To the editor:

With the November 8 vote concerning the establishment of a casino in Tiverton on the horizon, I wanted to explain what has led to my decision to publicly oppose that proposal.

Originally, I was firmly neutral. I probably would have abstained on the issue.  After all: it would be located a long way from where I live; I wasn’t planning on ever visiting it no matter where it was located; and if other people wanted to spend their hard-earned cash that way, far be it from me to stop them.  

On top of that, I am generally in favor of creating jobs and generating local revenue — especially to lower current property tax rates.  While I saw a casino as a far-from-ideal solution, I wasn’t going to hinder the potential benefits.  I saw my only real concern to be finding ways to avoid the increased traffic it would generate.

But then I started considering the information that was being generated on both sides of the issue, and I soon realized that a casino in Tiverton would not be a neutral situation.  It could be a boon for the town or it could turn into a disaster.  So I decided to do some of my own research.

I cannot say that my research is exhaustive, but it has been representative of pro, con and neutral resources.  And I have been swayed by information that has consistently appeared on the majority of places I looked.

First, and at the risk of stating the obvious, casinos exist to make money by people gambling, and to do that, they must take in more revenue than they pay out in winnings.  In order to do that, the casinos have

fixed payoff rates that favor them over time based on statistical probabilities.

This is not a criticism, but it is a much overlooked fact.  And one that casinos don’t tend to emphasize.  The appeal of casinos is the possibility of winning.  And there will be some winners with some payoffs. However, it is a mathematical certainty that the more a person gambles the more certainly that person will lose money.  Over time, no one will beat the casino.

However, in any given population, about 25 percent of the people will try.  Gambling addiction is a recognized illness in medical circles, and about one out of every four people will be a problem gambler to some degree: they will not be able manage their gambling tendencies in a healthy manner.  Many of these people will seek help and support before they completely destroy their lives; some will go on to ruin their lives and adversely affect all those around them.  

While casinos take no responsibility for this, research clearly shows that gambling addiction increases in direct proportion to the proximity to a casino. The Twin River management projects $50,000,000 in revenue annually.  How many people does that represent?  If the average gambler spends $500 annually, that represents 100,000 people gambling per year: Of those, 25,000 will be problem gamblers — roughly the population of Tiverton and Little Compton combined.

The second piece of information that I found is that there is clear evidence that the crime rates in communities that house a casino rise significantly.  There are a variety of factors that determine exactly how much it rises, but a rise in crime (especially burglary, auto theft and embezzlement) is well documented.  Along with this, other crimes such as drug trafficking and sex trafficking tend to increase around casinos.  Not only does this represent a major negative disruption in our community, but it also represents an unforeseen cost to the casino.

The revenue generated by the casino will to a great degree be offset by the increase in law enforcement costs, including more officers on staff and additional processing costs.

The last piece of information that surfaced with great consistency is the impact that a casino has on local businesses.  The casino claims it will increase revenue for the town, but not by bringing in more patrons for other businesses, especially ones with competing services.  For instance, the casino will have eateries and gift shops, giving its patrons no reason to leave and explore other eateries or gift shops in Tiverton. In fact, if anything, the casino will represent direct aggressive competition to other already existing businesses, and so the existence of the casino will represent an overall loss of revenue for the town. Given the fact that the proposed site of the casino is in the north end of town right off the highway, there is nothing that would compel visitors to travel beyond the casino.  And the casino owners, being businessmen, have no vested interest or obligation to send potential revenue away to other venues.

On top of the information that I’ve disclosed, there is another point I would like to make.  Right now, Twin River is stating that Tiverton will receive minimally $4,000,000 a year through 2030.  But the statement in the recent flyer is left suspiciously vague, leaving a lot of room juggling details.  And I suspect the general public will not be privy to the terms, conditions and fine print.  We won’t have any idea of that until we notice a problem and say, “Hey, what’s up with that?” and someone points out in the contract, “Well it says right here…”  And by then, it will be too late.

I am opposed to the casino not only because there are too many major problems associated with casinos, but also because the benefits are far too elusive and uncertain.  Having a casino is a huge gamble with incredibly poor odds, and the town of Tiverton will pay dearly when we lose.

Rev. Patrick Crough

Pastor, First Baptist Church in Tiverton