While more states are approving commercial casinos in hopes of creating jobs and increasing tax revenues, economists are increasing skeptical of the benefits of legalized gambling.
"Out on the Great Plains, an experiment is under way: Under a new state law legalizing gambling, Kansas City, Kan., could soon be lit up by the first full-blown casino resort in its 135-year history.
If the plans come to fruition, Kansas will be the 13th U.S. state to bet that commercial casinos will prove to be a win-win game, reaping profits for the casino owners and boosting development for their hosts at the same time. "We'll see a big economic benefit," Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said when she signed the enabling legislation in April.
A growing body of research and experience, however, suggests the odds are not stacked in the state's favor. Some economists go so far as to call casinos a sort of global zero-sum game, in which the outcome for a host city depends on the casino's ability to attract out-of-state tourists and separate them from their money -- a feat that becomes increasingly hard to achieve as more states install casinos of their own."
"States and municipalities typically count the benefits of casinos in terms of jobs and tax revenues. In 2006, commercial casinos employed about 366,000 people and paid about $5.2 billion in direct gaming taxes, according to the American Gaming Association.
More blackjack dealers and gaming taxes, though, don't necessarily add up to growth in economic well-being. For one, casinos often take business from other entertainment venues, such as theaters or sports bars. As a result, some economists -- such as Earl Grinols, a former senior economist on the president's Council of Economic Advisers who now teaches at Baylor University in Texas -- contend that, on average, casinos actually make no net tax contribution. The effect on jobs could actually be negative, because many modern casinos -- replete with slots and video-poker machines -- need fewer employees per customer than the businesses they tend to replace."
[Ed: Although this article is only available to WSJ subscribers, it is available to Planetizen readers for free through the link below for a period of seven days.]
Read the full story: Bad Odds
Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.
California plans to bury El Niño’s downpour
If the state plays its cards right, it may be able to store a billion acre-feet of El Niño’s water in aquifers.
Desperate measures: Advocates weigh draining Lake Powell to fill Colorado River
Draining the reservoir could reduce evaporation losses by a couple hundred thousand acre-feet.
Mamdani’s pied-à-terre tax survives legal challenge
A panel of judges found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate injury as a result of New York City's implementation of the tax.
Eastern Nebraska is running out of electricity
Data centers and electrification are straining eastern Nebraska’s grid, throttling economic development.
Seattle passes record-breaking transit services expansion
Proposition 1 will double the city’s transit tax to add 95,000 more bus trips and preserve 180,000 bus trips annually.
FREE Course: Walkable City 1: Why Walkability?
After describing his path towards focusing on walkability as the essence of good planning, Jeff Speck marches through his five principal reasons for making more walkable places.
Reinventing Malls: Planning Alchemy—Turning Gray Fields Into Gold
The course focuses on the opportunities and imperatives that shape reinvention of mall sites.
City of Rosemead
Rutgers University, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
One Hundred Miles
University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability (SEAS)
Hunter College, City University of New York (CUNY)
The Architects Foundation
City of Cambridge
Montrose County
The Pocatello Development Authority