The argument for ending the coddling of Delaware's three existing casinos
Should Delaware's three existing casinos be permitted to rise or fall on their own? No more special tax, but no longer any state-protected, exclusivity? If somebody wanted to open another casino, so be it. If one of the existing casinos could not stay afloat in such a competitive environment, so be it. Bottom line: Get Delaware out of the casino business.
That's the core argument advanced in a NEWS-JOURNAL editorial today. I suspect many would agree. Will state lawmakers, some parochially tied to the existing casino interests, have the guts and vision to see the broader picture? To be sure, Delaware got an easy cash-cow with the casinos for a number of years. That time has passed.
I agree, Delaware should not be giving the racinos any special treatment. Funny how so-called, "free-market" capitalists want to be free to take risks, and if successful, want to keep all the money; they hate the government. Yet, if not successful, then they want you and me, the taxpayer, the government, to bail them out. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think? This is NOT how capitalism is supposed to work. If not successful, then you lose YOUR money and go out-of-business. The rewards can be great, but the losses can also be great. That's how it's supposed to work. You'd think folks running gambling businesses would understand this better than anyone else! What they want is a sure thing. THAT is NOT capitalism; that's the taxpayer being made a sucker of.
So if the three racinos want to stay in business, then they better figure out a revised business model that will again attract those out-of-staters to come to Delaware Park, Dover Downs, and Harrington.
Sure, if someone wants to open a new place in Wilmington, why not, as long as there's no state or county money involved. Competition is what makes capitalism work best. So let the best racinos/casinos win your business, not the taxpayer financially supporting a dying business of horse racing as a ruse to have legalized casinos in Delaware.
Thu, May 8, 2014 9:41am
It was so easy for the state government to take over part of the mob's turf. We let the casinos take over gambling in the state, but they had to pay for protection, just like the mob used to do. When gambling opened up to include sports gambling, the state even went after bars who organized pools on NFL games and horse races. The casinos got their money's worth from the "protection tax" they paid. The mob couldn't have done it better.
But now the dollars are drying up. The casinos are hurting and the Democrats are like a heroin addict needing a fix. Where will the money come from to feed the nanny state's hunger? The News-Journal's editorial is correct. But we will have to put the state government in rehab if we follow that advice.
Thu, May 8, 2014 10:00am
If they were truly worried about the demise of the casinos, they would have raised the minimum wage to $10.10... and required Delaware's employers to give no less than 15% annual salary or pay increases to everyone working in the state....
People can't gamble what they don't have.... The other option, first floated here in this blog, is to make recreational marijuana only legal in our casino's...
"Honey? Do you want to take me to Atlantic City or Harrah's in Chester this weekend?"
"I wanna go to Delaware!!! Hurry up, get in the car."
Thu, May 8, 2014 10:36am
The racinos, like most everything else in Delaware, are second-class. Dover tried to upgrade its space, but it's pretty sad. Delaware Park is an absolute eyesore inside and out, and God only knows how Harrington looks. All gambling is down, but at least the places in MD and PA are new and up-to-date. They are supposed to be destinations, but when they are run-down and shoddy, they don't really attract anyone. Just like resorts in the islands. Every 5 years, they are re-modeling becaue the new ones are much nicer and garner more interest. Reduce their tax-burden, open up the market to anyone else who wants to take a stab, and let the chips fall where they will.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, May 8, 2014 10:41am
Get 'em stoned so they'll want to come here, and of course bet more, and then go out on our roads??
Maybe allow this ONLY for those who arrive via Fairplay Station [SEPTA or DART]. Have a free shuttle running from Fairplay Station to the casino. Think how many folks would then take mass transit to go gamble in Stanton! Maybe work out a deal with MART [Maryland Area Regional Transit] to make runs from Baltimore to Delaware Park a couple times a day. Maybe N.J. Transit would run buses or trains to Fairplay too.
Maybe Delaware Park would use some of that vast land to put up a high-rise hotel with a couple of restaurants, have good quality shows/performers of various musical styles. Actually make Delaware Park a real venue.
All this can, and should, be done without taxpayers' money. Yes, this is pie-in-the-sky stuff, but who knows?
Thu, May 8, 2014 8:18pm
Casinos are just like the lottery: Exploitation of the underclass.
Mike from Delaware
Fri, May 9, 2014 8:49am
Mrpizza: My assumption, is that you - as I - are not gamblers. This is part of are 21st century version of ancient Rome, give the people their circuses. Lotteries and Casinos are today's circuses for the masses. Sports arenas are our version of the Collesium, minus the swords and lions. Most times, no one dies in our more santitized version.
But my bigger question for you is, would you be willing to pay more taxes if those casinos/lotteries were eliminated? My guess is you'd say NO.
My feeling is, you and I can spend our money as we see fit [as long as it's not against the law], so those folks should be able to do that also. For you, my guess is gambling is immoral, but for those folks it is not. So if they want to give the state their hard-earned money voluntarily [no one is sending the IRS out to make them go and play the games], then who are we to say no to their desire or dream to try to hit it big at a casino or lottery game?
This is one of those areas where you and I have a different approach to sharing our faith. You want to tell others what they can, and cannot do, based on your understanding of God's Holy Word, the Bible. I believe that until they come to know the Risen Christ, they can't possibly understand what we're saying. You believe abortion is sinful - they do not - so they oppose you and our faith when you want to legislate against them being able to do that. Same with other issues, such as Gay/Lesbian marriage.
Because of this "Legislating Morality" that started in the mid 1970's with Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority", people outside the church now no longer see the church as a positive force in our nation and now avoid it. Because they see the followers of Jesus - not as loving folks - but as judging and condemning folks. Think what was said about the 1st century Church... "look at how they love one another." Wouldn't it be great to hear about today's Church?
The approach used to be a person comes to Christ just as you are [remember the hymn that Billy Graham used at his crusades during the altar call - Just As I AM]. Then God will clean you up in his way and in his timing. Today, many Christians want the sinner to get rid of his/her sins BEFORE the sinner can come to Christ. The blindfold those folks outside the church are wearing hasn't been removed yet, because they are not yet followers of Jesus. So many Christians today have got the horse before the cart and are chasing people away from Christ instead of helping them come to Christ.
I realize you'll totally disagree with my position, but that's how I see it based on MY understanding of God's Holy Word, The Bible.
Fri, May 9, 2014 11:27am
MFD: I have a counter question for you. Since all legislation is based on SOMEBODY's morality, then if candidates that agree with me get elected, then don't I have a right to have MY view represented?
Funny how it's okay for the Democrats to impose THEIR version of morality on all of us, but if the voters throw them out and replace them with people who agree with me, then my people have to comply with whatever the Democrats passed previously, or at least that's how your logic looks to me.
So much for a "democratic" process.
Fri, May 9, 2014 2:47pm
Additionally, your "Just As I Am" argument, while I agree with it in regards to personal evangelism, is irrelevant to this discussion. I would argue that legalized gambling is a stumbling block to the weakest members of society. In fact, it doesn't stop there. The folks who are paying $5 and up for a pack of cigarettes are those who can least afford it.
I would also submit that since it's mostly the poor that buy this stuff, then it creates a sort of tennis game where the lottery tickets and cigarette taxes just get refunded to the poor with interest rather than the money going for the so-called benefit of schools and senior citizens.
Keep in mid also that the reason gambling was legalized in the first place was because politicians, Republicans included, are terrible stewards of taxpayer dollars so they have to come up with new ways to fuel their addiction. Maybe if politicians learned how to handle money they wouldn't need to exploit the rest of us for more and more ways to throw it to the wind.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.