Casino-Free Philadelphia: Combined Feed

Penn National Gaming Has a Vision for Education

Dan — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:13:51 +0000

A little less than a month ago the six bidders for a second Philadelphia casino license put on a show at the convention center. Those of us who were there have already shared a few opinions on those presentations in general. But it may help to look at each proposal separately, and in a little more detail. We’ve got some ideas on how they can improve.

Maybe we should start with Penn National Gaming’s proposal for a casino in South Philadelphia. It has something unique about it, the creation of a non-profit, the Philadelphia Casino Benefit Corporation (PCBC). The PBC would have a two-thirds share in the casino (Penn National Gaming can only have a one-third share by law since they already have a casino in Pennsylvania). The PCBC would be “expressly limited to two uses – pensions and education in Philadelphia”

Education and gambling -- like two peas in a pod.

Yet this brilliant merger seems incomplete. Why is the proposed casino so far from schools?
Here’s a thought. Since the School Reform Commission - over the objection of community groups, labor, parents, and students – has voted to close twenty-three schools, there will be a lot more empty school buildings in the city. So why not just kill two birds with one stone?

Something like: Hollywood Casino and Bob Brady High School (after Rep. Bob Brady, who we imagine might have helped put this plan together).

Of course some may be concerned about a non-profit with ties to a casino. No problem, the Penn National Gaming folks say. They’ve appointed a director, Joseph A. Domenico, who is an “independent and unbiased monitor” and “expediter” for the PCBC. Well, according to him at least.

He also told us he’s obviously the “logical choice” as director. No, he doesn’t have any experience running a non-profit; he has no background in education; he has no background in administering pension funds. No, sorry, none of that. But he’s such a great choice, he said, because he has “31 years in the casino industry.” Oh, and there will be one representative from PGCB with a permanent seat on the board.

If Mr. Domenico weren’t such an independent man of tremendous integrity (according to him) we might not trust that this new kind of non-profit would work independently of the casino. We might imagine that it would, say, invest pension funds in a casino business, like Penn National Gaming for example.

We might imagine that money distributed to schools would come with strings, or be distributed as patronage.

We might imagine that they would never use the non-profit status to stash tax-free money.

Maybe we should have a few more guarantees than the word of a man who says his word is good.

Maybe there are some other things they could do to make their proposal suitable on the grounds that it serves the public interest.

We’d like to hear your thoughts on this! Please, share them on Facebook or email us

Six Applicants Fail to Address the Public Interest

Dan — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:10:23 +0000

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board seems to have come a long way since they first awarded casino licenses in 2006. Casino-Free Philadelphia and our allies have worked hard to make them move.

Yesterday, February 12th, the PGCB convened a meeting at the convention center so that the public could “obtain accurate information” from the six applicants for Philadelphia’s second casino well before the public input hearings in April, said the chair, William Ryan. That information would include community concerns, he added, including traffic, crime and compulsive gambling.

Yes, that’s right. The board actually held this meeting in Philadelphia. They actually said they wanted to give the public time to review proposals. They actually acknowledged that their purpose is to serve the public interest and that the public interest includes concerns about gambling addiction.

They’ve come a long way. But not far enough.

If the PGCB truly intended the six applicants to provide valuable information on their proposals, then those applicants did not seem to get the message.

A few hardy volunteers attended every minute of every one of those presentations. What we endured was five and a half hours of commercials. Fanciest hotel! Swankiest nightclubs! Ritziest restaurants! And, oh yeah a casino’s in there too but hey: Ritziest restaurants!

We don’t care, and neither should the PGCB. Promises for delivering restaurants and nightclubs tells us nothing about how their proposed casino would affect the city we live in.

Despite Chairman Ryan’s suggestion, there was barely a mention of crime and security. There was one mention, by PHL Local Gaming of consultation with neighborhood groups (congratulations, Whitman Neighbors!). And not a single applicant mentioned compulsive gambling or its plan to address it — a plan which is required as part of their application, by the way. Not one word.

We had a few questions that we would have liked answered. Questions like these:

What is your plan to protect people from gambling addiction? How will you guarantee it is carried out?
Do you guarantee to have an independent, certified gambling addiction counselor available 24/7 on-site at all times that the casino is open?
Do you guarantee to limit your business hours, so that addicted gamblers could have a chance to break their pattern?
Will you have a non-smoking gambling floor, so that addicted gamblers who take a smoke break can think about what they’re doing?
Will you eliminate in-casino lending (quicksand credit), or at least limit it to smaller amounts and/or to regular business hours?
Can the public or community organizations look at your entire, final application? If it is not ready, when will it be ready, final, and public?

At this past February 12th PGCB event we passed out hundreds of fliers with these questions, and more, on them. Of course, there was no Q&A at the session, but the applicants and the gaming board are on notice that we insist on answers.

We certainly didn't get any at the event.

We do. however, have to give Steve Wynn credit for offering some accurate information to the press if not during his presentation.

"They [the PGCB] don't have to issue the license, but in order not to,” Wynn told Roxbury News, “they have to find that none of the applicants are qualified, they have to make an affirmative finding of non-qualification …”

The question is what exactly are the qualifications?

If consideration of the public interest is one of them, none of the proposals appear to be suitable.

So we’ll be watching, and acting, to hold the PGCB accountable.

Stay tuned for more on what is in these six applicants proposals;

and, more importantly it seems, what is not in them.

In The Public Interest: A Few Questions That Need to be Answered

Dan — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:33:35 +0000

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Philadelphia’s next casino should be selected with the public interest foremost.

How are the applicants addressing questions like these?

What is your plan to protect people from gambling addiction? How will you guarantee it is carried out?
Do you guarantee to have an independent, certified gambling addiction counselor available 24/7 on-site at all times that the casino is open?
Do you guarantee to limit your business hours, so that addicted gamblers could have a chance to break their pattern?
Will you have a non-smoking gambling floor, so that addicted gamblers who take a smoke break can think about what they’re doing?
Will you eliminate in-casino lending (quicksand credit), or at least limit it to smaller amounts and/or to regular business hours?
How far is your casino from the nearest residential neighborhood? School? Place of worship?
Will you track statistics on where your patrons live and how much they lose, and will you make those statistics public so we can understand if the city is gaining or losing from having a casino here?
What percentage of your annual payroll is guaranteed to go to Philadelphia residents? Will you make that information public and how will you guarantee to meet that goal?
How does your project’s design create synergies and help existing local businesses prosper instead of undermining them?
Are all of your impact studies available online for comparison and critique during the selection process?
Can the public or community organizations look at your entire, final application? If it is not ready, when will it be ready, final, and public?

February 13, 2013 Six would-be Philadelphia casino operators make their pitches

Dan — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:57:43 +0000

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20130213_Six_would-be_Philadelphia_casino_...

Source:

Philadelphia Inquirer

February 12, 2013 Six groups make pitch for second casino license in Philadelphia

Dan — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:49:46 +0000

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/six-groups-make-pitch-for-second-cas...

Source:

CBS 3 Philly

February 12, 2013 PGCB hearing on second license

Dan — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:46:56 +0000

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/double-down/PGCB-hearing-on-second-license.ht...

Source:

Philadelphia Inquirer

Blatstein promises Callowhill a well-off clientele at proposed casino complex

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:43:38 +0000

http://planphilly.com/articles/2013/01/15/blatstein-promises-callowhill-a-well-o...

