Casino opponents present
findings to county planners    

By Richard D. L. Fulton
Emmitsburg News Editor

GETTYSBURG, Pa. – With an April 5 public hearing date set by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board on the Gettysburg casino proposal, members of No Casino Gettysburg, an opposition group of local residents and merchants, presented a casino-related cost-benefit analysis to the Adams County Planning Commission on Feb. 15.

Much of the report challenges the Dec. 20, 2005 local impact report from Chance Enterprises, Inc., the group proposing the Crossroads Gaming Resort & Spa (formerly the Gettysburg Casino & Spa), to be located in Straban Township on Route 30 near the U.S. 15 interchange.

“Gettysburg Casino: Facts, a cost-benefit analysis of casino gambling in Adams County” was prepared by Keith Miller, Ridgefield, Conn., in conjunction with No Casino Gettysburg.

Miller’s study on potential economic and social impact of a Gettysburg area casino is based on data taken from other casino areas and applied to Adams County demographics, and addresses potential growth, benefits, heritage tourism loss, diversion and abused funds, and social costs.

No one spoke on Chance’s behalf at the Feb. 15 planning meeting, nor was it evident that anyone from that casino group attended.

Local economic benefit uncertain

According to the Chance report, the casino complex will generate $3 in revenue for every $1 spent by the county. “This fiscal benefit excludes any local grants from the ‘Local Share Assessment (LSA)’ and on-site and off-site hotel tax resulting from the casino.”

In his study, Miller expressed concerns that the casino would draw many of its service-level employees from the local tourist-oriented businesses, suggesting there might not be 923 individuals (the number of newly-created, service-level jobs suggested by Chance) within the immediate area to fill those jobs. He also pointed out that promises of improved benefits or a slight increase in pay could drain employees from local businesses.

Miller is quick to point out that Chance’s benefit claims depend directly on the casino’s success, stating, “It is also important to realize it might not ever get this good, because Gettysburg is such a marginal casino site.”

John Brabender, Brabender Cox, Philadelphia, who handles public relations for Chance, could not be reached by deadline for comments.

Social impacts including suicide and crime

Chance stated in its Dec. 20, 2005 local impact report, “There is a lack of a causal link between negative social impacts and the gambling industry.”

Regarding suicide, the casino’s report stated, “Presumed links between gambling and increases in suicide are also without support, stating that studies have found “no correlation between state-legalized gambling and state suicide rates.”

The report cited a 1997 study conducted by Jeremy Margolis which concluded, “Communities with casinos are just as safe as communities without casinos,” and found, “Little documentation existed to link gambling and crime.” Chance’s report further indicated, “Crime rates tend to either remain the same or decrease when gaming establishments are developed in an area.”

Addressing compulsive gambling, the Chance report points out there are resources in place to help those who may go beyond casual gambling. The report did not admit or deny a connection between the existence of casinos and addiction to gambling.

The Miller study challenged most of Chance’s claims. Miller’s findings indicated that suicide among addicted gamblers is ten times the 0.012 percent suicide rate in the general population.

Based on projections in the increase of addicted gamblers in the county in relation to an equivalent rise in suicides among them, a Gettysburg area casino would lead to two to three suicides in the county per year, according to Miller.

Referring to the 2000 study, “Casinos Crime and Community Costs,” by Earl Grinols, David Mustard and Cynthia Hunt Dilley, Miller noted that, according to the 2000 study, “Counties with casinos suffered increased violent and property crimes beginning about three years after the opening of a casino,” adding, “In the last year of this analysis about ten percent of violent crimes and eight percent of property crimes were credited to the introduction of a casino.”

Regarding treatment for those addicted to gambling, Miller states, “The Pennsylvania Gaming Act 71 set aside only $1.5 million for all Pennsylvania to treat this problem,” which the 2000 study found insufficient (based on Canadian figures for treating gambling addicts), and concludes, “This (gambling addiction) problem will erupt in communities wholly unprepared and unfunded to treat it.”

Heritage tourism impact

Regarding impact on visits to historical sites near the casino, Chance cited a report written by Dr. Duarte B. Morris, assistant professor in the Pennsylvania State University’s Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management, produced at the request of the casino applicants.

Morris projected in his paper, “Casino Development and Historic Preservation in Gettysburg, Pa.,” that “approximately 15 to 20 percent of casino visitors will visit Gettysburg National Battlefield Park and other local attractions bringing economic benefits … a small but meaningful proportion.”

However, casino visitors unfamiliar with the American Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg will not find any orientation to the battle, because Chance has stated, “There will be no emphasis on the history of the region or the Civil War” within the casino complex.

Miller’s report doubted the validity of the “15 to 20 percent” of casino visitors whom Chance’s reports says would visit the park and town for its historic attributes and to shop, stating, “If the casino is built, Gettysburg can anticipate losing about a quarter of its 1.7 million annual heritage tourist visitors.”

“Heritage tourists, who frequently travel as families with children, seek authentic and educational experiences to bring meaning to their lives. Such tourists differ markedly from gamblers,” Miller wrote.

In a survey of 300 tourists in Gettysburg on July 2-3, 2005, conducted by No Casino Gettysburg, indicated that 53 percent of those surveyed said they would not return to Gettysburg if a casino were built, according to Miller.

(See related story, “Studies and forms available on-line: April 5 hearing to be held on casino” in this issue of The Dispatch.)