Casinos Coming To Texas?

[arche_757]

Here's hoping it doesn't pass...just because something exists doesn't mean we need it.

 

So you'd rather Texans spend $4-5 Billion in Oklahoma and Louisiana than *in* Texas?

 

That's absurd, sorry to use such harsh language but it is.

 

I would rather our billions spent gambling stay in the state than go out of state and support whatever it is it supports in those other states.  The economic impact of having casinos in Galveston alone would probably end up at around $2 Billion for Galveston alone.

 

Here's the problem with gambling in my eyes.  1) we allow it through the lottery already, 2) and we also have other stupid laws such as the Sunday blue laws.  You can't buy liquor for yourself to drink AT HOME, but you can go to a bar and get as drunk as you'd like... on Sunday.

 

Also, this is the United States, select religious institutions shouldn't have final say on what laws are allowed here or not.

[BigFootsSocks]

IT you got a link to that Gawker article? Would love to see their thoughts on it.

Also I am in no way religious but refuse to support casinos. Id rather not want Texas to have to start putting up Gambling Addicition centers around here. Casinos are just the fuel to those who are addicted.

I know if I got a taste of it I would have trouble stepping away. Addictive personalities suck like that.

[arche_757]

But Texans already have those problems... they just spend the billions in Louisiana and Oklahoma.

 

People can use willpower to not drive to Galveston, or Corpus.  Those who can't probably have additictions already, and gambling is likely the least of their worries.

[BigFootsSocks]

So you'd rather Texans spend $4-5 Billion in Oklahoma and Louisiana than *in* Texas?

That's absurd, sorry to use such harsh language but it is.

I would rather our billions spent gambling stay in the state than go out of state and support whatever it is it supports in those other states. The economic impact of having casinos in Galveston alone would probably end up at around $2 Billion for Galveston alone.

Here's the problem with gambling in my eyes. 1) we allow it through the lottery already, 2) and we also have other stupid laws such as the Sunday blue laws. You can't buy liquor for yourself to drink AT HOME, but you can go to a bar and get as drunk as you'd like... on Sunday.

Also, this is the United States, select religious institutions shouldn't have final say on what laws are allowed here or not.

No it's not absurd. You're granted your own opinion but don't paint me as a fool. I don't like the idea of casinos in general. Look at Atlantic City, how well is it going over there? Lousiana casinos are trashy and the whole idea of a casino has no benefit to society. It's just another way for the wealthy to prey on ignorant Americans who get persuaded by the chance of wealth, no matter how slim it is.

Casinos fuel gambling addicitions and are one of the causes of poor mental health cases in America.

The reason I said just because it exists doesn't mean we need it is because we DON'T need them. Why do we need to bring in money from an institution that just puts a blight on society? Sure it's a nice way to bring in a quick buck but casinos have no benefit to the well-being of society at all.

I don't give a shot about the religious aspect. I care about fueling the need for those who are addicted. It ruins lives, families, etc. it turns a person towards crime and poverty and the only ones who benefit continuously are the owners.

[BigFootsSocks]

TL;DR

The economic benefit does not out weigh the blights it would put on society.

[arche_757]

There's plenty of reasons not related to religion why casino gambling may not be a good idea. For example, there's an argument on Gawker (NOT a conservative website by any means) that casinos are a regressive tax that basically prey on the poor (liberal idea there), and that it will oversaturate the casino market, which will steal Louisiana's casino dollars and mess up their economy further. 

 

Would it be a slippery slope argument to claim that if adding casinos to Galveston wrecks Louisiana's economy, and people from Louisiana end up coming to Texas...well, did anyone really enjoy having Katrina evacuees here?

 

(Barring the argument above, adding casinos will probably make Galveston sketchier than normal)

 

I'm not sure I understand that concept?  How sketchy is Vegas.  Galveston won't be that, but it won't be the dirty-poor backwater of Mississippi or Louisiana either.  Those states had myriad problems prior to gambling taking off.

 

To heck with Louisiana's economy.  I'm worried about Texas' and more specifically Houston's.  Louisiana already has issues, and people will still frequent places like NOLA from abroad and around the US because of its other draws.  Lake Charles is a major petrochemical hub and port for western Louisiana.

 

Galveston's problem is the transient population here already.  These people are low wage earners who hawk t-shirts and beer during festivals and work at bars the rest of the year (not knocking bartenders or the like - just an example).  Adding additional jobs would be bad how?

 

I'm also pretty sure the poor who relocated due to Katrina are in fact still mostly here in Houston.  Most of NOLA's lost population was the urban poor - the wealthy could afford to return and rebuild.

