Slots and Baltimore
We're talking about this during the second hour of my radio show today. Do you think this is a good idea for Baltimore? We have heard -- on the air and by e-mail -- from people who live in the suburbs and exurbs of Maryland that they think slots is a good idea for the state -- and obviously a lot of voters agree with that -- but what of putting one in the city?
We would particularly like to hear from Baltimoreans.
Is there going to be a fight over this, or have slots opponents given up and is Baltimore going to have a casino without the kind of community brawls they're seeing in Philadelphia?
MIDDAY WITH DAN RODRICKS
Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org. You can call during the show at 410-662-8780 or toll-free at 866-661-9309, or drop us an e-mail with brief comments or questions at midday@wypr.org.
From a previous blog post:
The mayor of Baltimore, Sheila Dixon, and the former mayor, Gov. Martin O'Malley, seem to have no shame about establishing a casino in Baltimore with slot machines, knowing full well that a disproportionate number of the city's poorest citizens are likely to waste their money there, particularly if we're still in a recession as the slots get up and running.
The slots, like the state lotteries before them, constitute a de facto tax on low-income people, and to put slots in the Maryland city with the highest concentration of poverty to balance the books for the fourth-wealthiest state in the country is stunningly reprehensible.
This has to be one of the most cynical moves ever by politicians in this city and state. There is no question that Maryland's poor and minority communities are likely to bear the heaviest burden when it comes to slots. They already do with other forms of state-sponsored gambling here.
Low-income people play the lottery -- and many of them voted last Tuesday to allow slots -- because they believe that it could be their ticket out of poverty.
Tina, a listener to my Midday show, wrote an e-mail yesterday wondering why all this outrage.
"Am I missing some compelling data that shows that poor people are more likely to go to slots/casinos than non-poor people?" she asked. "Not sure why Dan is so afraid that poor people of Baltimore City will be unable to resist the siren call of the slots at a higher rate than any other group of people, and why that means we shouldn't put a slots parlor in Baltimore."
Tina lives in Lauraville -- not one of the areas designated for a slots parlor -- and she has missed the news -- repeated countless times over the 40 or so years there have been state lotteries -- that lotteries and slots are regressive de facto taxes on the poor. Study after study, many of them by newspapers, have shown that low-income adults spend more money on lotteries, as a percentage of their income, than do middle-class or affluent Americans.
Years ago, a Duke University study found that 5 percent of lottery players account for 50 percent of ticket sales. The states count on these players, and most often they are people who can least afford to play a game that they are structured to lose.
In Frederick recently, a reporter for the News-Post, Justin Palk, took a look at who most frequently patronizes lottery outlets in that part of the state and found that money raised by the lottery in Frederick County comes disproportionately from low-income areas.
"For the 2008-2009 school year, half the county's elementary school districts -- 17 out of 34 -- report having 20 percent or more of their students in the federal Free and Reduced Price Meals program," Palk reported. "But districts with 20 percent or greater participation in the FARM program account for 11 of the 13 districts -- 84 percent -- where lottery retailers reported total lottery sales of $2 million or more between fiscal years 2005 and 2007. All nine schools in districts where lottery retailers reported more than $3 million in sales reported FARM participation rates of 24 percent or higher."
- A 1999 study of lottery spending among households in Atlanta showed that poor families spent five times as much of their income on the lottery than did middle- or upper-income families.
- In Lexington, Kentucky, nearly 80 percent of the money spent on lottery tickets in 1997 was spent in zip codes where the residents’ per capita income was below the $20,274 county average, according to a report in the Lexington Herald-Leader.
- In 1998, the Washington Post reported that 47 percent of Maryland’s most frequent lottery players come from households earning less than $20,000 a year.
- When the Atlanta Journal-Constitution looked at this, reporters found that per capita lottery sales in Georgia were twice as high in majority African-American neighborhoods than in neighborhoods that were at least 90 percent white.
- In 1991, The Sun reported that a disproportionate share of lottery revenue -- $192 million a year -- is generated in Baltimore, home of most of Maryland's poor.
- A few years ago, a study by researchers at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, found that the rate of problem and pathological gambling among poor people is more than three times that of the most affluent segments of society. Here are some highlights from the Sun's report on the Buffalo study:
- Problem gambling among the poor has spread along with the
rapid expansion of casino-style gambling into new venues around the country.- In 1975, studies found gambling was more concentrated among young, white, affluent males, said John W. Welte, a senior research associate at the university and one of the study's authors. But that has changed markedly. "Gambling participation has particularly grown among the elderly and lower socioeconomic groups," the study stated. "It appears that the increased
availability of gambling opportunities in our society has led to the
`democratization' of gambling."- Minorities who gamble tend to develop more problems with compulsive gambling behavior. Welte said the poor are likely to be less sophisticated about financial matters and don't necessarily understand how "the odds of gambling will grind you down." Moreover, Welte said, people in desperate circumstances might see placing a bet as one of the few ways to possibly solve an immediate financial dilemma. "It's a regressive source of government revenue," Welte said. "It comes disproportionately from poor people."
