The Gambling Mirage

Perhaps never has there been such a group of strange bedfellows as that amassed in opposition to the casino gambling proposal that has been before the State Legislature - religious groups, Donald Trump, environmentalists, race track officials. . .

Each has been opposed for a different reason, of course, and while we are not categorically against making or taking bets it is clear that the arguments for casino gambling are far outweighed by the arguments against, a view with which the State Senate, judging from its 41-19 vote Tuesday, is in accord.

Casinos may funnel some money into municipal coffers, but far more is siphoned out through increased policing and social costs. Furthermore, the sums raked in by the house are subtracted from the marketplace, from savings, and investment.

Long Island had not been among the four areas the Albany bill designated as possible sites for casino gambling. The bill would have allowed casinos in Saratoga, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and the Catskills and slot machines at eight race tracks, including Yonkers Raceway but excluding Aqueduct and Belmont.

It's hard to believe there could be much support for gambling on the South Fork, which already is awash in tourism. The four upstate resort areas, on the other hand (though Buffalo does not quite fit the bill), have fallen on hard times and have been looking for a quick fix. Casino gambling is not the solution.

In the words of William Eadington of the University of Nevada's Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, "In place after place, the casino-based economy soars, then slumps into a black hole."