Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Gambling Impact Studies Look Like a Crap Shoot
The constant theme running through the state’s foray into gaming is that the applicants will promise the world in order to get one of the lucrative licenses. Factions are now lining up behind the proposal that gives them the benefits they desire. We have clearly seen this in Pittsburgh: hockey fans have written letters, made phone calls, and have held public gatherings to urge the gaming board to award the license to Isle of Capri so that an arena can be built. That’s what they feel is the best for the City. But who’s to say that an arena would be “better” than 1,200 taxable condos in Station Square? Or locating a casino on the North Shore?
That’s what the board must decide. Fueling their decision will be the impact studies prepared by the applicants. Note that the studies are not called “economic impact” studies, though they do address economic development. But since applicants could decide what to put into the report, the gaming board will have to wrestle with yet another round of policy questions of what is best for Pittsburgh. And it is easy to predict that the next layer of factions will include the public sector.
For instance, the Isle of Capri’s application notes that their parlor would increase bus and light rail ridership, a boon for the Port Authority. But if that is true, it is even more true of Forest City’s/Harrah’s plan because of the Station Square location. PITG Gaming’s proposal for the North Shore is “not expected to impose any increased burdens on local public safety departments”, something the City police and firefighters will like to hear. But how could they be sure that criminal activity will be no greater than at other casino sites?
The board clearly stumbled in setting out criteria for applicants. By not requiring a simple, formulaic method for all applicants to address key issues and how they would be affected under the applicants’ plan, they are left to compare items that might not be addressed comprehensively by all.
An auction would have made the process more transparent and above board and certainly not drag out the promised property tax relief that was the impetus for gaming in the first place.
www.post-gazette.com/pg/06067/666766.stm
That’s what the board must decide. Fueling their decision will be the impact studies prepared by the applicants. Note that the studies are not called “economic impact” studies, though they do address economic development. But since applicants could decide what to put into the report, the gaming board will have to wrestle with yet another round of policy questions of what is best for Pittsburgh. And it is easy to predict that the next layer of factions will include the public sector.
For instance, the Isle of Capri’s application notes that their parlor would increase bus and light rail ridership, a boon for the Port Authority. But if that is true, it is even more true of Forest City’s/Harrah’s plan because of the Station Square location. PITG Gaming’s proposal for the North Shore is “not expected to impose any increased burdens on local public safety departments”, something the City police and firefighters will like to hear. But how could they be sure that criminal activity will be no greater than at other casino sites?
The board clearly stumbled in setting out criteria for applicants. By not requiring a simple, formulaic method for all applicants to address key issues and how they would be affected under the applicants’ plan, they are left to compare items that might not be addressed comprehensively by all.
An auction would have made the process more transparent and above board and certainly not drag out the promised property tax relief that was the impetus for gaming in the first place.
www.post-gazette.com/pg/06067/666766.stm
