A couple of recent stories have given glimpses of what slots actually do to a community. They are just glimpses, but in many ways I find them more realistic and revealing than the generalities that predictions based on studies or coming from other states give us.
That's because they are based on the real stories of what's really happening in and around the slots parlors at Philadephia Park, in Bensalem, and at Harrah's in Chester.
For one thing, petty crime is up. And it's targeted at the very people who we all knew would attend the slots: older gamblers.
These crimes aren't violent -- we're talking swiping winnings or purses -- but they do take up cop time and upset the victims,
But for another thing, at least around Harrah's, local purchasing is - anecdotally - up. This is a significant change. Chester is a devastated, very poor community. Despite the support of local institutions such as Crozier-Chester Medical Center and Widener University (where students can now see Harrah's blinking lights from campus), there was no real hope of getting the kind of massive investment that the community needed -- until slots parlors emerged as an option.
From the Inquirer story Sunday:
"It has hired 222 Chester residents at what the city estimates is an average annual salary of $30,000. By year's end, Harrah's will have paid debt-ridden Chester an expected $9.4 million in taxes - more than a quarter of the city's $35 million budget. Most will go for debt payments."
But it hasn't been easy...
"Today, 20 percent of the 1,113 employees at Harrah's are from Chester. A total of 65 percent are from Delaware County, according to the casino."
"Nevertheless, the results have not fulfilled a pledge made three years go by Harrah's local partners, who said 60 percent of the workers would be from the city. That number was never believed by local residents, and is no longer cited by the casino."
"As predicted, some Chester residents couldn't negotiate the exhaustive application process, or pass stringent background checks imposed by the state."
I'm not promoting slots parlors. But I do think these two recent stories have been instructive because they are real -- they aren't hypotheticals, and they give us an idea of what slots can do, and can't do.
Finally, and from the perspective of civic budgets, Stu Bykofsky has rendered his verdict on casinos...
Discuss!
Comments (3)
In an e-mail, Dan Fee points out that the non-specific cops I refer to in this post are actually state troopers:
"It's not 'cops' who dealt with the petty theft described in that story, but rather state troopers who are stationed there specifically to deal with any activity in the casino -- troopers who are funded by casino payments to the state."
Posted by Wendy | June 4, 2007 5:04 PM
In order for gambling operations to be profitable there have to be losses taking place elsewhere and simultaneously and in direct connection for this to be possible. Simply put, someone somewhere has to lose in order for casinos to prosper, there is no other way. Meaning that there's no case where all the "good things" about casinos can be boasted about while there's no dark side to the story to be told at the same time. There's not a single positive story that can be written about casinos where a negative story cannot be written also. And the press, by law, should really be required to tell both sides of the story each time it writes on casinos -- OR -- provide a very visible disclaimer with each casino story it presents that it's an advertisement on the casino's behalf. But such was not the case with Sunday's Inquirer report regarding Chester's Harrah casino. Both the full story and the disclaimer were missing. And seriously, we're supposed to accept that as "legitimate news reporting"?!
And what I'm saying should apply to all businesses and whatever else, not just casinos. In all cases either tell the full story, or post a disclaimer that what you're reading is an advertisement rather than an actual news report.
Posted by Steve W. | June 5, 2007 3:15 AM
I also want to add that Stu Bykofsky's article -- which I just read -- is equally one sided, and aimed far more at promoting casinos than opposing them. How? Because he says either we have to say yes to casinos or to paying higher taxes, never letting on that there are third and fourth and fifth options and so on to look to. And did you catch where he responds to casinos being a tax on the poor is redeemed by the fact that it's a "voluntary tax" the poor pay, not forced? For yeah, sure it's a "voluntary tax" so long as the poor volunteer to pay it. But what happens when the poor aren't so voluntary? Let's shine some light on the entrapment aspect they get subjected to if they try going in a different direction. Let's shine some light on what makes the poor so "voluntary" in the first place, namely the absence of positive alternatives they could be doing with their lives but which are denied them.
If the poor who gamble suddenly got wise and stopped gambling completely we'd all suddenly see how "voluntary" it is. And does Stu Bykofsky know this? Of course he does. And he should either let on about that or state in his articles the disclaimer that they're advertisements.
Posted by Steve W. | June 5, 2007 4:14 AM