8
THE WEIRS TIMES, Thursday, April 15, 2010
GAMBLING from 6
Constitution, I believe this state-mandated monopoly is certainly in violation of the spirit of that article which begins, “Govern- ment being instituted for the common benefit, pro- tection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family or class of them;”
Allowing these six facili-
GLENDALE Marine LTD.
Sales • Service • Valet Rack Storage • Rentals
VALET RACK STORAGE
LOCATION • LOCATION • LOCATION
Next to NH Marine Patrol & Gilford Town Docks
Launch Directly onto the Open Water of the Largest Lake in NH with No Channels or Bottlenecks to Worry About.
We Offer Summer, Day, Week, Month & Year-Round Valet Storage
CHECK OUT OUR LOW RATES!
603-293-2007
17 Dock Road • Gilford, NH 03249
www.glendalemarineltd.com
ties to enjoy an expanded gambling monopoly (albeit for a fee), without any bid- ding process, is institut- ing government for the “interest or emolument” of a certain class of people. In a sense, it’s like giving six businesses a license to print money. During the hearing Rep.
Tim Butterworth (d-Ches- terfield) sited another pro- vision of the New Hamp- shire Constitution Part 2, Article 83 (yes, the very section that gives us the word “cherish” in regard to education). It is quite clear, “Free and fair competition in the trades and indus- tries is an inherent and es- sential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it.” The article goes on to charge the legislature with the responsibility to prevent operations within the state which endeavor to destroy free and fair competition. Quite simply, for us to fos-
ter the destruction of free and fair competition, as this bill does, is a violation of our oath of office. The argument on this bill
need proceed no farther. If we are to have expanded gambling, the state should either open it up to every interested party (probably not a great idea) or should control the operation itself and keep 100 percent of the profit as they do with liquor and lottery tickets. Regarding the state
share, the D’Allesandro bill has already lowered the state’s share down to 30 percent (39 percent if you include the numerous dedicated funds, none of which I support--the en- tire amount the state gets should go into the General Fund to be split up dur- ing the normal budgetary course of events). Last year, the state’s share was 40 percent (49 percent if you consider the dedicated funds), so we’ve lost 10 percent already. What a way to do business! My other general con-
cern is with the pervasive- ness of this bill. Again, I’m not against people going gambling, but this bill in fact creates three mega-es- tablishments within 25-30 miles of each other. How far is it from Hudson to Salem to Seabrook? Does anyone honestly believe three huge gambling em- poriums can exist in such close proximity? Or are these three locations just thrown into the pot to cur- ry votes from legislators in those three areas? Note that the D’Allesandro
ICE DAMAGE? NEED DOCK or SHORELINE WORK?
Visit Our Stores To See All The Boatlifts & Docks
• Plan ahead - permits take time! • Make an appointment today for a site visit! • Schedule projects early!
www.docksource.com www.nhpermits.com
Visit our store at 29 Gilford East Drive, Gilford, NH
Winter Hours (or call for appointment)
Open Daily From 9:00-5:00, Saturday 9:00-12:00, Closed Sunday
29 Gilford East Drive, Gilford NH 603-293-4000
552 Route 11, Sunapee, NH 603-763-6440
Open Daily From 8:00-8:00, Saturday 8:00-12:00 (starting 4/18) Closed Sunday
Crank-Up Dock
bill offers three percent of revenues to the host community. That’s good for Salem, Seabrook and Hudson, but not so good for Manchester and most other cities and towns. Speaking of Manchester, it would be an ideal loca- tion for the gambling em- porium. We have 700,000 visitors to the Verizon Wireless arena each year and at least a couple mil- lion people flying into the Manchester-Boston Re- gional Airport. Certain- ly Manchester would be a better (maybe even at the Verizon!!) than Salem, Hudson, or Seabrook, but let’s not get into parochial quibbling here other than
to note that Manchester needs the revenue more. The median family income for the state (as noted in the most recent educa- tion funding data sheets) is $57,575. It’s $50,039 for Manchester; $67,278 for Salem, $71,313 for Hudson!! While Seabrook’s median
income is only $47,718, its equalized property valuation per student is $2,665,548, nearly four times the $685,593 per student in Manchester. Talk about the rich get- ting richer! This gambling bill certainly does not re- ward communities which need help the most....So if you’re from Manchester and you’re emailing me to support this bill, think twice because I’ll ask you why Manchester should not get a piece of this ex- panded gambling action. I’ll go into just one of
a dozen or so less ma- jor points here. Section 284-A:8 spells out distri- bution formula. Again, I do not support dedicated funds, but I have special problems with section 8 (A) which will funnel one percent of revenues from five locations (all except the Hudson one which will “give” the one per- cent to commuter rail) into the racing and charita- ble gambling commission for enhancing “live racing purses.” There’s no lan- guage as to how this will be split up, so just imagine the fight over this. Will 100 percent go to Rock- ingham? How much will go to bring back dog racing which the House last week voted by a 69-31 percent margin to end? In effect, what this expanded gam- bling bill is doing is force feeding a dying industry. We’re going to give millions and millions of dollars to force dogs to race whether people want to watch dog racing or not. No thanks. Expanded gambling, by
all means! But not this incarnation!
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40