- Welte said that new research his group is doing found that pathological gambling rates are twice as high for people who live within 10 miles of a casino compared to those who live farther away.
Most of the revenue from slots is likely to come from the pockets of Marylanders who live near the slots parlors. That means, in the case of a slots casino in Baltimore, Baltimoreans -- and we're sure Mayor Dixon and Gov. O'Malley will get the MTA to place a bus stop right outside.
Comments
I agree with you, Dan. I don't want slots in my neighborhood, Ocean City or even the entire state.
We got ourselves into this mess and we don't need a money grab to get out of it.
Speaking of regressive taxes, how about that massive sales tax hike? Now there's a winner!
Posted by: bryanintimonium | November 7, 2008 8:44 AM
I agree that MOM and Ms. Dixon are hypocrites when it comes to slots, but it has nothing to do with slots being a 'regressive tax'.
A sales tax could be called 'regressive'. A gas tax is 'regressive'.
Slots are not a tax. You have a choice to play or not, and if you play, you assume the risk.
I think it is laughable that a state that doesn't allow gambling runs a lottery, and I find the amandment that passed a travesty, but not because it allows slots, it's because it only allows slots in very specific places.
I believe adults are fully capable of making their own choices. I may think those choices are stupid, but how dare I assume I know better. And how dare you?
DR: Just keep stepping around the moral hazard, Paul. A disproportionate number of low-income people support the lottery and will support the slots. The state knows what it is doing. It targets that demographic to keep playing. The games are designed to return profits to the state. You have to lose for the state to win. That to me constitutes a tax on the poor so the rest of us don't have to pay higher taxes. I like the libertarian attitude -- it considers no consequences. It must be great.
Posted by: Paul | November 7, 2008 9:01 AM
Thought slots were a good idea a few years ago but then I moved to the city. There are enough existing problems; we don't need to compound the problem with degenerate gambling also. I love how this was passed one day after the vote, corruption is rampant. Believe -- what a joke. The city and state government should be ashamed of itself.
Posted by: Stephen P. | November 7, 2008 9:12 AM
"slots is likely to come from the pockets of Marylanders who live near the slots parlors. That means, in the case of a slots casino in Baltimore".....yeah and these people voted for slots, and approved evey loan measure on the ballot. O;Money and Dixon are well aware that most (Democrat) voters are sheep. The inmates are running the asylum. "Fear the Government, pray for
the Country".....
Posted by: Mark | November 7, 2008 9:26 AM
Thank you Dan for giving your perspective on this issue. As a Baltimore City resident it is evident every single day the problems that plague this area of Baltimore. The focus should really be on uplifting the indigent population instead of trying to use their lower socioeconomic status to supplement state spending.
Posted by: SK | November 7, 2008 12:01 PM
I am so tired of hearing, Slots will pour millions into Baltimore City Schools. Whant happen to the millions from the Mega-mill game? I thought that was the fix all game. I would love to trace $1000.00 dollars played on the mega-mill game and see how much of that money actually finds it's way to the Baltimore City School System.
Posted by: Tony Baxter | November 7, 2008 12:08 PM
How easily we forget, as long as you're the government and not a greedy corporation, preying on the poor is OK.
Also how will vocal and prominent slots opponents now be treated by the state -- will they be targeted because to be against slots will be against the state putting money in its coffers.
Posted by: Bill | November 7, 2008 1:09 PM
Dan,
While I think there are valid arguments both for and against slots...
I'm not sure its fair to lay all of the blame for the slots referendum at the feet of the State of Maryland.
We live in a democracy (kind of) and the issue was put to and ultimately passed by popular vote. I'm not sure how much more one could ask from a political process perspective.
Also, while I dont dispute data that suggests the poor spend a disproportionate % of their income on lottery and slots...
I think the underlying suggestiion that the poor as a group have been hoodwinked is in a sense, insulting.
As you suggest, many poor folks approved the ballot measure. Without delving into school system / socio type issues, your opinion regarding the slots measure and its passing also suggests that low income people are ignorant and are being taken advantage of by the State. Maybe that's true... but maybe its not.
Afterall, as it stands now, if you have a car or access to the Travel Plaza you can go play slots in DE, WV & PA... poor or not.
Ultimately, Some people will play slots, some wont... some (most?) will be poor, some (most?) wont...
...and like B.Cosby said about prisons.. "...Just because they build it, doesnt mean that you have to go..."
In the end, it has to come down to personal accountability. To me, the notion that the State bears the final accountability for the actions of its population, rich or poor, is flawed.
"...Oh, did you hear... so & so blew the rent check at the slots parlor again... ...yeah, can you believe that the State allowed such a thing to happen?"
Slippery slope that one is...
I have always looked at lottery and now slots as a modern day "Food & Circus." I wonder if any studies have been done to help quantify the psychological affect the lotto has on low income participants..
Does it provide a wince of hope that the future could hold something more than the present? If so, Is there a redeeming value in that?
Hell, if it keeps the poor folks from dusting off and wheeling out the guillotine to harbor place and changing the names of the months... then i'm all for slots... (i kid! i kid!)