[BigFootsSocks]

Aren't then those people you just mentioned a big reason NOT to allow casinos? It's not like they would suddenly become middle class citizens. They would succumb to the illusion of a lid outside poverty first.

It will not help that situation; casinos would only make it worse

[arche_757]

No it's not absurd. You're granted your own opinion but don't paint me as a fool. I don't like the idea of casinos in general. Look at Atlantic City, how well is it going over there? Lousiana casinos are trashy and the whole idea of a casino has no benefit to society. It's just another way for the wealthy to prey on ignorant Americans who get persuaded by the chance of wealth, no matter how slim it is.

Casinos fuel gambling addicitions and are one of the causes of poor mental health cases in America.

The reason I said just because it exists doesn't mean we need it is because we DON'T need them. Why do we need to bring in money from an institution that just puts a blight on society? Sure it's a nice way to bring in a quick buck but casinos have no benefit to the well-being of society at all.

I don't give a shot about the religious aspect. I care about fueling the need for those who are addicted. It ruins lives, families, etc. it turns a person towards crime and poverty and the only ones who benefit continuously are the owners.

 

Where are the statistics for that last statement?  Who is to say that they would not ruin themselves some other way?  Should we outlaw all vices even if 99% of the population can responsibly handle themselves, and the other 1% would simply find another vice to ruin themselves on?

 

I don't gamble either.  Personally I think its stupid.  But people will do it regardless of if we have it or not.  Texans are still ruining themselves and spending away countless billions gambling.  If we did it here, at least the money would return to the community - at least a little of it - instead its just lining the pockets of Louisiana and Oklahoma.  We see $0 of it.  Texas gets $0 for the citizens spending $4,000,000,000.00 of their money gambling.

[arche_757]

Aren't then those people you just mentioned a big reason NOT to allow casinos? It's not like they would suddenly become middle class citizens. They would succumb to the illusion of a lid outside poverty first.

It will not help that situation; casinos would only make it worse

 

Those people EXIST with or without the casinos existing in Galveston.

 

I can walk outside right now and find one.  If there was a casino here on the island - guess what - that person would be there just the same!

 

EDIT -- I'm not calling anyone a fool.  People are entitled to their opinions.  Certainly.  I don't think casinos are the end-all-be-all, but they aren't the devil either.

 

Like Ben Franklin said "Everything in moderation, including moderation!"

 

[IronTiger]

IT you got a link to that Gawker article? Would love to see their thoughts on it.

Also I am in no way religious but refuse to support casinos. Id rather not want Texas to have to start putting up Gambling Addicition centers around here. Casinos are just the fuel to those who are addicted.

I know if I got a taste of it I would have trouble stepping away. Addictive personalities suck like that.

Here is the link for reading purposes.

[LarryDierker]

For those concerned with tacky casinos popping up everywhere, the bill limits casino development to resort areas and cities with a population over 675k.

 

To those worried about the negative impact of casinos on the society, I'd like to point out that there are several hundred illegal game rooms that already exist in the Houston area that don't pay appropriate taxes on their earnings.

 

I'm annoyed by the phrase tax on the poor. Taxes are not optional. And plenty of middle class and rich folk gamble. Have you people never seen the $100 slots? Ever heard the phrase high roller?

 

 

 

 

 

[ricco67]

Let's not forget what kind of problems Atlantic City is currently having.

4 of their 12 casinos are shut down.

[Montrose1100]

I love gambling, smoking 10,000 cigarettes and endless long islands, sitting at a roulette table. I don't do it often but it's entertaining. There are a couple casinos in Louisiana that are very nice, I would love for Texas to keep that money in Texas. I would also love to never have to cross the sabine. I mean, people will still go to Vegas, I know I will (even if they build them in Galveston). It could really revive Galveston.

[IronTiger]

For those concerned with tacky casinos popping up everywhere, the bill limits casino development to resort areas and cities with a population over 675k.

To those worried about the negative impact of casinos on the society, I'd like to point out that there are several hundred illegal game rooms that already exist in the Houston area that don't pay appropriate taxes on their earnings.

I'm annoyed by the phrase tax on the poor. Taxes are not optional. And plenty of middle class and rich folk gamble. Have you people never seen the $100 slots? Ever heard the phrase high roller?

Those illegal game rooms are going to exist whether casino gambling is legal or not. And high rollers just mean you're gambling lots of money, not actually rich or not.

[cloud713]

May not have to wait for the legislature to decide..they will be able to go offshore.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Casino-boat-coming-to-Texas-in-January-5845419.php

They used to run the exact same set up out of Freeport/Surfside..