Source:

Plan Philly

PGCB Schedules Meetings on Six Casino Proposals

Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:36:50 +0000

It’s a busy time of year, so this will be brief.

Six applications for a second casino license in Philadelphia were submitted, and now the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) has announced the next step in its process. The PGCB will hold an informational meeting on Tuesday, February 12 at the Convention Center. Meetings that include public comment are scheduled for April 11 and 12.

Click HERE for a listing of the six applications and details on these meetings (at least, as the PGCB plans them...).

It’s time to get to work.

At our meeting in November, longtime veterans and brand new supporters of a city without casinos came together to begin this new fight. We decided to meet again and form two working groups.

The Action Planning Working Group will be responsible for planning and implementing coordinated direct action, outreach, and other events.

The Communications Working Group, will plan and implement a media strategy, online communications, and other communications strategies.

Those who want to learn more and participate in either or both groups should contact Dan at dan [at] casinofreephilly [dot] org. We’ll schedule meeting times in early January.

All are welcome to participate!

Together we’ll plan creative actions, boost our outreach and communications, and build a city-wide coalition that can’t be ignored.

Coming up soon...

On Monday, January 14, Callowhill Neighbors Association is hosting a public general membership meeting. Bart Blatstein will make a presentation on his proposed casino megaplex at 400 North Broad St. All neighbors are invited to attend.

Mr. Blatstein may or may not have anything new to say about his plans at this meeting. But if you live in the Callowhill area you might want to tell him what you think of them. See his proposed casino HERE at PlanPhilly.

No matter where you are in this fight, you know that together we can beat these casinos. We can make Philadelphia into the world-class city it deserves to be.

Best wishes for a peaceful, happy, and healthy holiday season. We’ll see you in the New Year!

No 2nd Casino Meeting

Dan — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:03:59 +0000

Monday, November 12, 2012 - 6:30pm - 8:00pm

Location

Arch St. Methodist Church

55 North Broad

Philadelphia, PA

Come meet with your neighbors from across the city to hear more about the license process going forward, Casino-Free Philadelphia's opposition, and steps to take in opposition going forward.

10/24/12 - Blatstein unveils plan for casino on North Broad

Casino-Free Philly — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:26:52 +0000

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20121025_Blatstein_unveils_plan_for_casi...

Source:

The Philadelphia Inquirer

Blatstein’s Song and Dance Won’t Change Casino Business of Exploiting Gambling Addiction

Dan — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:13:08 +0000

For Immediate Release

Contact:

Dan Hajdo, dan [at] casinofreephilly [dot] org, (267) 971-0937

PHILADELPHIA, October 24, 2012

As Bart Blatstein throws his “lavish launch party,” others, especially those who have to live next to the proposed casino, have been talking about how to stop it. So, on November 12th, Casino-Free Philadelphia will host a meeting, along with the national organization Stop Predatory Gambling, to discuss casino development in Philadelphia.

“Casinos profit from gambling addiction” says Casino-Free Philadelphia Board Member Dan Hajdo. “That’s why casinos are completely unacceptable; but it is also why casinos are never the road to economic development. Never have been, never will be.”

Mayor Nutter has lobbied for a second casino in Philadelphia, perhaps spurring the Philadelphia Gaming Control Board to call for applications earlier than expected, thus giving Blatstein the upper hand in the bidding for a second casino.

Citing the standard promises of “jobs” and “revenue,” Blatstein and his friends in government again ignore any mention of the costs of casinos.

“We’ve heard these kinds of promises before. But, bottom line, even if he can deliver, Blatstein’s casino would be another SugarHouse with whistles and bells; and we’re still waiting for the wonderful, magical effects of that casino.”

Atlantic City’s Revel casino provides a glimpse of one potential future. The Revel casino, in New Jersey Governor Christie’s words, was supposed to help transform Atlantic Casino in to “a resort that has gaming, not a gaming venue that could be a resort.” So far Revel has punched a $2.4 billion dollar hole in New Jersey’s budget as the state attempts to help Revel dig itself out of heavy debt.

“In a city where more people are more concerned about gambling addiction than anything else casinos bring,” says Hajdo; “and at a time we need real economic development more than ever, Bart Blatstein has shown he lacks the imagination, or the ability, or maybe just the willingness to do something worthy of our city.”

Casino-Free Philadelphia's mission is to stop casinos from coming to Philadelphia and close any that open. The social and economic costs of predatory gambling are plainly apparent from an industry reliant on addiction to survive. Visit us online at www.CasinoFreePhilly.org.

###

This is France? We'd Rather Be In Philadelphia

Dan — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:01:07 +0000

If you haven’t heard by now, Wednesday night Bart Blatstein announced his plans for “The Provence,” his casino at Broad and Callowhill. Plan Philly has a poll asking for your opinion on Blatstein’s proposal if you want to take a closer look and weigh in.

Just in case you’re not sure where you stand on this proposal, Casino-Free Philadelphia will host a meeting, along with the national organization Stop Predatory Gambling, to discuss the Blatstein’s proposal on

Monday, November 12th
6:30 - 8:00 P.M.
Arch Street United Methodist Church
55 N. Broad St.

In short, Blatstein told reporters “It's not just a casino. It's an entertainment resort."

A resort? Well then perhaps he could have put it this way: he wants “a resort that has gaming, not a gaming venue that could be a resort.”

That’s what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie told reporters in response to questions about New Jersey’s bailout of the “upscale” Revel casino. So far, that bailout has put a $2.4 billion hole in New Jersey's budget.

There is one big problem with this “resort” formula: casinos make profit from gambling addiction. That is their business. Surveys of casino patrons in the U.S. found that 70% had at least one symptom of gambling addiction. Take away those suffering from gambling addiction, and no casino can survive.

That is why any proposal for a second casino will be just another SugarHouse with extra bells and whistles.

And after living with SugarHouse for two years, more people in Philadelphia are concerned about the consequences of gambling addiction than the tired promise of “jobs.” This city needs real economic development, now more than ever. Casinos can’t deliver, (unless you count an increase in pawnshops).

But this is a huge resort? Isn’t that different?

Here is what Mayor Wesley Johnson of Leydard, Connecticut had to say in 2003 about the neighboring Foxwoods Resort, the largest single casino complex in the Western Hemisphere:

"There has been no economic development spin-off from the casino. Businesses do not come here. Tourists come mainly to gamble. Gamblers have one thing in mind: get to the casino, win or lose their money, get in their cars, and go home."

Philadelphia is not just one more town on the shore or a city in the desert. Philadelphia has so much more potential. Blatstein’s proposal shows a lack of imagination and ability, or possibly just a plain lack of willingness to do better. And we deserve better.

So please, come out to Arch St. United Methodist Church on Monday, November, 12th at 6:30. Tell your friends and neighbors, tell your community groups to come. Then together we will tell Bart Blatstein what we think of his proposal.

Casino Gambling and Symptoms of Gambling Addiction: It May Be Worse Than You Think

Dan — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:16:56 +0000

The American Gaming Association maintains that “only about 1 percent of the population [is] classified as pathological gamblers and another 2 percent experience problems gambling.” Yet, given the estimated cut-off points for “at-risk” gambling and the reported number of visits and losses of casino gamblers, we might expect higher rates of gambling addiction.

