Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Students at the University of Maine, like voters elsewhere around the state, will hold the keys to Maine’s future in their hands as they approach the ballots on Tuesday, Nov. 4. Undoubtedly the most pressing ballot issue is the potential allowance for a $650 million resort casino to be built within the state’s borders by the Penobscot Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe.
Question 3 simply states: “Do you want to allow a casino to be run by the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation if part of the revenue is used for state education and municipal revenue sharing?”
Opponents of the proposed resort casino want you to believe that its construction will bring crime, addiction and an unwanted image to the state. Proponents of the bill want you to believe that a resort casino will bring jobs, revenue and unlimited benefits. While both sides can be accused of oversimplifying the issue, the reality of the situation is far more complicated. And while no crystal ball exists to tell us exactly how a resort casino will affect Maine, reasonable inferences can be made after studying the bill’s summary on the State of Maine Web site, maine.gov.
To begin, the summary of the bill clearly states that the license on the casino will be issued for a period of 20 years, and that the license cannot be amended without the consent of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation. What that means, in effect, is that Maine will be saddled with this decision, right or wrong, for a period of no less than 20 years. If, after a five-year period of operation, the resort casino has proved critics right and opened the floodgates to crime and addiction within our state, the voters are powerless to change their minds for another decade and a half. That means the average college student will be his early 40s by the time he has another chance to speak his mind on the casino issue.
While temporary construction jobs and low education jobs within the casino may be created, the idea that a casino will generate a flood of employment is wrong. Proponents of this bill who live outside of Cumberland and York counties cite jobs as their primary reason for voting yes. While some jobs will no doubt be created, a resort casino in Southern Maine will not solve the state’s unemployment issues. More importantly, the construction of a resort casino will provide limited jobs for Mainers with a post secondary education, providing almost no relief to the state’s so called brain-drain. In fact, many believe that the casino would have a negative impact on employment in Southern Maine, and would do little to positively affect the tourism industry.
In the tourism hot-bed of York County, a legitimate fear exists that the creation of a resort casino would result in a loss of jobs due to the inability of inns, hotels, restaurants and bars to compete with the proposed 800-plus room casino resort. Just days ago, the Maine Hospitality and Tourism Alliance joined a litany of other voices in a public stance against the resort casino. They based their opposition on the potential loss of jobs that might result from a casino in Sanford. Other tourism advocacy groups who have taken a public stance against the resort-casino include the Ski Maine Association, the Maine Campground Owners Association and the Maine Tourism Association.
The issue of compensation for Maine and the communities surrounding the casino is clear. The only monetary benefit the state will receive from the casino will be 25 percent of the income generated by slot machines. Of that sum, 50 percent will go to local governments for property tax relief, 40 percent will be allocated into the state’s general purpose aid for education, five percent to students seeking grants for higher education and five percent to private organizations that exist to award scholarships for higher education.
No money will be allocated to surrounding communities that will be hit hardest by increased traffic flow and the potential increase of criminal activity. No money will be allotted to the budgets of local or state law-enforcement agencies that would be charged with policing the new attraction. No money will be allotted to state coffers to deal with potential addiction issues. No money will be awarded the state from any game other than slots, and Maine can do nothing to change that for 20 years.
Furthermore, while the casino proponents wax poetic on the amount of money that will flow into the state, thus reversing the downward curve of the Pine Tree State’s economic trajectory, the truth is that the largest beneficiary of the proposition’s passage would not be Maine citizens, nor would it be the tribes: it would be a nameless, faceless Las Vegas entity, with no interest in education, grant money, or property tax relief.
It is tempting to see a casino – an image that intrinsically shines dollar signs in our eyes – as a panacea of sorts for the state. Indeed, the most effective pro-Question 3 advertisements have capitalized on Mainers’ fears that without action, their beloved home will become the metaphorical equivalent of a boat without an engine, drifting in the sea of a national fiscal crisis. But this argument fundamentally ignores that the fact the casino targets the wrong region – one of the richest counties in Maine – and offers the wrong jobs – low-paying – in the wrong amount – many of the jobs generated by the casino will be offered only in the construction phases, leaving a new crisis of unemployment in its wake.
The Maine Campus believes that voters should not be pressured by interest groups into deciding the outcome of a “best of two evils” debate, whereby they must either support a spotty resolution or flush their economic livelihood the way of the textile mill. The proposed casino’s income will not revive Maine fiscally. We must vote no on Question 3 until a legitimate stimulus proposition is presented.
The preceeding editorial is the express written opinion of The Maine Campus Editorial Board.
Bangor Daily News