Seriously though, I dont know any of the answers here. I just think that thhe will of the people deserves some emphasis in this argument regardless of your personal take on the matter... In that vein, low income folks deserve some credit for their decisions that directly affect their lives.
Also, that the State's accountability and resposibility regarding such matter is limited.
I especially think that portraying O'Malley and Dixon as champions and personal stuards of the bill is a little egregious. Afterall ,Ehrlich tried and others are in favor, not the least of whom appear to be Baltimore's poor masses.
DR: This is a long, rambling denial of what has been established as exploitation of low-income people by the state for a long period of time, abided by the greater population and political leaders who conveniently ignore moral hazards in the name of avoiding new taxes and certifying re-election. If you want to be part of the denial that the poor are not more vulnerable than the rest of us, less susceptible to the allure or fast money, then fine. Just please -- please -- don't suggest that O'Malley and the rest did not make all this happen. The damage -- designating slots for Baltimore city -- was done in the legislature last year and that's part of what you voted for Tuesday.
Posted by: bill | November 7, 2008 4:06 PM
Assuming that all of the studies are true, why continue to lament this unfortunate reality. Why not propose outreach programs designed at educating the working poor as to the fact slots gambling is not a quick way out of poverty but rather a shovel digging them deeper into poverty? Why not propose an aggressive state supported savings program that will guarantee a minimum of 5% return for any savings contribution that those at the poverty level can make? Lets offer the poor an actual way out rather than lamenting the appearance of yet another way down.
DR: Yes, please, go for it, Brice. And make sure you have an outreach budget to match the millions the state will spend marketing slots in low-income census tracts.
Posted by: Brice | November 7, 2008 7:29 PM
Many of the rich folks I know gamble, they just don't choose slots. The super rich waste their money by purchasing sports teams. The merely rich gamble on stocks in exotic markets. While you're probably right that these rich folks don't cotton to slot machines, that doesn't mean they're not attracted to the same thrill. Perhaps the reason there are more poor folks at the slot farms is just because of the size of the wager?
Posted by: Bob Roberts | November 8, 2008 6:51 AM
The slots amendment passed with a plurality of votes - end of story, democratically speaking.
While slots will be in designated locations, particularly south Baltimore, there are state lottery machines in every neighborhood. In venturing into almost any liquor store in Baltimore City, at any time of day, one will find a line at the lottery machine. Pick 3, pick 4, midday, evening, megamillion, scratch offs, keeno, etc...some stores even have tables and folding chairs to make it more comfortable for the "helpless" neighbors to come and play keeno for hours. There is a plethora of choices for folks to gamble already. I am not seeing the causal relationship between a casino in Baltimore and low income players spending any more money there than they already do in liquor stores.
I know you will say that the following is wishful thinking, but at least consider it: The placement of the casino in proximity of the stadiums has positive implications - considering the word on the street of rebuilding Pimlico in that same vicinity. This could potentially turn south Baltimore into the largest tourist attraction that the state has to offer. People could actually end up boating into the inner harbor from up and down the east coast, docking, and going to the gambling "compound." This would be huge. Spots in WV, PA, and DE do not offer such an experience. This would also mean a few hotels (and other general development) being constructed - ie JOBS. In the end this would mean real revenue, and not solely from those who already blow their checks on the Maryland lottery.
Just one more general comment: you can only help people so much, Dan. We have generous entitlement programs here in Maryland and I think this has a lot to do with the problem. Outside of the folks who have a compulsive gambling problem, I suspect that if one's rent, food, or children were not compensated for so generously, then there might not be an extra $100 dollars a week to gamble. In other words, if more of the residents of Baltimore felt more ownership and pride in what they have (as opposed to having it given to you), they may not be so inclined to blow every extra cent they have in trying to hit the big one. I guess what I'm saying is that we have created a scenario where these folks have nothing to loose financially whether they win in gambling or not. If they loose, there housing and food is still taken care of. If I or my wife looses, we may not eat for a few days. So guess what?...we don't gamble.
Posted by: Karl | November 8, 2008 6:10 PM
Just in response, thank you for this article. You are saying now what I have been saying for a great, long while. I'm a sociologist by training, but this area isn't my area of expertise, so mostly I went on anecdotal information to frame my argument. At the City agency where I work, it fell of somewhat deaf ears.
After researching on journal engines, I found a ridiculous number of articles that prove that slots and casinos tend to attract two main populations: the poor and the elderly. While we have pretty sad perceptions of the elderly in this country (they are all poor, which isn't true by a longshot), the fact is most slots-going elderly were barely making ends meet.
Anecdotally, it was interesting to see the social class breakdown in my office. Clerical staff who represent the least educated and worst paid were overjoyed to see Question 2 pass. Professional and Executive staff were dismayed.
So no matter when someone posts on here that they know "rich people who spend all day on slots"....well, there's also been reports of Black members of the Nazi party. Science isn't based off the exceptions; trending is based off the most likely picture painted. In this case, that person is most likely poor.
Posted by: Esteban | November 9, 2008 9:13 AM