First of all, the AGA does not accurately report the available data. They ignore one national survey with the highest estimates of gambling addiction, and misrepresent percentages of “problem gamblers” understood as those reporting any symptoms of gambling addiction.[1] Four different studies conducted between 1998 and 2003 give a more accurate range of estimates. Those estimates of individuals with 1 or more symptoms of gambling addiction range from 2.9% to 11.5% for lifetime rates, and 2.8%-5.5% for past year rates [2]

But more importantly, estimates of the national lifetime prevalence of “problem gambling,” or “pathological gambling,” whether 3% or 11%, do not tell us much about casino gambling. True, of all the people who have gambled at least once in their lives, most gamble without symptoms of gambling addiction; but most people are not gambling regularly at casinos or racetracks. Most people gamble infrequently, maybe joining an office pool or playing cards with friends. Pointing to this fact is a diversion from the real issue: what are the rates of gambling addiction among those who go to casinos?[3]

They are startlingly high.

A 2010 survey of patrons at a California casino found that nearly 70% of respondents reported at least one symptom of gambling addiction.[4] While the sample in that survey was not based on a random sample, a 1996 survey that was based on a random sample of residents of Connecticut also found less than 1/3 of casino patrons were problem free, with 72% of respondents reporting at least one symptom of gambling addiction and 15% reporting more than five.[5] The lowest estimate of non-problem gamblers, also based on a non-random sample, is from a 1999 survey of patrons at 5 different casinos in Nevada and Atlantic City. That study found that 68.4% of casino patrons reported no symptoms of gambling addiction.[6]

Whichever estimate is closer to the truth for casinos in general – the estimates that 2/3 of casino patrons reported at least one symptom of gambling addiction, or the estimate that only 1/3 of casino patrons reported any symptoms of gambling addiction – the idea that casinos offer harmless entertainment is hardly supported by the evidence.[7] The study of a California casino’s patrons concluded:

“The larger implications of our findings are that, given the potentially high rate of gambling problems among casino patrons, there is a need for formal prevention and intervention measures in casino settings.”[8]

FOOTNOTES

[1] The misrepresentation occurs because some studies will report those with 1-4 symptoms of gambling addiction as “problem gamblers,” while for others the cut-point is 3 symptoms, labeling those with 1-2 symptoms as “at-risk.” So, in order to maintain something close to a 3% estimate, the AGA must report percentages of “problem gamblers,” but not “at-risk” gamblers. Including all gamblers reporting problems, no matter the reported category, changes the estimates of gambling addiction.

The “at-risk” label itself is misleading since, as a team of Australian researchers point out, “[w]hen the label ‘at-risk’ gambling has been used, it typically describes individuals who have existing gambling problems but at a level that falls short of clinical criteria.” (Rodgers, Bryan; Caldwell, Tanya; Butterworth, Peter; Measuring Gambling Participation; Addiction; 2009, July, Vol. 104 Issue 7; p. 1066). In addition, these reserachers not, defining “at-risk” gambling as those with one or two symptoms “may be useful for developing secondary (or indicated) prevention, but it is not well suited to primary prevention.” (Ibid).

[2] Those studies are:

National Opinion Research Center (NORC). (1999). Gambling Impact and Behavior Study, Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago, IL

Welte, John; Barnes, Grace; Wieczorek, William; Tidwell, Marie-Cecile; Parker, John (2001); Alcohol and Gambling Pathology among U.S. Adults: Prevalence, Demographic Patterns and Cormorbidity; Journal of Studies on Alcohol; Sep2001, Vol. 62 Issue 5, p706

Howard J. Shaffer, Matthew N. Hall; Updating and Refining Prevalence Estimates of Disordered Gambling Behaviour in the United States and Canada Canadian Journal of Public Health; Volume 92, No. 3; May-June 2001.

R. C. Kessler, I. Hwang1, R. LaBrie, M. Petukhova1, N. A. Sampson, K. C. Winters; and H. J. Shaffer; DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication; Psychological Medicine (2008), 38, 1351–1360.

Use of different survey methods to assess symptoms of Pathological Gambling as well as a lack of specificity on a time frame for the estimate (whether “lifetime,” those reporting symptoms ever in their life, “pasty year,” either reporting symptoms in the past six months, or reporting in the pasty year) can also cause confusion. Three studies cited above that were based on a national survey each used a different survey instrument (i.e. the set of questions used to assess levels of gambling problems). The fourth study, Schaffer et al., was based on a “meta-analysis,” a research method that uses results from a number of different surveys, not all with the same survey instrument.

So, more specifically:

NORC (1999) used a random digit dial national survey conducted in 1999, using their newly developed NORC DSM–IV Screen For Gambling Problems found 10% lifetime, and 2.8% past-year reporting at least one gambling problem, with non-gamblers at 14.4% lifetime, and 36.7% past-year.

Welte and Barnes, (2002) based on a random digit national telephone survey conducted between August 1999 and October 2000 found 5.5% current, 11.5 lifetime had at least one symptom of gambling addcition when using the most often used survey instrument, the South Oaks Gambling Survey. They also used the Diagnostic Interview Schedule and found 3.5% current, and 4.8% lifetime had at least one symptom of gambling addiciton.

Schaffer et al. (2001), a meta-analysis of studies conducted in the United States and Canada between 1975 and 1999 found 6.1% lifetime, and 4.0% past-year reporting any symptoms of gambling addiction. An earlier meta-analysis with fewer studies by the same research team found 5.45% lifetime, and 3.94 past-year rates of any symptoms of gambling addiction. A secondary analysis of this previous meta-analysis using studies only form the United States found 5.4 lifetime, and 2.9 past-year rates of any symptoms of gambling addiction.

Kessler et al. (2008) used data from the US National Comorbidity Survey Replication conducted between 2001 and 2002. The measures of gambling addiction were part of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. This study found 3.9% lifetime reporting any symptom of gambling, and .06% past-year reporting 5 or more symptoms.

Another study, not reported above, by Petry 2005 (Petry NM, Stinson FS, Grant BF (2005) Comorbidity of DSM-IV pathological gambling and other psychiatric disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions; Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2005 May; 66(5):564-74). found a lifetime pathological gambling rate, reporting 5 or more symptoms, of 0.42. That is the lowest estimate of any national survey. Unfortunately we could not get access to the entire study to present a full report on the findings.

[3] There are only a few “patron surveys” available. All the studies that have conducted patron surveys point out the need for more patron surveys. Some are not based on a random sample (meaning those responding were not chosen as randomly as possible, thus limiting our ability to make accurate generalizations about gamblers at a casino or casinos). Yet they should, nevertheless, raise alarm bells. The numbers of people suffering from gambling addiction are shockingly higher than the national survey numbers.

[4] Timothy W. Fong; Michael D. Campos; Mary-Lynn Brecht; Alice Davis; Adrienne Marco; Viviane Pecanha; Richard J. Rosenthal; Problem and Pathological Gambling in a Sample of Casino Patrons; Journal of Gambling Studies (2011) 27:35-47.

Respondents were scored using the NORC DSM–IV Screen For Gambling Problems (NODS). They found, lifetime, 30.3% of respondents were non-problem gamblers, 29.2% were at-risk gamblers (1-2 symptoms); 10.7% were problem gamblers (3-4 symptoms), and 29.8% were pathological gamblers (5 or more symptoms).

