Saturday, January 14, 2012

Casinos = new revenue for states

       Many eastern states are embracing gambling as a way to lure tourist into their states and raise revenue. In New York, a Malaysian company plans to build a convention center worth $4 billion and a casino on the border of New York City. Andre Cuomo, the New York governor, has declared that he will be working with the Genting Group, one of the world’s biggest and most profitable gambling companies, to transform the Aqueduct horse track into a megaplex that will include the nation’s largest convention center, numerous hotel rooms, and an expansion of a casino that began operating in October. Just last week, Genting’s new gambling parlor at the Aqueduct has made about $13 million, which puts the casino-race track  on its way to making $ 676 million per year.

      Other states are also excited about their casino plans in their state. Ohio is excited to see its first commercial casino this year that had been approved by the voters in 2009. Pennsylvania’s first casino that opened in 2006 is threatening to surpass Atlantic City as the nations’ second largest gambling center. States have accepted casinos for two reasons: the promise of new revenue and the possibility of more tourism.

"They are faced with tough decisions. They are in recession ... And we pay taxes far over and above normal taxes," said Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association.

       However, experts are questioning whether the larger revenue bonanzas are realistic. They advise the states to be careful about giving up too much to bring casino projects in their states. In Nevada, its larger casinos have lost $4 billion in 2011 according to the state’s Gaming Control Board. Since the east gambling options have increased, Indian tribe owned casinos in Connecticut have declining revenues and there is a 30% decline in Atlantic City, which has lost many of their customers to new casinos in Philadelphia. This trend could deepen with new casinos being built New York and Massachusetts, since most people will travel less to gamble. This could also mean that the promise of new tourists could be unfulfilled since most of the casinos clients will come from locals taking revenue from other parts of the economy like recreation.

       Governor Cuomo has said that he agrees that many convention centers have lost their money and that he has doubts of using public money for casinos since there is no assurance that they will bring new tourism. However, he also stated that in New York, the buildings will be funded and operated privately. As for competition, Genting is discussing possible grants for exclusivity.

2 comments:

Kimi Hashizume said...

I think that the construction of new casinos is inevitable no matter the cost because in the end there will always be an advantage even if it is marginal. But I do agree that states must be cautious in their big plans for new casinos and really think about whether the costs are worth the benefits. Either way it's going to be quite a gamble. For example although the casino that is planned to be built in New York City will cost an arm and a leg it has potential to be a great push in a tourism arms race. In addition, regarding the New York casino, the state will not lose anything given that it is going to be a privately funded project.

Sarah Felix-Almirol said...

Casinos are basically regional monopolies but in the regions where it is not the case (South Lake Tahoe, for example), it is all about the reputation. My layman knowledge of casinos tells me that the reputation and side attractions that make casinos profitable will keep the customers coming so long as it is used competitively.

In terms of betting on the casinos for high revenues, they are only as safe as they have made themselves be but anything over that expectation is just a gamble.