Why I'm voting no on the Rockaway Beach casino amendment

[Terry Lomax]

Saw a terrible argument in a political TV ad for a state amendment
that would allow a new casino at Rockaway Beach near Branson. An
alleged benefit of the development: it would include a child care
center for casino workers!

I believe their reasoning is: "Vote for it because it'll create lots
of great jobs. As proof of how great the jobs are, workers can put
their kids in a child care center!" In reality, the few "good" casino
jobs will be given to outsiders from Vegas, and the only jobs given to
locals will be miminum wage grunt jobs that consist of inhaling huge
amounts of secondhand smoke.

In the past, casinos have claimed a portion of profits would go to
schools in the state, as if this would prevent property tax increases.
Casinos have been here about 10 years and taxes have gone up more
than ever.

St. Louis City has a casino. The St. Louis school district is in the
worst shape ever. The citizens of East St. Louis don't seem much
better off with a casino there, and Alton doesn't seem to be booming
either.

I'm voting no because:

a) Environmental damage: it'll cause further destruction of Lake
Taneycomo (once a great trout fishery before development at Branson
turned the lake into a sewer) and the millions of trees killed to
create the glossy junk mail they send every few days.

b) Gambling costs non-gambling taxpayers because huge numbers of
gamblers declare bankruptcy and are bailed out by taxpayers.

In addition to junk mail and annoying ads, they've called me even
though I'm on the "no call list".

We have one ally (politics make strange bedfellows): the religious
right. Church groups vote against casinos because legalized gambling
competes with their bingo gambling.

[Kenneth P. Turvey]

On 29 Jun 2004 11:50:48 -0700, Terry Lomax <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Snip]

Post by Terry Lomax
St. Louis City has a casino. The St. Louis school district is in the
worst shape ever.

Not to disagree with you on your main point, but the St. Louis school
district isn't suffering from a lack of funding. I looked into this a
while back and on a per-student basis the school district has plenty
of funding. The problem is mismanagement. I don't think the casino
will have any impact on this.

[snip]

Post by Terry Lomax
b) Gambling costs non-gambling taxpayers because huge numbers of
gamblers declare bankruptcy and are bailed out by taxpayers.

[snip]

I've heard this claim before, but I've never seen it substantiated.
The government usually doesn't bail out people that go bankrupt.
There isn't really any way to determine how many problem gamblers
would have gone bankrupt without the casino.

[Kevin Childers]

Not to debate the main thread of this post, but I do have a few questions.

KC

Post by Terry Lomax
Saw a terrible argument in a political TV ad for a state amendment
that would allow a new casino at Rockaway Beach near Branson. An
alleged benefit of the development: it would include a child care
center for casino workers!

I see such items as a nice perk if you have kids, but even then not much
above a fancy cup offered with your drink at some fast food joint.

Post by Terry Lomax
I believe their reasoning is: "Vote for it because it'll create lots
of great jobs. As proof of how great the jobs are, workers can put
their kids in a child care center!" In reality, the few "good" casino
jobs will be given to outsiders from Vegas, and the only jobs given to
locals will be miminum wage grunt jobs that consist of inhaling huge
amounts of secondhand smoke.

Not all good jobs go to imported workers. Mostly that is a skills set
issue. Importing workers usually means paying for their move and it's
cheaper to get local employees when ever possible. As I see, most of the
better jobs created will be of short duration in the construction phase of
it all.

Post by Terry Lomax
In the past, casinos have claimed a portion of profits would go to
schools in the state, as if this would prevent property tax increases.
Casinos have been here about 10 years and taxes have gone up more
than ever.

This is generally a two fold misconception on the part of the public.
First is where exactly the funds will go to. It must be specified before
hand that the money must go to education, not to the general fund. The
general fund does provide some moneys to education, but that is at the
political discretion of the state budgetary process. The second
misconception is that this will reduce taxes. All it does is substitute one
funding source for another. For every dollar ear marked for education, a
dollar from the general fund can be withdraw to fund some other budgetary
item. Ear marked funds are rarely if ever additive beyond what has already
been or would be budgeted for any item in any local, state, or federal
budget that I am aware of.

Post by Terry Lomax
St. Louis City has a casino. The St. Louis school district is in the
worst shape ever. The citizens of East St. Louis don't seem much
better off with a casino there, and Alton doesn't seem to be booming
either.

The St. Louis school system seems such a poor example. I think it's
history of general mismanagement would over whelm any monetary infusion,
short of the gross domestic product of a small country. It's not just the
money, it's so much more and the solution will take far longer than most
political and civic organizations can immagine or are willing to commit to.

Post by Terry Lomax
a) Environmental damage: it'll cause further destruction of Lake
Taneycomo (once a great trout fishery before development at Branson
turned the lake into a sewer) and the millions of trees killed to
create the glossy junk mail they send every few days.

According to the ads, the dam already did this, or were they refering to
another species? I'm not sure if trout are native or introduced at
Taneycomo.