[5] WEFA Group; A Study Concerning the Effects of Legalized Gambling on the Citizens of the State of Connecticut; Prepared for State of Connecticut: Department of Revenue Services Division of Special Revenue; June 1997.

[6] Although the NORC study did not have a purely random sample, efforts were made to simulate a random, representative sample.

[7] For some guidance on estimates of Philadelphia area casino patrons we can turn to a study based on a national survey in Brazil that found spending more than 20% of household income for gambling was “highly predictive” of Pathological Gambling. (Hermano Tavares; Elizabeth Carneiro; Marcos Sanches; Ilana Pinsky; Raul Caetano; Marcos Zaleski; Ronaldo Laranjeira; Gambling in Brazil: Lifetime prevalences and socio-demographic correlates in Psychiatry Research, 2010, Vol. 180, No. 1, pp. 35-41).

A gambler who visits 3 times a week, losing 25$ a week loses $3,600 a year. David Jonas of Parx casino suggest most of his customers visit this often or more. Using the 20% cut-off as a predictor, at those levels of gambling participation, anyone with a household income under $50,000 is likely suffering from Pathological Gambling. In 2011 64% of Philadelphians had a household income of less than $50,000. (United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey).

[8] Fong et al. 2011; p. 45

At-Risk Gambling and Philadelphia Area Casinos

Dan — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:49:07 +0000

The American Gaming Association frequently claims that the overwhelming majority of gamblers are “recreational gamblers” who gamble without harm or risk of harm.[1] We know that this claim is not just misleading, but irresponsible. Research on risk of gambling addiction and the boasting by casino executives gives us an idea of just how irresponsible.

General manager of SugarHouse casino in Philadelphia, PA Wendy Hamilton, for example, reported a “large number” of her casino’s customers came “three, four, five times a week.”[2] Executives from three other Philadelphia area casinos reported that the “average” customer, or “most” customers came 3-5 times a week.[3]

Yet gambling frequency, like frequent alcohol consumption or frequent use of drugs, has been found to be a risk factor for gambling addiction. Data from the National Comorbidity Replication Survey of 2001-2003 showed that “[e]very instance of weekly gambling (52 occasions of gambling in the past year) increases pathological symptoms by 26%.”[4] That makes it highly unlikely a weekly gambler does not suffer from some level of gambling addiction.

To look at this another way, a 2002 national survey of Canadians set a tentative cut-off point for low-risk gambling at 2-3 times a month.[5] What casino executives are telling us is that, at 3-5 times a week, “a large number,” the “average customer,” or “most” customers at these casinos gamble at levels well beyond the cut-off point of 2-3 times a month.

Estimates for risk based on gambling expenditures tell the same story. The same U.S. national survey found that “[e]very US$100 increase in the average win/loss is associated with a 65% increase in number of pathological gambling symptoms.”[6] Dave Jonas, president of Parx Casino stated that “we have customers who give us $25-$35 five times a week.”[7] Using this as a rough estimate, a gambler who visits 5 times a week and loses an average $35 a visit, loses $8,400 a year. Even if a gambler visits 3 times a week and loses an average of $25 per visit, that’s an annual loss of $3,600 a year.[8]

To put this level of gambling in perspective, put aside the facts and figures for a moment and consider the common claim that casinos merely provide “entertainment,” just like, say, a movie theater. So imagine a friend of yours tells you that they just went to see a movie - three times in a row. You might think that this must be the greatest movie of all time. Yet, what if they told you that they went back the next day and did it again. Seven hours, thirty-six dollars, the same movie three times in a row. Then they did it the next day. Then they tell you they have done this 3-5 times a week all year. At what point might you become concerned about your friend?

There are no cut-off points or risk levels established for movie going; but then, nobody goes to the movies that much unless they work there. At Philadelphia area casinos, “most” customers visit that often.

__________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES

[1] See, for example the American Gaming Association fact sheet, and their Frequently Asked Questions page.

[2] Monica Yant Kinney, Another Philadelphia casino? It’s a game for suckers; Philadelphia Inquirer; May 6, 2012

[3] Ibid

[4] R. C. Kessler, I. Hwang1, R. LaBrie, M. Petukhova1, N. A. Sampson, K. C. Winters; and H. J. Shaffer; DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication; Psychological Medicine (2008), 38, 1351–1360

[5] Currie S. R., Hodgins D. C., Wang J., el-Guebaly N., Wynne; H., Chen S.; Risk of harm among gamblers in the general population as a function of level of participation in gambling activities. Addiction 2006; 101: 570–80.

Based on this frequency cut-off, the study estimates that just over 32% of Canadian gamblers fell outside the range of “low-risk” or “recreational gambling.”

[6] Kessler et al. 2008

[7] Monica Yant Kinney; The lifeblood of Parx casino in Bucks is low-roller locals; Philadelphia Inquirer; March 7, 2010.

[8] It possible that estimates based on expenditure cut-off points would yield lower figures for at-risk gambling. Curie et al., for example, found that “The proportion of the Canadian population who gamble exceeding these cut-offs were 32.4% (>2 to 3 times per month), 11.1 % (>$501-$1000CAN per year), and 11.4% (>1% gross income), respectively.”

Applying the financial expenditure cut-off point in the context of Philadelphia area casinos, though, may not differ greatly from the estimates of at-risk gamblers based on frequency.

Although we do not have complete data on gambler expenditures, let alone gambler’s household incomes, but we can make some rough estimates. Dave Jonas, president of Parx Casino stated that “we have customers who give us $25-$35 five times a week.” (Kinney, 2010). Based on these numbers, using the cut-points of 5% personal income and 9% household income for “low-risk” gambling, we can state the following:

On the low end of expenditure, a gambler who visits 3 times a week, losing an average of $25 a visit, loses $3,600 a year. At the upper end of the scale, a gambler who visits 5 times a year, and loses an average $35 a visit, loses $8,400 a year.

The Canadian study put cut-off points for low-risk gambling at a yearly gambling expenditure of less than $1,000 Canadian, or $630 U.S. (In 2002, the exchange rate for U.S. Dollars on November 15th was $1 CAN = 0.6310 US). Again, placing many, if not “most” customers at high risk for gambling addiciton.

A second study, using data from a national survey in Brazil, (Hermano Tavares; Elizabeth Carneiro; Marcos Sanches; Ilana Pinsky; Raul Caetano; Marcos Zaleski; Ronaldo Laranjeira; Gambling in Brazil: Lifetime prevalences and socio-demographic correlates in Psychiatry Research, 2010, Vol. 180, No. 1, pp. 35-41) also suggests cut-off points for low-risk gambling based on expenditure levels. That study found that those who spent more then 9% of personal income, or more than 5% of household income, incurred rapidly escalating risk for gambling addiction.

Using these cut-off points, at a yearly expenditure of $3,600, a gambler is “at-risk,” or outside the boundaries “recreational gambling if personal income is less than $50,000 a year, or if household income is under $75,000 a year.

According to the United States Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), the median household income in Philadelphia in 2011 was $34,207.

At a yearly expenditure of $8,400 a year, a gambler is “at-risk,” if either personal or household income is less than $100,000 a year.

In 2011, according to the ACS, a little less than 12% of households in Philadelphia had income over $100,000.

