With the announcement by the Genting Group and others to petition the state Legislature to allow for a broadening of gambling in South Florida, a focused objective public policy discussion on this possible new industry must be undertaken.
I applaud the governor and state legislators for establishing a process to discuss the key issues associated with this game changing proposal for our state. The critical question that must be answered is this: What are the true costs and benefits of expanded legalized gambling in South Florida? The public and private sectors must engage in an objective, unbiased evaluation of the costs and benefits of casino gambling as it is being proposed.
The proponents of expanded casino gambling cite most often the economic benefits resulting from casino gambling as job growth, attracting additional tourism, increasing business and tax revenues, and decreasing the tax burden on the local community -- all laudable goals. Less-often mentioned are the social costs: crime, compulsive gambling, erosion of work ethic, traffic congestion, among others.
This question must be addressed: Will the expansion of casino gambling in Miami-Dade and other counties hinder or foster economic development in the state of Florida? While there is no question the casinos and the projects directly associated with gambling developments will prosper, are there economic benefits for the community as a whole resulting in noncasino job creation? Will casinos draw from other venues and other sectors? Will the establishment of expanded gambling also benefit or have a negative impact on the perception and reality of the growth of a broad-based diversified economy here?
Before the state and local governments agree to support the expansion of gambling, as attractive as the proposals may be, an objective community dialogue must evaluate the potential short-term and long-term impact in South Florida and the state of Florida. I have listed below some of the issues I recommend the governor and state legislators examine and consider. Clearly these are just a sample of key issues. There are many more specific ones that should be examined thoroughly.
Land speculation could inflate prices of real estate and appraised value of land around the casino development, ensuring that no one would be able to afford to buy or rent near the property and many merchants would have to find locations elsewhere. Residential displacement could be an end result.
Only employees who have been trained to work in the casinos will be able to get the higher paying skilled jobs at casinos. Few locals are currently trained for these jobs. Why not use the time to require any new casinos to train local workers so that those jobs indeed go to the local community? No casino should open unless and until the local workforce can be identified and trained. How can that be accomplished and who will pay?
The impact on current businesses Cannibalization of local business: Destination resorts can have a negative impact on neighboring businesses because consumers are encouraged to stay in the resort and spend their money there, instead of going out to restaurants, merchants, plays and other venues.
The social costs of alcoholism, gambling addiction, prostitution, organized and street crime. Who pays? The cost of impact of these social costs are usually vastly underestimated by local government.
Traffic and costs associated with new infrastructure: Who pays?
The impact, if any, on tourism, economic development and district revitalizations.
The net tax to state and local governments. History says the state usually is the major beneficiary of new tax revenues while local governments receive proportionately less and usually assume most of the costs. What are the recent models adopted by other states?
Regulatory requirements: Will employees with criminal records be allowed to work at the casino? What controls are needed? How can we ensure that local companies are equitably represented as casino vendors and service providers?
Substitution of tax revenue from other noncasino tax generation expenditures.
Issues in regard to temporary license to open before it is fully vetted.
Impact on current pari-mutuels and potential loss of tax revenue they generate.
Support of prospective image of the state of Florida as a diversified international business platform in addition to tourism and gambling centers. How can this be achieved? Can additional revenue be created to promote noncasino industries to help local and expanding industries in Florida?
Local vs. state control and input relative to casino regulation and economic investment requirements.
The state Legislature should ensure and conduct an objective and thorough analysis, not paid for by the casinos or any other partner invested in gambling. I would also recommend that the governor develop a blue ribbon committee or task force to evaluate these issues in order to work in concert with the Legislature and local governments evaluating this issue. This independent study should encompass, but not be limited to, the issues I have outlined above. The thrust of this study should focus on the potential positive and negative economic and social impacts destination casino gambling would bring to locales and the state of Florida.
I would anticipate the planned individual study could be completed by next years legislative session. If its a good idea, it will be a good idea when the report is completed. If its not, then it underscores why the report was necessary.
Ialso strongly recommend that hearings on this issue be conducted throughout the entire state.
Frank R. Nero is president and CEO of The Beacon Council,Miami-Dade County's official economic development partnership.
