Who actually benefits from casinos?

Time is running out and we now number the period to "election day" in days, not weeks.

In an ideal situation, we would have 100 percent of the eligible voters registered and well informed about the candidates and the issues when we go to the polls on Nov. 6. The unfortunate truth is not everyone will register, the turnout will be disappointing and many will cast votes on issues or positions with limited or little knowledge of the fine print hidden in the details of the proposed legislation.

Among the issues we are being asked to decide, which concern our state's constitution, the casino topic may be affected by out-of-state interests more than the others. It is listed as Issue 4 and the purpose is to bring a limited number of casinos to Arkansas for the supposed benefit of a few areas. One's own views of gambling probably affect how one votes on this issue as much as the actual merits of casino gambling. As a very biased observer of campaign advertising, the whole idea of how any issue is presented tells a lot about who is going to benefit. When you have a former football coach talking about the effect of casinos on the economy of other states, you need to ask "What does a football coach know about the impact on another state's roads?"

Does he actually live in one of those states, or is he a resident of Arkansas? Having seen him in commercials promoting casinos in other states, I certainly question his interest in Arkansas' economic welfare. The ads that are sponsored by Driving Arkansas Forward seem to indicate we are losing millions of tax dollars to other states each year. The ads have changed from those touting actual numbers to general comments about the economic losses as the election nears. It would be interesting to know more about the actual owners of the casinos and where the advertising dollars supporting the casinos come from. The ads touting the benefits of the casinos are probably the same ones New Jersey residents heard when the expansion of the gaming industry in Atlantic City was going to solve all the state's problems -- new tax revenue, lots of new jobs, etc. The promises sound good but don't seem to materialize in the long run. Certainly Oklahoma and Mississippi don't seem to have all the road improvements and prosperity we are told we will have if we approve the four casinos listed on this issue.

If one wants to participate in gambling, it is not for me to decide when and where. However, I know very few people who live to play slot machines or risk their money at poker tables, so I might be poorly informed. What Arkansas will be known for in the years to come will affect my grandchildren's views of their family's heritage, however. The Las Vegas ads about "what happens here stays here" may be amusing and even appealing, but they present Las Vegas in a negative light for the family entertainment most of us seek. Do the people of Arkansas actually want this type of lifestyle handed down to the next generation?

Perhaps we need to look at the sponsors of this proposal to measure the real benefactors if it passes.

As for us simple folks at our house, we would prefer Arkansas gambling be kept to horse racing in Hot Springs and let the one-arm bandits stay where they are. We know there will be at least two "no" votes on this issue.

•••

Editor's note: Leo Lynch, an award-winning columnist, is a native of Benton County and has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. The opinions expressed are those of the author. He is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace.

Editorial on 10/17/2018