But Aren't Most People Recreational Gamblers?

Dan — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:35:36 +0000

The American Gaming Association (AGA), quoting from the 1999 National Gambling Impact Study Commission Final Report, claims:

“[T]he vast majority of Americans either gamble recreationally and experience no measurable side effects related to their gambling, or they choose not to gamble at all. Regrettably, some of them gamble in ways that harm themselves, their families, and their communities.”

The AGA also maintains that “only about 1 percent of the population [is] classified as pathological gamblers and another 2 percent experience problems gambling,” suggesting that 97% of the population either does not gamble or gambles “recreationally,” without harm or risk of harm.

There are several things wrong with the AGA claim that only 3% of the national population suffer from gambling addiction. But before addressing the misleading and false claims about percentages, it is important to understand what “recreational gambling” does, and does not mean.

“Recreational gambling” does not mean the same thing as “low-risk” or “moderate” drinking.

“Low-risk drinking” refers to those who do not have symptoms of alcohol dependence, and a) are not at significant risk of developing any future health or personal problems, and b) do not tend to experience harm at current levels.[1] Extensive research has established guidelines based on the connection between levels of alcohol use and the known harms and risk that accompany increased consumption.[2] One guideline in the U.S., for example, defines low-risk drinking as a) consuming no more than 4 drinks on any day for men, and no more than 3 drinks on any day for women; and, b) one must also consume no more than 14 drinks per week for men, and no more than 7 drinks per week for women.[3] So you cannot be a “low-risk” or “moderate” drinker if you consume, say, six drinks a day or 24 drinks a week.

Not so with a “recreational gambler,” which merely means that a person does not report “problems,” meaning symptoms of gambling addiction. Since, as one group of researchers point out, the category “recreational gambler” “may include individuals who gamble frequently, intensively and/or lose a great deal of money,” these individuals still a) incur risk, and b) may incur harm.[4] A person who gambles three or four times a week, even if they have not reported symptoms of gambling addiction, will likely suffer harm from financial loss and is at significant risk for future harm, including risk of Pathological Gambling.[5]

To put it another way, “recreational gambling,” is like “recreational drug use” to a certain extent.[6] It is possible to use cocaine, for example, without harm, risk of future harm, or symptoms of addiction; and it is also possible to gamble without harm, risk of future harm, or symptoms of gambling addiction. Yet no responsible person would suggest that using cocaine frequently – three to five times a week say – does no harm and carries no risk.

Likewise, it is irresponsible to suggest that gambling frequently does no harm and carries no risk. Research that does assess risk factors related to gambling participation, along with surveys of casino patrons, suggest that casino gambling, and other forms of predatory gambling, is far from harmless entertainment.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Rodgers, Bryan; Caldwell, Tanya; Butterworth, Peter; Measuring Gambling Participation; Addiction; 2009, July, Vol. 104 Issue 7, p1065-1069.

[2] Defining “at-risk” drinking is still a debatable and tricky concept. (see, for example, Deborah A. Dawson, Defining Risk Drinking; in Alcohol Research and Health; Vol. 34, No. 2, 2011).

Nevertheless, research on alcohol use indicates the relationship between increased levels of alcohol consumption and levels of increased risk for a variety of harms, including accidents and liver disease, as well as the mental disorders Alcohol Dependence (also known as “alcoholism”) and Alcohol Abuse.

So for example, individuals incur significantly increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke at an average daily volume (ADV) of alcohol intake of 50 grams (Dawson, 2011, p. 145). The individual incurs an increased risk of stroke whether or not they show symptoms of alcohol dependence or other alcohol related disorder. We can say that raising levels above 50 grams ADV means raising risk of future harm as well as future health or personal problems, including developing problems associated with alcoholism and developing the disease of alcoholism itself. We can also identify probable current harms based on levels of consumption.

[3] What is low-risk drinking; in Rethinking Drinking, published by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism at the National Institutes of Health

[4] Rodgers et al. 2009, p. 1066. The authors also point out, “The terms 'social' or 'recreational' gambling have been used, but these have a different connotation [from “moderate” or “low-risk” drinking] ... recreational gambling is defined by the absence of gambling problems and may include individuals who gamble frequently, intensively and/or lose a great deal of money. However, the deliberate exclusion of problem gambling from this group helps to foster assumptions that gambling in moderation has no ill-effects and may be beneficial, in spite of the lack of evidence on this topic.” (Ibid)

[5] In line with Rodgers et al. argument that we need more research on specific harms related to levels of gambling participation, there is at least some cause for concern about harms beyond those that may accompany financial loss. While research has barely begun to investigate the risk of harms other than gambling addiction, let alone identify causality, we do have evidence that the health of “recreational gamblers” differs significantly from non-gamblers in at least one sample of older adults. An article published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry found:

“A total 28.74% of older adults were lifetime recreational gamblers and 0.85% were lifetime disordered gamblers. Compared with older adults without a history of regular gambling, recreational gamblers had significantly elevated rates of alcohol (30.1% versus 12.8%), nicotine (16.9% versus 8.0%), mood (12.6% versus 11.0%), anxiety (15.0% versus 11.6%), and personality disorders (11.3% versus 7.3%) and obesity (25.6% versus 20.8%), but were less likely to have past-year diagnoses of arteriosclerosis (4.7% versus 6.0%) or cirrhosis (0.2% versus 0.4%). Disordered gamblers were significantly more likely than older adults without a history of regular gambling to have alcohol (53.2% versus 12.8%), nicotine (43.2% versus 8.0%), drug (4.6% versus 0.7%), mood (39.5% versus 11.0%), anxiety (34.5% versus 11.6%), and personality (43.0% versus 7.3%) disorders, and to have past-year diagnoses of arthritis (60.2% versus 44.3%) or angina (22.7% versus 8.8%). These results remained significant even after controlling for demographic, psychiatric, and behavioral risk factors.” (Abstract; Pietrzak RH, Morasco BJ, Blanco C, Grant BF, Petry NM; Gambling level and psychiatric and medical disorders in older adults: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions; in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2007 Apr;15(4):301-13. Epub 2006 Nov 9).

[6] Scott Edwards and George F. Koob of the Committee on the Neurobiology of Addictive Disorders distinguish between “substance dependence” and “recreational drug use” this way:

“Drug addiction (also known as ‘substance dependence’ according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM] [1]) is a chronic, relapsing disorder that has been characterized by a compulsion to seek and take drugs, loss of control over drug intake; and an emergence of a negative emotional state (e.g., dysphoria, anxiety and irritability) that defines a motivational withdrawal syndrome when access to the drug is prevented [2]. The occasional, limited, recreational use of a drug is clinically distinct from escalated drug use, loss of control over drug intake and the emergence of compulsive drug-seeking behavior that characterize addiction.” (p. 393, Neurobiology of dysregulated motivational systems in drug addiction in Future Neurology; 2010 May 1; 5(3): 393–401).

Casinos' Economic Impact

Dan — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:26:38 +0000

The consistent and constant refrain of the gambling industry and their political supporters has been that casinos mean “jobs” for the local economy. In addition, they claim the immediate community, the city, and the state will see economic growth once they open casinos.

