Tweet
Press Release 10/28/06
From: No Casino Gettysburg-- a non-profit, all volunteer, grass roots movement.
www.nocasinogettysburg.com for background.
Contact: Susan Star Paddock, Chair
cell 1-717-253-1316 (currently out of town)
Keith Miller 1-203-894-4686, cell 203-733-9039 NCG volunteer consultant
Marty Qually, Gettysburg Borough Council member, 717-334-1882 or cell 240-409-9151
susan@nocasinogettysburg.com
PA Offers Incentive for Adams County to Accept Gettysburg Casino despite opposition: Local Share 10 times greater than Pittsburgh
The Reform of Act 71, the Gaming Bill, passed the Senate yesterday with the greatest local share for a casino going to Adams County. Under the new legislation,
Adams County would get a windfall, up to ten times more of the gambling revenue Local Share Assessment on a per capita basis than Pittsburgh or any other community would receive for hosting a casino. When Rendell signs SB 862, Pittsburgh’s per capita Local Share Assessment will be just $12.79, Philadelphia’s will be $16.22, Lehigh Valley $26.29, Monroe County in the Poconos gets $50.34, while Adams County Commissioners would administer funds totaling almost $163 per resident if a casino were licensed here.
Act 71 intended Local Share Assessments to help offset the costs of hosting a casino, and to help disadvantaged areas by funding “economic development projects, job training, community improvement projects, and other projects in the public interest.” The revised bill rewards one of the fastest growing and lowest unemployment counties in the state, while eliminating the provision that the money be shared with the 3 surrounding Counties.
According to No Casino Gettysburg chairman, Susan Star Paddock, the disproportionate Local Share Assessment, “will definitely offset some of the costs of a casino to the County, bringing the cost-benefit ratio of a Gettysburg casino down from 8:1 to almost 4:1. Given the overwhelmingly negative local and national feedback to the PGCB about this proposal, it appears as if Adams is being paid to want this casino.”
“Despite our gratitude for this windfall, our opposition to the proposal remains firm. A casino one mile from hallowed ground, in the place where over 50,000 American casualties helped insure that our nation would be a union free of slavery, is stunningly inappropriate. Our tourists say it keep them away, and our 173 Businesses Against the Casino fear it will harm the existing heritage tourism industry, destroy local businesses and add to social costs from local gambling addiction. Even this enhanced Local Share Assessment will not offset the loss from changing the identity of Gettysburg from a national treasure to just another casino town.”
Adams and York County Representative Steve Nickol, recognizes the immense harm that a casino would create in Adams, sacrificed his York constituents share of the money, and led the effort to focus the Local Share Assessment in Adams. According to the Gettysburg Times, (“Issues aired at candidates’ forum”, by John Messeder, October 26, 2006) in a candidates forum Thursday night, “Nickol maintained his opposition to standalone casinos, but said he would continue his efforts “to see that we at least get our fair share of the money.” Paddock added, “We applaud Nickol’s resourcefulness in turning a horrendous deal into just a bad deal.”
Prior to the change in the Local Share Assessment the costs of a casino outweighed the benefits for Adams County residents by about eight to one, but even with the additional Local Share Assessment for Adams the costs still outweigh the benefits by over three to one.
Paddock added, “The Local Share Assessment does not affect the PGCB, which is more concerned about how much money comes into the State from a given casino. Testimony before the PGCB suggested a Poconos casino would earn many times more than a Gettysburg Casino.”
According to Paddock, the opposition to the casino remains strong and the all volunteer grassroots group plans a legal appeal should the PGCB license Crossroads Dec 20.
BACKGROUND and Details: This was not an easy issue to follow as the reform legislation has moved through the state legislature. SB 862 Printers Number 2186 erroneously put the provision for more gambling revenue for Adams under a Category One Racetrack. This mistake was not captured before it was passed by the House. Indeed, the mistake was pointed out by a No Casino volunteer. The latest attempt in SB 862 Printers Number 2218 may also have overlooked this largesse as it does not directly address Adams. By amending §1403 (b) (iii) (F) to address only class five counties like Monroe and deleting mention of class 6-8 counties like Adams, it puts all these smaller counties under §1403 (b) (iii) (G) of the original legislation. (G) provides that any county not specifically enumerated in clauses (A) through (F), would receive the full Local Share Assessment without having to share it with contiguous counties. An interesting consequence of this would be, if a county like Pike were awarded a class 2 license, it would obtain almost $300 per capita of Local Share Assessment.
