Casino support seen as tenuous in Midwestern, Southern states

David Strow

Wednesday, June 28, 2000 | 11:09 a.m.

A new study out of the University of Nevada, Reno said Midwestern residents are generally supportive of the casinos that have sprung up in their communities over the past decade -- but one of the study's authors suggests that support is tenuous at best.

"This country has had legalized gambling many times before, and it has been banned many times before," said Mark Nichols, a professor of economics at UNR. "If we think we've reached some kind of superior state where it can't happen again, we're deluding ourselves."

Nichols, together with Grant Stitt of UNR and David Giacopassi of the University of Memphis, surveyed the attitudes of residents in new gaming jurisdictions on what effect gambling had on their local economies. The men delivered their findings at the 11th International Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking, a UNR-sponsored conference this month in Las Vegas.

Nearly 2,800 residents were surveyed in seven midwestern cities and in Biloxi, Miss.

Overall, 60 percent of those surveyed agreed that casinos had benefited the community, and that the community had made the right choice by legalizing gambling. Not surprisingly, the most adamant group against casinos were those that said they were morally opposed to gambling.

"It's a majority, but not an overwhelming majority," Nichols said. "It's still a contentious issue. If a few scandals occur, people's attitudes can switch very, very quickly."

Moreover, Nichols noted, the communities surveyed hadn't experienced a recession since the casinos opened -- and he said that attitudes could swing once a recession did hit.

The strongest support for casinos came in their impact on tourism, a result that perplexed Nichols. Nearly 90 percent of respondents said casinos had increased tourism to their communities.

"That was somewhat surprising ... you don't go to Sioux City (Iowa, as a tourist) to gamble," Nichols said.

Residents also believed, on the whole, that casinos hadn't hurt local businesses much -- 71 percent disagreed with the statement that the casinos had led to closings among local businesses.

About 50 percent said business had improved since the casinos opened, while 44 percent said business remained about the same. Only 6 percent claimed business had fallen.

"Many of the communities were struggling, so going down (after casinos opened) would have been quite a task," Nichols said.

But there was a far greater division of opinion over the statement that casinos took more cash out of the community than they contributed. A slight majority -- 51 percent -- agreed with this statement. Least likely to agree with the statement were Biloxi residents.

"Many of these (casino) companies are Nevada companies," Nichols said. "People may perceive money is being taken out of their communities."

Gamblers were then asked to say where they would have spent their money if not on gambling; non-gamblers were asked where they believed gambling money came from.

One in three gamblers said their gambling funds came at the expense of their entertainment budgets, making it the most popular answer. Twenty-four percent said gaming funds came from their living expenses. Disposable income and luxury items were named by 10 percent of gamblers, followed by savings and investments (7 percent).

By comparison, one-third of non-gamblers said they believed gambling funds came out of gamblers' living expenses, while only 15 percent said the funds came from entertainment budgets. Six percent said they believed the funds came at the expense of charity, an answer given by less than one-half of 1 percent of gamblers.

"Non-gamblers seem to have the perception they're cutting spending on their families, living expenses and charities," Nichols said.