Yet, as with the promises of increased revenue (for both the city and the state), the promises of economic growth and job creation do not take in to account the economic costs involved with opening a casino.[1]

A comprehensive review of the research on the economic impact of casino development released in 2010, authored by then visiting fellow at the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, Allan Mallach puts it this way:

“The positive economic impact [of casino development] is offset to varying degrees by the extent to which other local economic activity is negatively affected by the casino, as when the presence of a casino results in a loss of business in the existing local economy.”[2]

This loss of business in the existing local economy, and a consequent loss of jobs, is referred to as “substitution” or “displacement,” but there are other negative economic impacts.

This is something our elected in officials in Pennsylvania should know.

In 2007, the state’s own Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority included a section on “Casino on Local Business and Labor Market” in their Staff Report on Philadelphia’s Five-Year Financial Plan. Based on their findings of independent research, they report,

“Casino construction and operation can, but does not necessarily, mean job creation and growth … an Illinois study … indicated that for every job created, local businesses lost one or more jobs.” [3]

LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACT

For the local economy, the potential for positive effects depend heavily on at least two factors:

1. The casino “can fill most of its jobs locally” and
2. The casino draws “the greater part of its casino visitors from outside the local area”[4]

Based on statements by Philadelphia area casino executives, we can safely conclude that Philadelphia area casinos do not draw primarily from local residents. In our one year report, we estimated about half of the gamblers visiting Philadelphia’s SugarHouse were from Philadelphia. That is likely too low, however, based on the reported number of visits by most patrons of area casinos. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, General Manager of SugarHouse casino, Wendy Hamilton, told the Pennsylvania Gaming Congress that “a large percentage” of her players come “three, four, five times a week.” [5]

Philadelphia area residents, especially those who take local transportation, are not likely to be travelling to Atlantic City, 150 to 250 times a year. Parx President, David Jonas, confirmed this when he told attendees at the Pennsylvania Gaming Congress in 2010 “[w]hen I was in Atlantic City, to have 12 to 15 trips out of customers, they were VIPs," Jonas said. This figures mean that, not only are Philadelphia area casinos drawing primarily from locals, but those locals are visiting area casinos much, much more often then they would visit casinos outside the area.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Hiring people, or “providing jobs,” is not the same thing as economic development. Creating jobs may be a part of economic development, but simply looking at how many people a casino might hire is not an economic analysis. This is why economists will often rely on studies of real income to judge economic development.

Very little research even attempts to asses economic development.[7] The best research to date, based on data from 11 states over a 15 year period (1991 to 2005), economics professors Douglas M. Walker and John D. Jackson, concluded,

“ … the casino industry does not have an impact on economic growth at the state level.” [7]

Although they suggest the casino development may bring “initial positive growth” any positive economic effects “die out over time.”[8] Again, as with the casino impact on employment growth, economic growth depends upon a number of conditions.

Additionally, the “social costs” of gambling addiction can have an economic effect on a local economy.

SOCIAL COSTS OF ADDICTION

The “social costs” of casino development are notoriously difficult to estimate. Estimating the effect of those costs on the local or state economy presents another difficult task. This is one reason why economic studies, like the one by Walker and Jackson cited above, are important. That study, however, does not assess casino impact on local economic development. Estimates of local social costs, however, suggest that the impact is potentially significant.

Two widely cited estimates give us an idea of how much those costs can affect the local economy.

First, from a study conducted in 1999, The National Gambling Impact Study Commission reports that “lifetime costs (bankruptcy, arrests, imprisonment, legal fees for divorce, and so forth)” are estimated “at $10,550 per pathological gambler, and $5,130 per problem gambler.”[9]

Second, again from the PICA report in 2007, economist Earl Grinols,

"put the cost of apprehension, adjudication, incarceration, and regulation at between $20,500 and $45,700 per pathological gambler per year. The Mayor’s Gaming Task force estimates Philadelphia’s diagnosable pathological population to be as many as 9,450. Even on the low end of the estimated cost per pathological gambler, if Grinols numbers are accurate, the costs would be close to $200 million."[10]

FOOTNOTES

[1] Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Agency Staff Report on the City of Philadelphia’s Five-Year Financial Plan for Fiscal Year 2008 – Fiscal Year 2012, p. 21. For the relevant sections of the report, see http://planphilly.com/node/1766. The Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (PICA) notes, “since the [Five-Year Budget] Plan includes revenues from gaming, but no City costs, any of the City costs that are likely to be created by the opening of new casinos will create a hole in the Plan.”

[2] Mallach, Allan, (2010) Economic and Social Impact of Introducing Casino Gambling: A Review and Assessment of the Literature, released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia in March, 2010, p. 7. On the subject of “substitution,” Mallach adds “For example, an existing restaurant may lose business to a new restaurant located inside a casino, or local residents may take money that otherwise would be spent for other purposes and redirect those funds to the casino.” (Ibid, p. 7)

[3] The full paragraph reads: “Casino construction and operation can, but does not necessarily, mean job creation and growth Of the sixteen regressions in an Illinois study, only three municipalities showed a statistically significant increase in employment or decrease in unemployment. The same regressions indicated that for every job created, local businesses lost one or more jobs. Another study, conducted by the New York Times found that 27 out of 57 counties analyzed experienced a net job loss.” The term “regressions” refers to a statistical analysis of data that can control for economic effects other than casino development. (PICA 2007, p. 21)

[4] Mallach concludes that Philadelphia may experience “significant local economic gains” from a casino. But that is based on the condition that “that the casino can fill most of its jobs locally, and which will be drawing the greater part of its casino visitors from outside the local area.” (Mallach, 2010, p. 24)

[5] Monica Yant Kinney, Another Philadelphia Casino: it’s a game for suckers; in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 6, 2012. Kinney reports that executives at Parx and Harrah’s Philadelphia (in Chester) give similar, or higher numbers, for their casinos. “In 2010, a Parx executive [David Jonas] stunned listeners at an industry conference by saying that most of the casino’s regulars visit up to 200 times a year.” … Ron Baumann said a “segment” of Harrah’s Chester players gamble nearly six times a week”

[6] see Douglas M. Walker and John D. Jackson, (July, 2007), Economic Development and Casinos: Do Casinos Cause Economic Growth? in American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 3. In fact, Walker and Jackson point out that “[t]he paucity of studies in this area is surprising, given that ‘economic growth’ is a commonly expected benefit of casino legalization. Aside from the Walker and Jackson (1998) paper, we are aware of no other econometric study that addresses this issue.” (p. 594)

[7] Ibid, p. 604

[8] Ibid, p. 604

[9] National Gambling Impact Study Commission Final Report, chpt 4-14. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission funded the study and cites it as, National Opinion Research Center, Gambling Impact and Behavior Study, Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, April 1, 1999.

[10] PICA, 2007 p. 21

What Is Gambling Addiction?

Dan — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:39:59 +0000

The image of casinos that the gambling industry wants to give is one of excitement and fun, even glamour and, most of all, harmless entertainment.

Yet, as anyone who has been to a casino knows, you will see very few people who look like they are having fun. There are very few smiles in a casino like SugarHouse - few smiles from patrons at least.

There is a reason for this, and it is not just that most people, most of the time are losing. The existing evidence tells us that casinos rely on gambling addiction for profit, and there is nothing fun about gambling addiction.

But what is gambling addiction?