The below table, prepared by NCG volunteer Keith Miller, provides a comparison of the potential Local Share Assessments for the proposed Category 2 license locations. So as not to argue revenue projections, this table assumes that each casino would produce $300 million in gambling revenue. Philadelphia receives a 4% Local Share Assessment, while all other Counties will receive either directly or through the host municipality 2% plus the maximum of $10 million or 2%. No distinction is drawn between the host municipality and the host county. Host townships in Adams and Monroe would turn over about 90% of the allotted $10 million allocated to them to the county governments for reallocation because of the small size of their current expenditures. That means Straban Township still gets only $455,000, but the other $9.5 million appears to go to Adams County for administration by the County Commissioners. With respect to the proposed casino sites in Bethlehem and Allentown, there is a complicated revenue share arrangement which would share the Local Share Assessment 60/40 between the host and non host location. Since it is unknown which site might get a casino, the table shows, as an approximation, an equal per capita number for each site.
The impact of the proposed SB 862 Printers Number 2186 language, as can be seen below, is that Adams County will get a windfall of $163 per person, compared to $13 for Pittsburg $16 for Philadelphia, about $26 for the Lehigh Valley, and $50 for Monroe, while Pike, Lackawanna, Carbon and Luzerne would see their potential Local Share Assessment reduced by about 40%, and Franklin, York, and Cumberland would completely lose their share of the Local Share Assessment.
Although the disproportionate Local Share Assessment may appear helpful, it does not mean that Adams would be better off. First, it is less than 3% of the total county and municipal budgets within Adams. Second, going forward, Harrisburg will probably take into consideration the Local Share Assessment when allocating any other program funds to Adams. Because Adams gets this windfall, it will probably lose other forms of state money. Finally, what Harrisburg gives – Harrisburg can take away. This has been a pattern in other states with casinos when they decide Local Share Assessments favor one area over another. The Local Share Assessment will remain beyond our control, and it is unclear whether it would benefit the County long term.
Cost Benefits Calculations (see Keith Miller’ Cost Benefit Analysis of Casino Gambling” downloadable on ‘bad idea’ page of
Costs
Diverted and Abused Funds.................$38.6....................... .....$38.6
Social Costs......................................$22.4.. ..........................$22.4
Lost Heritage Tourism.......................$11.9............... ..............$11.9
Total............................................. ....$72.9.............................$72.9
Benefits
Gas saved by local casino..................$4.7...................... .........$4.7
Marginal wages if residents take jobs. $1.4................................$1.4
Local Share Assessment...................$3.0................. ..............$13.0
Total............................................. ...$9.1...............................$19.1
The Local Share Assessment was calculated at $10 million + 2% of $150 million in Gambling Income for a total of $13.0. If Gambling Income was $300 million the Total benefit would be 10.1 without the change and 22.1 with the change.
The Cost to Benefits ratio is thus, without the change 72.9/9.1 or 8 to 1, and with the change 72.9/19.1 or 3.8 to one
From: No Casino Gettysburg-- a non-profit, all volunteer, grass roots movement.
www.nocasinogettysburg.com for background.
Contact: Susan Star Paddock, Chair
cell 1-717-253-1316 (currently out of town)
Keith Miller 1-203-894-4686, cell 203-733-9039 NCG volunteer consultant
Marty Qually, Gettysburg Borough Council member, 717-334-1882 or cell 240-409-9151
susan@nocasinogettysburg.com
PA Offers Incentive for Adams County to Accept Gettysburg Casino despite opposition: Local Share 10 times greater than Pittsburgh
The Reform of Act 71, the Gaming Bill, passed the Senate yesterday with the greatest local share for a casino going to Adams County. Under the new legislation,
Adams County would get a windfall, up to ten times more of the gambling revenue Local Share Assessment on a per capita basis than Pittsburgh or any other community would receive for hosting a casino. When Rendell signs SB 862, Pittsburgh’s per capita Local Share Assessment will be just $12.79, Philadelphia’s will be $16.22, Lehigh Valley $26.29, Monroe County in the Poconos gets $50.34, while Adams County Commissioners would administer funds totaling almost $163 per resident if a casino were licensed here.
Act 71 intended Local Share Assessments to help offset the costs of hosting a casino, and to help disadvantaged areas by funding “economic development projects, job training, community improvement projects, and other projects in the public interest.” The revised bill rewards one of the fastest growing and lowest unemployment counties in the state, while eliminating the provision that the money be shared with the 3 surrounding Counties.
According to No Casino Gettysburg chairman, Susan Star Paddock, the disproportionate Local Share Assessment, “will definitely offset some of the costs of a casino to the County, bringing the cost-benefit ratio of a Gettysburg casino down from 8:1 to almost 4:1. Given the overwhelmingly negative local and national feedback to the PGCB about this proposal, it appears as if Adams is being paid to want this casino.”
“Despite our gratitude for this windfall, our opposition to the proposal remains firm. A casino one mile from hallowed ground, in the place where over 50,000 American casualties helped insure that our nation would be a union free of slavery, is stunningly inappropriate. Our tourists say it keep them away, and our 173 Businesses Against the Casino fear it will harm the existing heritage tourism industry, destroy local businesses and add to social costs from local gambling addiction. Even this enhanced Local Share Assessment will not offset the loss from changing the identity of Gettysburg from a national treasure to just another casino town.”