[cloud713]

Let's not forget what kind of problems Atlantic City is currently having.

4 of their 12 casinos are shut down.

It was mentioned in the thread a few years back how Atlantic city was already a dump before any casino problems.. Or casinos, period.

[BigFootsSocks]

I have a reply written out by HAIF mobile crashed. I'll do it when I wake up.

[luciaphile]

In a column a year or so ago Ross Douthat explored the tension between consistency and permissiveness. Column short: historically limiting casinos mostly to NJ and NV worked - by which he means, kept vice somewhat contained - pretty well, if "indefensibly," until the big Indian gaming expansion. Turned out the Great White Father still can't yield anything - even casino receipts - to the Indians, and hence the push by the states to cash in too. Were it not for those awful res casinos, despite their well-documented attendant crime and social ills, it is doubtful we'd be talking about legalizing gambling in Texas, a state where most of us with Anglo surnames had at least one Baptist grandmother.
Me: libertarians enjoy the feeling they are leading the quest for people of all stations to be able to more liberally squander their $$ in a game where one side always wins, but make no mistake: that side is not the house, it is the statehouse and its insatiable thirst for fresh sources of revenue. Thus libertarians, as so often, are the very useful idiots of big government.

[UtterlyUrban]

Personally, I would put two casinos in downtown Houston. Right near the convention center.

I believe that the vast majority of folks who go to a casino spend a few bucks gambling and another few bucks on liquor and dinner. Harmless.

I believe that the vast majority of those who go to bars, spend a few bucks on liquor. Harmless.

I believe that the vast majority of people who attend pro or college sporting events spend a little bit of money on tickets and food and leave. Harmless.

I also know that there are a small handful of people who get addicted to gambling, liquor, smokless tobacco, food, and yes, even sports boosterism. But, that doesn't mean that any of that should be banned.

A couple of casinos in downtown, a convention center, a sports complex, a vibrant theatre district, library, churches, hotels, bars, and retail. All in a nice, Dense, 1 square mile package. That would be great!

[Fringe]

Perhaps Dan Patrick will allow casinos in all the Bucky's locations. 

[BigFootsSocks]

Comparing casinos to other bad habits does not work and is simply ignorant. Using a comparison as your argument doesn't prove anything except that other forms of vices are equally discouraging.

We should be able to choose the things we want for our city, and just because some of those things bring in significant amounts of money does not mean we should legalize it when it's whole purpose is cheating your fellow citizens and out of money.

[luciaphile]

Indeed, if I were a betting man, I would wager our gambling future will be a casino in every Buc-ees (billboard: "Royal Flush"? - except there won't be anything as diverting even as poker; no, it will be nothing but one-armed bandits as far as the eye can see, either because Americans don't want to work very hard at losing money, or it's simply the fastest, most efficient way to get to the final outcome). But do dream on about a "couple of" (!) tasteful downtown casinos where elegant gents may enjoy a game of baccarat after dinner.

[cloud713]

Perhaps Dan Patrick will allow casinos in all the Bucky's locations.

Do you mean bucees? I bet Beaver would love that.. Especially considering they don't even sell lottery tickets in Bucees...

[LarryDierker]

 it's whole purpose is cheating your fellow citizens and out of money.

 

That's not the purpose. The purpose is to provide entertainment. I don't see the difference between casinos and arcades. You spend money to play games. You play games for a while and ultimately leave with less money than you had before. People get addicted to gaming as well. Let's ban Dave and Busters and Xbox.

At least casinos give you free drinks.

[UtterlyUrban]

Comparing casinos to other bad habits does not work and is simply ignorant. Using a comparison as your argument doesn't prove anything except that other forms of vices are equally discouraging.

We should be able to choose the things we want for our city, and just because some of those things bring in significant amounts of money does not mean we should legalize it when it's whole purpose is cheating your fellow citizens and out of money.

[UtterlyUrban]

Comparing casinos to other bad habits does not work and is simply ignorant. Using a comparison as your argument doesn't prove anything except that other forms of vices are equally discouraging.

We should be able to choose the things we want for our city, and just because some of those things bring in significant amounts of money does not mean we should legalize it when it's whole purpose is cheating your fellow citizens and out of money.

Your continuing desire to call the legitimate views of other people "ignorant" speaks volumes and does little to enhance the exchange of ideas.

I respect your opinion that you don't want gambling in Texas. I disagree with it but I respect it. I am sorry that you think so little of other people's ideas that you need to resort to calling them ignorant.

