone could just GUARANTEE this many
million will go to local schools if you allow X number of slots. And this many
million will go to county and state roads with X number of slots. And this many
million will go to the local towns' general funds. Etc., etc......

If it's a "sure thing" (the profits) why not be like all private companies &
tell their "investors" (the citizens of New Hampshire) what returns are
expected & what MINIMUMS are guaranteed for their investments.

5: Any guarantees only "real" instate local labor will be used during
construction and/or renovation work ?? I say "real" because I watched a
"local" Portsmouth based company use labor with Kansas & Missouri plates on
their vehicles do all the roofing & siding on condos & apartment complexes in
Newmarket during the last few summers.

Will truly local, in state, contractors, builders, and workers be used for ALL
work ???

Also any guarantee that say, I don't know, maybe 80% of their employees
actually live in New Hampshire or are presently New Hampshire residents ??
I know, that's crazy, to want some of their payroll to stay in the state.

6: I truly do not see one benefit to the quality of life for this area, only a
far greater chance (or gamble) that we will leave a FAR GREATER FINANCIAL &
SOCIAL BURDEN for the children & granchildren of ALL families in southern New
Hampshire to try and repair in their lifetimes.
My opinion is that is just not morally right or just. I BELIEVE they deserve
better from our generation !

Should expanded gambling be an option for the state ??

POSSIBLY.... but only if someone can give WRITTEN IN STONE (legally binding
contracts) answers and gaurantees to 1 thru 6, above, for the state wide
options.

1: Rte. 93 is already over loaded during the summer, many folks use it because
of the Rte. 16 dilemma and so go up Rte. 93 then go east over to their places
as it is, so are the gambling palaces & developers going to pay to further
widen Rte. 93 or do ALL NH citizens chip in and pay for it for them???

If something goes in the eastern side of the state, who pays to add a lane to
Rte. 16 up to Conway or beyond???

2: If a casino/resort destination is allowed will the developer build a fully
sustainable, enviromentally friendly option incorporating local only businesses
in the operation ??? YES, it can be quite profitable & is possible. ( see most
any European country) and best yet does not drain from local resources and
infrastructure. "outside the box thinking" as it is considered, I suppose.

3: And as I said earlier in this discussions series, WHAT CAN THEY GIVE US
BEYOND A BASIC GAMBLING JOINT??

They want in, so why not ask for things!! What ! They might say no way but
they might say okay too. But at least ask, please!!

How about $30-40 million up front to go in a Trust that would GUARANTEE that
any eligible NH high school graduate could attend any NH state college tuition
free ?? or better yet, room & board and tution free!! this sort of thing !
Opportunity knocks, why not ask before opening the door!

Why not give the next few generations a fighting chance.

4: How about a multi use tourist facility for skiing, camping, hiking, fishing,
moutain biking, off roading, hunting, rafting, etc., etc. that just happens to
also have a casino as a part of it rather than A CASINO as the main focus with
"normal" tourist things as a side dish .

So yes,POSSIBLY it could be a good option for the state if the STATE & NH
residents DEMAND MORE than the basics.

I, for one, am not afraid to ask for more than they "normally" give!!

Thanks, David Nilsen

A. SHOULD EXPANDED GAMBLING BE AN OPTION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY?

I live in the Lakes Region & The Lodge at Belmont is one of the slated spots
for expanded gambling to be established. I am 100% in favor of this for several
reasons. The creation of new jobs both at the facility & at the state level
will reduce unemployment benefit claims & help the local economy; increased
state revenue from the gambling facility both in new taxes (which will fund
various programs as well as reduce property taxes) & an increased business
profit tax; additional revenue to the local businesses (gas, lodging, food,
shopping) will also generate an increased business profit tax; & possible
increased toll booth traffic & revenue.

The Lakes Region is known for being a tourist destination, therefore it is the
perfect location for this type of facility. Many people spend their vacations
in this area of the state, enjoying the lakes-mountains-speedway-shopping. Why
not offer another alternative form of entertainment?

B. SHOULD THIS BE AN OPTION FOR THE STATE OF NH ?
Most definitely, however I do feel there should be restrictions set on how many
locations & where the locations are. We don't want to become Las Vegas,
therefore there needs to be control over having them located a certain number
of miles away from each other. It goes without saying that a viability study
should be done to ensure that the location will generate sufficient patrons to
produce a profit. And the communities should be ones that preapproved the
existence of this type of facility & needs to have the final decision on the
type of construction. The expense of road improvements, etc. need to be borne
by the facility.

A.) I agree totally. The Lakes Region is a tourist destination. Rockingham
is certainly a destination. Certain local communities have expressed their
desire to house expanded gambling in their communities. The local
communities that do want expanded gambling should get more of the revenue
directed their way to cover additional services they will need to provide.