Sometimes referred to, as it is known clinically, as "pathological gambling," "gambling addiciton" is the more common term that refers to this particular illness.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA), in the authoritative guide to mental illness, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), defines the disorder, Pathological Gambling, as "[p]ersistent and recurring maladaptive gambling behavior as indicated by five (or more)" of a set of ten symptoms. Those symptoms include a preoccupation with gambling; chasing one's loses, gambling to escape problems or relieve feelings like depression or anxiety, and asking others to relieve a desperate financial situation.

Typically research will also designate levels below Pathological Gambling, where an individual has at least one symptom but fewer than five, as "problem gambling," or some other designation.[1]

Currently gambling addiciton is classified as an Impulse Control Disorder rather than a Substance-Related Disorder like addiction or dependence on cocaine or alcohol.

But that is set to change.

The DSM V, the next version of the DSM set to come out in 2013, the category Substance-Related Disorders will have a new addition, Gambling Disorder, formerly Pathological Gambling. [2]

Why the change? Over the past twenty years a mountain of evidence has led the APA Working Group on Substance-Related Disorders to conclude

Pathological (disordered) gambling has commonalties in clinical expression, etiology, comorbidity, physiology and treatment with Substance Use Disorders.

In other words, in terms of brain pathways, the development of the disease, and co-occuring disorders, gambling addiction is like being addicted to heroin, cocaine, or nicotine. Those with gambling addiction may even experience shaking or other signs of withdrawl if they stop gambling.

Nobody tells you that when you walk in to a casino.

The image they give is one of harmless entertainment.

What the evidence tells us is that calling frequent gambling "harmless entertainment" is like calling frequent cocaine or heroin use "harmless entertainment."

[1] See, for example, Timothy Fong; Addictive Disorders, in Psychiatric Times; September 2009, Vol. 26, Issue 9, p. 20-25. For research referring to "levels" of gambling disorder, see, for example Andres Boudreau, Richard Labrie, Howard Shaeffer, Towards DSM V: 'Shadow Syndrome' symptom patterns among pathological gamblers, in Addiction Research & Theory; August 2009, Vol. 17, Issue 4, p. 406-419.

[2] The Working Group on Substance-Related Disorders has also "tentatively" changed the category "Substance-Related Disorders," to Substance Use and Addictive Disorders for the DSM V.

Why Does Casino-Free Philadelphia Oppose Casinos?

Dan — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:05:03 +0000

For years now Casino-Free Philadelphia has been answering the question "What is wrong with casinos?"

But not everyone has heard our answer even in bits and pieces, much less the whole argument.

So we are beginning a series of blog posts that put all the pieces together, explains the research behind our arguments against casinos, and details how and why the economic, social, political, and personal costs outweigh purported gains.

In fact, talk of those "gains" is what most people hear about casinos; and, so, the case for casinos, (as well as other forms of legalized gambling) invariably goes like this:

Casinos will create jobs and economic development.
Casinos will generate new revenue for cash strapped governments.
Gambling, or "gaming," is harmless entertainment.

Given this, the case against casinos can be stated simply: those claims don't hold up.

To understand why they don’t hold up, perhaps the best place to start is to ask “How do casinos make money?” and “Where is this revenue and job creating money coming from?”

Despite the rhetoric of politicians and the gambling industry, casinos do not magically create jobs and revenue. These come from gamblers -our neighbors and fellow citizens who live here in Philadelphia or nearby. And most of it comes from people suffering from a serious mental illness: gambling addiction.

This is not incidental. Profiting from gambling addiction is an intrinsic part of a casino’s business model. The casinos springing up across our country, like SugarHouse casino in Philadelphia, exist only as long as they are permitted to exploit and create gambling addiction. The are inevitably predatory – profiting from gambling addiction and targeting nearby residents.

Since casinos are predatory, they come with costs – both private costs and public costs that we all end up paying one way or another. Those costs answer the question “What is wrong with casinos?”

Once we consider these costs we find:

Rather than creating jobs and economic development, often a casino will harm the local economy and end up costing local jobs.

Atlantic City, NJ provides one stark example of how this can happen. Casinos take money that would otherwise have been spent in a local economy and transfer it to wealthy investors who spend outside the local economy. Thus, they squeeze out local businesses and the jobs those businesses provide. Yet, while the casino owners and politicians loudly and visibly tout the few jobs created when a casino first hires staff, the jobs lost by local businesses vanish without comment.

Rather then creating revenue, the public costs of casinos offset, (and sometimes run higher than) the tax casinos pay.

Those costs include higher expenditures on law enforcement and the judicial system among other costs to state and local governments.

Since casinos profit from gambling addiction, they devastate the lives of the people they pretend to value: the lives of their patrons, and the families and friends of those suffering from gambling addiction.

Bankruptcy, foreclosure, higher than average rates of domestic violence, and elevated risk of suicide have all been linked to gambling addiction.

We realize that this argument presents a serious indictment of the casino industry, (as well as the politicians that support and promote the industry). It deserves our serious attention. We give that attention here in this blog. This blog will support each piece of the argument with evidence, explain the flaws of the casino industry claims, and leave no question as to why Casino-Free Philadelphia believes there are some things very, very wrong with casinos.

Potential bidders line up for Philadelphia's second casino license 07/22/12

Dan — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:08:14 +0000

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20120722_Potential_bidders_line_up_for_P...

Source:

The Philadelphia Inquirer

Blatstein's back in the thick of Philly's casino game 04/14/12

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:03:37 +0000

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20120415_Back_in_the_thick_of_casino_game....

Source:

The Philadelphia Inquirer

Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Announces Licensing Decision, Fails to Protect Public

Dan — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:06:49 +0000

For Immediate Release

Contact:

Dan Hajdo, dan [at] casinofreephilly [dot] org, (267) 971-0937

PHILADELPHIA, July 11, 2012

Earlier today, July 11th, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board announced a call for applications for a second casino license in Philadelphia.

“A second casino would be no less predatory then SugarHouse” said Dan Hajdo, boardmember of Casino-Free Philadelphia. “Casinos profit off people suffering from gamblingaddiction. Rather then another application process, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Boardneeds to step up and provide real protection from the practices that create and stoke gamblingaddiction.”

Having long maintained that casinos cost more than any potential benefit, Casino-Free Philadelphia released a report last year showing that citizens of Philadelphia lost ten times theamount of money at SugarHouse than the city gained from its share of casino revenue in thecasinos first year.

The group has also called for changes in casino practices to protect patrons of the casino.

“They could eliminate Quicksand Credit (the practice of the casino loaning credit to players forunlimited amounts) for one thing,” said Hajdo. “But instead they only promote the industry,rather than regulate it.”

Casino-Free Philadelphia has cited research showing the harms of casino, and notes that thereare many things, such as offering free alcohol and remaining open 24/7, casinos do specially totake advantage of people with gambling addiction.

One possible protection, the Self-Exclusion list (a form that allows gamblers to excludethemselves from casinos) could be useful. Yet casinos do not make this known and Casino-Free Philadelphia maintains that their contact with patrons shows few if any likely know aboutthis provision.

“Even easier then banning quicksand credit,” Hajdo adds, “the PGCB could allow patrons tosign up for the Self-Exclusion List right at the casino, require the casino to post that information,and require gaming board representatives to seek out an help those showing signs of gamblingaddiction.”

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board has implemented no new protections since it wascreated.