Post by Terry Lomax
b) Gambling costs non-gambling taxpayers because huge numbers of
gamblers declare bankruptcy and are bailed out by taxpayers.

Indirectly, through business and banking recouping their loses. The
government does not pay off bankruptcy's.

Post by Terry Lomax
In addition to junk mail and annoying ads, they've called me even
though I'm on the "no call list".

A petty concern, but one through which you do have legal recourse. The
feds have fined several hundred agencies for violation of the "do not call"
list earlier this year.

Post by Terry Lomax
We have one ally (politics make strange bedfellows): the religious
right. Church groups vote against casinos because legalized gambling
competes with their bingo gambling.

Who are "We"? Church organizations vote against vice element, rather
than any competition that casinos might present.

[Terry Lomax]

Post by Kevin Childers
According to the ads, the dam already did this, or were they refering to
another species? I'm not sure if trout are native or introduced at
Taneycomo.

Before the dams were built, the White River was a world class
smallmouth bass fishery. Dams killed the warmwater fishery. The
construction of Table Rock Lake resulted in the discharge of "ice
water" from the bottom of the lake, making the water cold at Rockaway
Beach. I'd be surprised if Rockaway Beach couldn't make big bucks
catering to trout fishermen, who tend to be wealthier than other
freshwater anglers. I would imagine the main reason the resorts lost
revenue was the lack of desire to swim in the cold water.

True, the dams have a _much_ worse impact on the environment than the
proposed development, but additional degradation is not a good thing.
The rainbow and brown trout are introduced species; they do/did well
in the cold water of Taneycomo. Trout are fragile and cannot tolerate
poor water quality.

One TV ad shows a local business named something like "Kurt's Kountry
Kabins". Some backwoods hick towns in Missouri have businesses like
this that flaunt their affiliation (a much more common sight is the
Confederate flag).

[Kevin Childers]

See embedded comments.

KC

Post by Terry Lomax

Post by Kevin Childers
According to the ads, the dam already did this, or were they refering to
another species? I'm not sure if trout are native or introduced at
Taneycomo.

Before the dams were built, the White River was a world class
smallmouth bass fishery. Dams killed the warmwater fishery. The
construction of Table Rock Lake resulted in the discharge of "ice
water" from the bottom of the lake, making the water cold at Rockaway
Beach. I'd be surprised if Rockaway Beach couldn't make big bucks
catering to trout fishermen, who tend to be wealthier than other
freshwater anglers. I would imagine the main reason the resorts lost
revenue was the lack of desire to swim in the cold water.

So basically their problem is human induced as opposed to a natural one.
I'm just guessing but I presumed they have reviewed all of their options and
the resort casino concept seems the most profitable to the powers that be.

Post by Terry Lomax
True, the dams have a _much_ worse impact on the environment than the
proposed development, but additional degradation is not a good thing.
The rainbow and brown trout are introduced species; they do/did well
in the cold water of Taneycomo. Trout are fragile and cannot tolerate
poor water quality.

There are ways to deal with the water quality issue (out flow above
intake, new treatment facilities, discharge diversion...) but has this been
addressed and how effective does the solution look?

Post by Terry Lomax
One TV ad shows a local business named something like "Kurt's Kountry
Kabins". Some backwoods hick towns in Missouri have businesses like
this that flaunt their affiliation (a much more common sight is the
Confederate flag).

Flag, smag, whatever brings in the customers is usually the theme of the
day. If you travel around enough you will find a lot of cultural
inconsistencies that have been cobbled together to bring in the paying
public (tourist).

As far as I can figure it the real question is how does this impact the
rest of the state, most importantly for this audience, what's in it for the
Metro St. Louis area and it's residents.

KC

[jt august]

I plan to vote no, because I find the ads quite offensive.

1) They are repeated to frequently per hour.

2) I find some of their claims ludicrous:
Child care for workers - casino workers only. Anyone who lacks the
fortune to get on with the casino will not get this benefit.
Three million tourists - from the next hill over and the one after
that. I doubt they will leach off much from Branson. Yes, some Branson
tourists will go there, but not that many. Most gamblers will be locals
or northern arkansans.
Good for all Missouri - the place is over 200 miles from me. As was
noted elsewhere, the tax moneys earmarked will allow general funds not
mandated as earmarked to be redistributed, so the schools will not get
any true benefit. And the revenue from one casino will not make a real
difference to the state as MO already has many casinos, yet Holden still
withheld moneys from last year's budget and will likely do so again this
year.

3) According to an article I heard on KMOX, almost $10 million of the
campaign money came from the casino developer committed to this project,
not the people of the town that supposedly will benefit.

In addition, if one small town gets this, then others will want to
follow, and we will have casinos in Hurricane Deck, Silex, Peculiar, Doe
Run and just about any small town that can find a drainage ditch to
dredge out and flood.

I don't see this as being at all good for Missouri.

BTW: I do have a gambling problem. When I have gone to try the slots
with my $5 limit, the most I have won has been only $84. The problem is
I never win the big jackpots that everyone in the ads seems to win.

jt