As Mass. Debates Casinos, Maine Considers MORE Casinos
As Massachusetts voters consider whether they want casinos in the state, another gambling debate is waging to the north.
Maine is currently home to two casinos, one located in Bangor and the other Oxford. A recent report suggested Maine could stand to add up to two more; one in the Portland-centric southeastern part of the state, and another way up near the Canadian border.
That has some Maine legislators excited—at least as far as tax revenue is concerned. The existing casinos, however, are less than thrilled. In making tax base assessments, the report itself suggests the Oxford casino, which is within striking distance of the Portland area, could see a 20 percent “cannibalization factor’’ (note: not the name of a slots game), meaning it could lose a big chunk of business to a new establishment. The Bangor casino already saw a slot revenue decrease of 19 percent when the Oxford casino opened in 2012, the report notes.
From The Bangor Daily News:
Maine’s two existing casinos say the stakes are high and have serious reservations about more casino developments in the state taking away valuable, limited patronage. …
That “cannibalization’’ — a reduction in sales volume, revenue or market share for an existing “product’’ that happens after a new “product’’ is introduced — is exactly what casino officials feared when they went before legislators in 2013 to lobby against several proposed gaming expansion bills. None of those projects moved forward, but they did prompt the Legislature to pursue a study of what the state’s gaming expansion policies and process should look like.
The question being floated by Maine’s casino operators is whether state gambling revenues mean much if the casinos themselves find themselves on rough financial footing. How much squeezing can the rock take? Granted, this is coming from a group whose interests are pretty much on their sleeves.
The brewing debate up north is of limited relevance in Massachusetts, except that it serves as a reminder that lawmakers across New England and in the broader northeast will probably always look to casinos—if only as a last resort—as a way to boost state revenues.
But potential Massachusetts casinos don’t have to worry about any in-state cannibalization, at least not yet. Massachusetts would be making something from nothing on the casino front. Its three planned resorts and a slots parlor would be the ones doing the cannabalizing of other states’ markets, as locals wouldn’t need to venture out of state for a taste of glitz, glamor, and gambling. That Massachusetts residents are taking their dollars elsewhere is, after all, one of the arguments casino supporters are making this election season. Why let some other state profit off our residents’ gambling when we can keep it here?
So it’s little surprise that the Massachusetts market-to-be is another argument Maine’s casino operators are making against adding more casinos there, according to the Daily News:
“Maine’s gambling revenues have flattened,’’ said Jane Hoyt, spokeswoman for Oxford Casino. “Our concern is that additional casinos in Maine, or in neighboring states such as Massachusetts or New Hampshire, will have a direct negative impact to jobs and economic development, not only at the casino property but also as it relates to rural Oxford County.’’
Rhode Island, too, is worried about losing out on slots revenues to Massachusetts. Voters there will be tasked next month with deciding whether to transition the Newport Grand slots parlor into a full casino.
And Connecticut’s casinos have seen revenues dip in recent years, in part due to the growth of New York’s own fledgling gambling market. Steve Wynn’s Everett casino, as well as Penn National’s Plainville slots parlor and the MGM casino in Springfield, are expected to serve as a further drag on that market, too.
Existing casinos, it seems, are learning the harsh realities of life in a crowded market. But you know what they say: You can’t win if you don’t play.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com