B.) The State does not know how to forecast it's revenue apparently. We're
months into a two year Budget cycle and severely behind already.
The State is probably going to suspend School Building aide and then reduce
assistance to Schools in the future. Just wait till our State passes those
costs onto the local School Districts. We currently pay about 55%-65% of
our property taxes to support the schools. The State just lost a $100
million suit by trying to just grab funds it's not entitled to. The State
will also loose the current lawsuit brought by over 200 towns and school
districts regarding passing on State obligated NH Retirement contributions
to the towns. This will cost millions.

The law is pretty clear, there is no home rule. Local communities cannot
approve expanded gambling. It must be given the green light by Concord.

Why don't they just expand on a test basis, for two years with substantial
monitoring from the accountants at the Gaming Commission, at Rockingham and
the other race tracks only for now (with local community approval). The $50
million and $20 million franchise fees paid to the State just to open these
facilities would still be received. After two years we can measure (1)
revenue to the State (2) all social problem real or imagined and (3) future
expansion or reduction.

Curt McGee
Sanbornton

Rest of post

--------------------------------------------------
From: <<email obscured>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:58 PM
To: <nh@forums.e-democracy.org>
Subject: [NH] SUN MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 14: TOPIC "LOCAL/STATE OPTIONS"

> A. SHOULD EXPANDED GAMBLING BE AN OPTION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY?
>
> I live in the Lakes Region & The Lodge at Belmont is one of the slated
> spots for expanded gambling to be established. I am 100% in favor of this
> for several reasons. The creation of new jobs both at the facility & at
> the state level will reduce unemployment benefit claims & help the local
> economy; increased state revenue from the gambling facility both in new
> taxes (which will fund various programs as well as reduce property taxes)
> & an increased business profit tax; additional revenue to the local
> businesses (gas, lodging, food, shopping) will also generate an increased
> business profit tax; & possible increased toll booth traffic & revenue.
>
> The Lakes Region is known for being a tourist destination, therefore it is
> the perfect location for this type of facility. Many people spend their
> vacations in this area of the state, enjoying the
> lakes-mountains-speedway-shopping. Why not offer another alternative form
> of entertainment?
>
> B. SHOULD THIS BE AN OPTION FOR THE STATE OF NH ?
> Most definitely, however I do feel there should be restrictions set on how
> many locations & where the locations are. We don't want to become Las
> Vegas, therefore there needs to be control over having them located a
> certain number of miles away from each other. It goes without saying that
> a viability study should be done to ensure that the location will generate
> sufficient patrons to produce a profit. And the communities should be ones
> that preapproved the existence of this type of facility & needs to have
> the final decision on the type of construction. The expense of road
> improvements, etc. need to be borne by the facility.
> Rhonda Knowlton
> Laconia
> Info about Rhonda Knowlton:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/3oivwrOB5TF0IHr9MdhGPY
>
> View all messages on this topic at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/UEBOgZVPXOAFV9XXr0vME
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, e-mail: nh@forums.e-democracy.org
> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
> in subject, then send to: nh@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> More information about New Hampshire Community Conversations - Through
> Mar. 15:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/nh
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> What’s At Stake: Community Conversations on the Benefits and Risks
> of Expanded Legalized Gambling in New Hampshire is sponsored by the
> University of New Hampshire: http://whatsatstake.unh.edu
>
> Hosting and additional support provided by http://E-Democracy.org
>

The problem with trial or pilot gambling is that once legal, it was remain
legal. No state has removed casinos once legalized; not because they are
deemed on balance positive, but because casino interest capture the legislature
and the legislature becomes addicted to the campaign and budget money.

A two-year trial -- even it were possible -- is too short. The crime stats
show that crimes follow addictions, which require 3-5 years to become full
blown enough to cause addicts to commit violent assaults, thefts, etc.

Finally, the regulatory apparatus needed and time required to set it up, do
background checks, get needed zoning changes (ie at Hudson, which has a 35 foot
height restriction and ag use at the golf course), local zoning approval will
require 2-3 years from the date a gambling law might be passed. No casino
operator will allow license fees to be released from escrow until full approval
to build and operate are granted. Stockholders would ask for heads to roll
otherwise.

Remember that our existing gambling regulatory structure completely failed to
prevent detection and theft of $750,000 in gamblers deposit money at the
Hinsdale track or to detect and prevent the operation of a $200 million dollar
gambling and tax evasion ring run by the Gambino crime family at the Belmont
track (prior owners). Thus, regulation is both difficult to get right and very
necessary to protect the public.

Note that the gambling bill now about to pass the Senate would allow 6 casinos
spread throughout the state, making NH #4 in slot machines per capita among the
casino states. Even states that start with fewer casinos wind up having casinos
and slots spread statewide.