###

Things heating up on North Broad

Casino-Free Philly — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:13:05 +0000

Maybe you've heard about developer Bart Blatstein's proposal to build a second casino in Philadelphia, near the old Inquirer building on North Broad St. (You can read about it here.)

Mr. Blatstein has been talking to community groups to give them the usual song and dance -- he's not looking to add millions and millions to the millions of dollars he already has by creating and exploiting gambling addiction -- oh no, he just wants to create jobs and revenue!

We know better:

Casinos don't create jobs, they destroy them.
The economic and social costs of casinos far outweigh any revenue.
This proposed casino, like SugarHouse, would prey on our communities, neighbors, and fellow citizens.

This Thursday, Mr. Blatstein is appearing at a meeting with the Spring Garden Civic Association:

Thursday, June 21
7pm (refreshments start at 6pm)
St. Andrews Church Hall
19th and North Streets (view map)

Live in the area? Why not join us to learn what he's planning? Even if you don't live in the area, it affects you too. So show up and maybe you'll see some old friends there (like Paul Boni and Dan Hajdo).

Be sure to keep an eye out for further developments. Nobody is quite sure where things are headed with a second casino in Philadelphia. But Foxwoods is dead. YOU are the people that killed it! Congratulations!

There's no reason to think we can't do it again.

Stay tuned too for more on opportunities to take on a few special projects coming up soon!

Hope to see you Thursday!

From the Spring Garden Civic Association Newsletter (May, 2012):

The Next General Membership Meeting
Thursday, June 21, 7:00 PM
St. Andrews Church Hall, 19th and North Streets
Developer Bart Blatstein To Speak on his Proposed Casino and his State Building Project
(Wine and Cheese Social, Preceding the Meeting, Starting at 6:00 PM)

The next general membership meeting will be held on Thursday, June 21, at 7:00 PM at St. Andrews Church Hall, 19th and North Streets. Developer Bart Blatstein has asked to come to the meeting to speak about his proposed Casino- Hotel project on Broad and Callowhill Streets. Some time ago, Mr. Blatstein bought the Inquirer Building and some abutting properties and proposes to use those for the casino project. He is also expected to talk about the various challenges and obstacles to such an undertaking. In addition to the properties for the proposed casino project, Mr. Blatstein also owns the State Building, at Broad and Spring Garden Streets, where development is finally under way. We look forward to receiving updates on that project, as well. Civic Association Elections will also be held for officers and a certain number of Board members. A nominating committee is working on nominations, and suggestions are always welcome.

http://springgardencdc.com/pdf/civicnewsletterMay2012.pdf

Top image: Flickr user benketaro (Creative Commons).

Tomorrow: Casino-Free happy hour!

Casino-Free Philly — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:01:22 +0000

How many times have you explained to friends and family why you are against casinos in Philly? How has that explanation changed as your understanding of casinos deepened?

With six years behind us and the newest Blatstein harebrained Inquirer building idea and Mayor Nutter's most recent parroting of the casino lobbyists talking points, we've got a lot to reflect on and discuss.

Join us tomorrow, Friday evening from 5:00 to 8:00 PM for a Casino-Free Philly happy hour, celebrating nearly six years of fighting for a better city, and talking about ways we can take the fight forward!

We'll be gathering at the A-Space, 4722 Baltimore Avenue in West Philly, which is currently hosting an exhibit of Casino-Free's banners, photographs and artwork from years past. (If you have some you'd like to contribute, please contact us and let us know!)

We'll have some food and drinks to share, but feel free to bring something to share as well.

Join us this Friday as we take a look back and a leap forward! You can also RSVP on Facebook and share this invitation with your friends.

Can't make it, but want to show your support and help us hit the summer running? Make a donation!

Tomorrow: Casino-Free Happy Hour. Tonight: Excerpts from Daniel Hunter's book!

Tonight, join long-time Casino-Free activist Daniel Hunter read excerpts from his forthcoming book.

In honor of the A-Space exhibition of Casino-Free Philly's banners and photographs, Daniel will read from his book, which follows the growth of the movement, offering rare insight into how social movements feel, move and grow.

Come hear Daniel share lessons for activists on employing direct action strategy -- in fighting casinos and beyond -- and revealing how good strategy was created in the crucible of a fiery campaign.

Tonight at 7:00 PM at the A-Space, 4722 Baltimore Avenue in West Philly.

Then be sure to come back tomorrow night for the Casino-Free happy hour!

Old friends in new places

Casino-Free Philly — Wed, 09 May 2012 13:40:41 +0000

We'd like to update you about the work of someone you've probably heard of: Paul Boni, Esquire, who for several years served as the pro-bono attorney for Casino-Free Philadelphia. Paul is now bringing his amazing passion, skills, and dedication to another worthy organization.

Paul is on the board of the national anti-casino group Stop Predatory Gambling, with which we've worked for many years. Stop Predatory Gambling is a nonprofit devoted to building a diverse grassroots movement that crosses political lines to shine a spotlight on why it's time for government to end its failed policy of predatory gambling. We are strong allies.

We hope you will join us in becoming members of Stop Predatory Gambling. It doesn't cost anything, and you'll get periodic email updates about fighting predatory gambling nationwide.

Join Stop Predatory Gambling online today!

You can also like Stop Predatory Gambling on Facebook.

We're lucky to have a group like Stop Predatory Gambling on the national level. And we're lucky that one of its board members is such a good friend of Casino-Free's! Together, and with your help, we'll continue to do great things.

Casino-Free happy hour Friday, May 11

Casino-Free Philly — Fri, 04 May 2012 19:48:19 +0000

Five years of fighting for a better Philly! Join us next week for a look back and to discuss plans for the future!

Casino-Free Philly Happy Hour
Featuring banners, photographs and artwork from five years of our work together!
Next Friday, May 11, 5:00 to 8:00 PM
The A-Space, 4722 Baltimore Avenue in West Philly
View on Facebook

We'll have light refreshments, and we invite you to bring something to share if you like.

If you have photographs of Casino-Free actions over the years that you'd like to contribute to the slideshow that evening, please contact us to let us know. If you have banners, signs, flyers or other material that you'd like to contribute, please bring it to the event! After our evening together concludes, the collected materials will be featured in an upcoming social change exhibit curated by Spiral Q.

Many of us will also be at The A-Space on Thursday evening at 7:00 PM, when long-time Casino-Free organizer Daniel Hunter will be reading excerpts of his forthcoming book on the movement.

A look back and a leap forward

We know many of you are anxious to learn about the state of predatory gambling in Philadelphia and how we can continue the fight. At the happy hour next Friday, we'll have informal conversations about next steps, and invite those who are interested to help us plan our next campaign.

In addition to the proposed casino on North Broad, the casino license formerly granted to Foxwoods in South Philly may be "up for grabs" in the near future.

While many legislators are discussing allowing the license to be granted anywhere in the state, Mayor Nutter -- who once opposed any casinos in Philadelphia -- said he'll do "everything he can" to keep the license for a second casino in Philadelphia. With City Council President Darrell Clarke also in favor of a second Philly casino, it will once again fall to our communities to do the hard work of defeating these predatory institutions in our neighborhoods.

We'll remind you that it was your hard work that sent one Philly casino development into financial free fall and caused the other "successful" bid to open at one-third its predatory size.

We've done this before, and we can do it again!