[UtterlyUrban]

That's not the purpose. The purpose is to provide entertainment. I don't see the difference between casinos and arcades. You spend money to play games. You play games for a while and ultimately leave with less money than you had before. People get addicted to gaming as well. Let's ban Dave and Busters and Xbox.

At least casinos give you free drinks.

Be careful, Larry. You are about to be called "ignorant" for having the views you do.

[luciaphile]

Others may judge whether slots players are a completely different (fun!) breed, but the heaviest lottery players do not appear to be playing for amusement, according to a Cornell behavioral economist:

 

Those in poverty or near poverty not only are more likely to play the lottery than those with greater means, they also spend a larger percent of their money on average on these games of chance.

Some have argued that this may not be such a bad thing if the poor basically play the lottery as a cheap form of entertainment.

However, when we look for the telltale signs of entertainment behavior, they are absent.

We don't see evidence that changes in the availability or price of other entertainment, movies for example, lead to changes in lotto purchases.

Rather, we find there are big jumps in lottery purchases when the poverty rate increases, when unemployment increases, or when people enroll on welfare.

Lottery playing among the poor is a Hail Mary investment strategy — a small ray of hope among the hopeless.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/opinion/lottery-poor-just-opinion/

 

That's one very small ray of hope - more like a photon! As Rick Casey of the San Antonio Express-News points out, you have statistically pretty much the same chance of winning the Texas Lotto whether you buy a ticket or not - 26 million to one. You don't actually have to pay to "play" that one. Uness you've been persuaded otherwise by lottery agency advertising.

Of course, for all we know, the poor are no longer overrepresented in Texas lottery ticket sales. Maybe that's a myth! The state lottery commission no longer publishes ...

 

... the average amount spent by education or income level. Apparently that is not information they want us to have.

Years ago, that information was contained in the annual report. One year it showed high school dropouts spending an average of $173 a month and those with a college degree $49.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Shut-down-the-lottery-5830547.php

 

 

I would actually prefer casino gambling to the state-run lottery. There is just something so sinister about it. Doubly so when it comes to the poor: the government distributes a million checks, then tries to get some of it back through trickery. I don't know what that is but it is not governing. More like we are toddlers being redirected - "You were going to save that dollar? Or buy that trinket? No, no, don't do that, buy this ticket instead, wouldn't you rather? There's a good boy."

 

.

.. . he was aware (indeed everyone in the party was aware) that the prizes were largely imaginary. Only small sums were actually paid out, the winners of the big prizes being non-existent persons. In the absence of any real inter-communication between one part of Oceania and another, this was not difficult to arrange....

 

 

[BigFootsSocks]

Be careful, Larry. You are about to be called "ignorant" for having the views you do.

Bro chill...you made your point with your post to me but now you're just trying to make a fool of me and attack me. You obviously don't respect my opinion.

If you ready posts you would know I didn't call you or anyone here ignorant. I said the casinos are the ones who prey on ignorant people who are tricked into the illusion of monetary freedoms.

Larry, arcades and casinos are two completely different things. How many washed up gambling addicted, alocohol addicted people do you see playing skeet ball in an arcade? video games are addictive, gambling is addictive, but that does NOT mean we should ignore those vices just because other people are doing them.

I will admit casinos bring in money, but at what cost? If we just ignore the impacts of other negative vices as a means of support for casinos, then, yes Utterly Urban, that IS ignorant. You are focusing solely on the monetary gains the state would recie be rather than impacts it would have on society.

If anyone can please make a list of any postive impacts on the well-being of society then I will relent. Anything that you think we as a society need in order to grow.

It's 2014 guys. We should realize by now that just because things that have been established for so long does NOT automatically make them okay.

[arche_757]

I think its great we all have different opinions...  My one caveat for Casinos to be allowed in Texas is:

- Scale.  No casinos smaller than say 100,000sq. ft.  That'd limit the trash instantly.  MGM and other casino companies would be the only types capable of affording that scale of operation (think of the bank holdings needed for large casinos like that).  No convenience stores, no slots in the airports... none of that.

 

If I had my druthers I'd also *only* allow them in Galveston, and maybe San Antonio around the Riverwalk...maybe Corpus Christi too?  And I'd only allow 4 licenses per "region" or whatever it would be called.

 

That would allow only 8-12 casinos total in Texas.  Not perfect, but it would alleviate some of the concerns people above have posted about.

 

Too each their own I say.  I'd also like to point out that casinos do award people money.  Sometimes a lot of it.  You have far greater odds of winning something in a casino than a lottery ticket.