Please will you in Concord listen, This IS the right choice !!

Rest of post

----- Original Message -----
From: "CurtMcGee" <<email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>, nh@forums.e-democracy.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:22:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NH] SUN MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 14: TOPIC "LOCAL/STATE OPTIONS"

A.) I agree totally. The Lakes Region is a tourist destination. Rockingham
is certainly a destination. Certain local communities have expressed their
desire to house expanded gambling in their communities. The local
communities that do want expanded gambling should get more of the revenue
directed their way to cover additional services they will need to provide.

B.) The State does not know how to forecast it's revenue apparently. We're
months into a two year Budget cycle and severely behind already.
The State is probably going to suspend School Building aide and then reduce
assistance to Schools in the future. Just wait till our State passes those
costs onto the local School Districts. We currently pay about 55%-65% of
our property taxes to support the schools. The State just lost a $100
million suit by trying to just grab funds it's not entitled to. The State
will also loose the current lawsuit brought by over 200 towns and school
districts regarding passing on State obligated NH Retirement contributions
to the towns. This will cost millions.

The law is pretty clear, there is no home rule. Local communities cannot
approve expanded gambling. It must be given the green light by Concord.

Why don't they just expand on a test basis, for two years with substantial
monitoring from the accountants at the Gaming Commission, at Rockingham and
the other race tracks only for now (with local community approval). The $50
million and $20 million franchise fees paid to the State just to open these
facilities would still be received. After two years we can measure (1)
revenue to the State (2) all social problem real or imagined and (3) future
expansion or reduction.

Curt McGee
Sanbornton

--------------------------------------------------
From: <<email obscured>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:58 PM
To: <nh@forums.e-democracy.org>
Subject: [NH] SUN MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 14: TOPIC "LOCAL/STATE OPTIONS"

> A. SHOULD EXPANDED GAMBLING BE AN OPTION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY?
>
> I live in the Lakes Region & The Lodge at Belmont is one of the slated
> spots for expanded gambling to be established. I am 100% in favor of this
> for several reasons. The creation of new jobs both at the facility & at
> the state level will reduce unemployment benefit claims & help the local
> economy; increased state revenue from the gambling facility both in new
> taxes (which will fund various programs as well as reduce property taxes)
> & an increased business profit tax; additional revenue to the local
> businesses (gas, lodging, food, shopping) will also generate an increased
> business profit tax; & possible increased toll booth traffic & revenue.
>
> The Lakes Region is known for being a tourist destination, therefore it is
> the perfect location for this type of facility. Many people spend their
> vacations in this area of the state, enjoying the
> lakes-mountains-speedway-shopping. Why not offer another alternative form
> of entertainment?
>
> B. SHOULD THIS BE AN OPTION FOR THE STATE OF NH ?
> Most definitely, however I do feel there should be restrictions set on how
> many locations & where the locations are. We don't want to become Las
> Vegas, therefore there needs to be control over having them located a
> certain number of miles away from each other. It goes without saying that
> a viability study should be done to ensure that the location will generate
> sufficient patrons to produce a profit. And the communities should be ones
> that preapproved the existence of this type of facility & needs to have
> the final decision on the type of construction. The expense of road
> improvements, etc. need to be borne by the facility.
> Rhonda Knowlton
> Laconia
> Info about Rhonda Knowlton:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/3oivwrOB5TF0IHr9MdhGPY
>
> View all messages on this topic at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/UEBOgZVPXOAFV9XXr0vME
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, e-mail: nh@forums.e-democracy.org
> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
> in subject, then send to: nh@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> More information about New Hampshire Community Conversations - Through
> Mar. 15:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/nh
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> What’s At Stake: Community Conversations on the Benefits and Risks
> of Expanded Legalized Gambling in New Hampshire is sponsored by the
> University of New Hampshire: http://whatsatstake.unh.edu
>
> Hosting and additional support provided by http://E-Democracy.org
>

Curt McGee
Sanbornton
Info about Curt McGee: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/3TY3vEStng4Os0FJNOdEJk

View all messages on this topic at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1snvKRXsCln42G5QOxuyGX
-----------------------------------------
  To post, e-mail: nh@forums.e-democracy.org
  Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
  in subject, then send to: nh@forums.e-democracy.org

  More information about New Hampshire Community Conversations - Through Mar.
15:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/nh

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

What’s At Stake: Community Conversations on the Benefits and Risks
of Expanded Legalized Gambling in New Hampshire is sponsored by the
University of New Hampshire: http://whatsatstake.unh.edu

Hosting and additional support provided by http://E-Democracy.org

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

SUN MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 14: TOPIC "LOCAL/STATE OPTIONS"

Already a member?

Not a member?

E-Democracy is 100% Donation Supported Contribute Today!