Adams and York County Representative Steve Nickol, recognizes the immense harm that a casino would create in Adams, sacrificed his York constituents share of the money, and led the effort to focus the Local Share Assessment in Adams. According to the Gettysburg Times, (“Issues aired at candidates’ forum”, by John Messeder, October 26, 2006) in a candidates forum Thursday night, “Nickol maintained his opposition to standalone casinos, but said he would continue his efforts “to see that we at least get our fair share of the money.” Paddock added, “We applaud Nickol’s resourcefulness in turning a horrendous deal into just a bad deal.”
Prior to the change in the Local Share Assessment the costs of a casino outweighed the benefits for Adams County residents by about eight to one, but even with the additional Local Share Assessment for Adams the costs still outweigh the benefits by over three to one.
Paddock added, “The Local Share Assessment does not affect the PGCB, which is more concerned about how much money comes into the State from a given casino. Testimony before the PGCB suggested a Poconos casino would earn many times more than a Gettysburg Casino.”
According to Paddock, the opposition to the casino remains strong and the all volunteer grassroots group plans a legal appeal should the PGCB license Crossroads Dec 20.
BACKGROUND and Details: This was not an easy issue to follow as the reform legislation has moved through the state legislature. SB 862 Printers Number 2186 erroneously put the provision for more gambling revenue for Adams under a Category One Racetrack. This mistake was not captured before it was passed by the House. Indeed, the mistake was pointed out by a No Casino volunteer. The latest attempt in SB 862 Printers Number 2218 may also have overlooked this largesse as it does not directly address Adams. By amending §1403 (b) (iii) (F) to address only class five counties like Monroe and deleting mention of class 6-8 counties like Adams, it puts all these smaller counties under §1403 (b) (iii) (G) of the original legislation. (G) provides that any county not specifically enumerated in clauses (A) through (F), would receive the full Local Share Assessment without having to share it with contiguous counties. An interesting consequence of this would be, if a county like Pike were awarded a class 2 license, it would obtain almost $300 per capita of Local Share Assessment.
The below table, prepared by NCG volunteer Keith Miller, provides a comparison of the potential Local Share Assessments for the proposed Category 2 license locations. So as not to argue revenue projections, this table assumes that each casino would produce $300 million in gambling revenue. Philadelphia receives a 4% Local Share Assessment, while all other Counties will receive either directly or through the host municipality 2% plus the maximum of $10 million or 2%. No distinction is drawn between the host municipality and the host county. Host townships in Adams and Monroe would turn over about 90% of the allotted $10 million allocated to them to the county governments for reallocation because of the small size of their current expenditures. That means Straban Township still gets only $455,000, but the other $9.5 million appears to go to Adams County for administration by the County Commissioners. With respect to the proposed casino sites in Bethlehem and Allentown, there is a complicated revenue share arrangement which would share the Local Share Assessment 60/40 between the host and non host location. Since it is unknown which site might get a casino, the table shows, as an approximation, an equal per capita number for each site.
The impact of the proposed SB 862 Printers Number 2186 language, as can be seen below, is that Adams County will get a windfall of $163 per person, compared to $13 for Pittsburg $16 for Philadelphia, about $26 for the Lehigh Valley, and $50 for Monroe, while Pike, Lackawanna, Carbon and Luzerne would see their potential Local Share Assessment reduced by about 40%, and Franklin, York, and Cumberland would completely lose their share of the Local Share Assessment.
Although the disproportionate Local Share Assessment may appear helpful, it does not mean that Adams would be better off. First, it is less than 3% of the total county and municipal budgets within Adams. Second, going forward, Harrisburg will probably take into consideration the Local Share Assessment when allocating any other program funds to Adams. Because Adams gets this windfall, it will probably lose other forms of state money. Finally, what Harrisburg gives – Harrisburg can take away. This has been a pattern in other states with casinos when they decide Local Share Assessments favor one area over another. The Local Share Assessment will remain beyond our control, and it is unclear whether it would benefit the County long term.
Cost Benefits Calculations (see Keith Miller’ Cost Benefit Analysis of Casino Gambling” downloadable on ‘bad idea’ page of
Costs
Diverted and Abused Funds.................$38.6....................... .....$38.6
Social Costs......................................$22.4.. ..........................$22.4
Lost Heritage Tourism.......................$11.9............... ..............$11.9
Total............................................. ....$72.9.............................$72.9
Benefits
Gas saved by local casino..................$4.7...................... .........$4.7
Marginal wages if residents take jobs. $1.4................................$1.4
Local Share Assessment...................$3.0................. ..............$13.0
Total............................................. ...$9.1...............................$19.1
The Local Share Assessment was calculated at $10 million + 2% of $150 million in Gambling Income for a total of $13.0. If Gambling Income was $300 million the Total benefit would be 10.1 without the change and 22.1 with the change.
The Cost to Benefits ratio is thus, without the change 72.9/9.1 or 8 to 1, and with the change 72.9/19.1 or 3.8 to one