March 26, 2009
Response from the racetracks

When I wrote my earlier post about how much revenue expanded gambling would generate for Texas, I said I'd be more than happy to do a similar exercise for someone on the pro-gambling side of things. Sure enough, I got an email from Mike Lavigne on behalf of Texans for Economic Development, who sent me a copy of a study done by TXP that examined the question for the horse racing interests. I've uploaded it here (PDF) for your perusal. The main thrust of the argument is as follows:

Texans are already gaming at a high level. Based on data from a variety of sources, including state gaming commissions, convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs), and other academic studies, TXP has estimated the current gaming revenue in a seven-state region that is attributable to Texans at approximately $2.3 billion during 2007, the equivalent of about 3.8 percent of the national total. This is the assumed universe of current Texan gaming; while there undoubtedly are individual instances of Texans gaming elsewhere in the country, it does not appear to be significant.

The Innovation Group was engaged by Texans for Economic Development to estimate the size of Texas' gaming market. A summary of their results follows. As the table indicates, the total Texas market approaches $4.2 billion in gaming revenue at full implementation. However, there is still leakage out of state, as some Texans will continue to game elsewhere.

A significant share of the revenue that would occur in Texas with the implementation of racinos would be recaptured from other states where Texans currently game. Measurement of the volume of this spending is done through subtracting the leakage out-of-state ($840.2 million) from the $2.4 billion figure, yielding recaptured spending of approximately $1.8 billion.

They estimate a total of about $3.4 billion in gambling revenue, which when taxed at 30% (the rate for racetracks is higher than what has been proposed for casinos) yields about $1 billion a year for the state. They make other claims as well about related economic activity and employment, which I'll leave to you to examine.

I remain basically skeptical of the claims made here - I think some of these projections are optimistic, especially the ones made separately about the economic benefits for other businesses that flow from expanded gambling. I also think it's foolish to rely on gambling revenue for anything other than "found money" - the Texas Lottery should be an object lesson there. Finally, there is a moral case to be made against expanded gambling, and I think we greatly underestimate the social costs associated with it, which the state does precious little to mitigate. I've got a future post planned for that, since it's outside the scope of this one. Having said all that, I can at least see where the racetracks' numbers are coming from, and while I think they're sunny, they're comprehensible and reasonable. We can argue over these numbers because they're here to be argued over, which remains more than I can say for the casino interests, whose claim that they would generate $3 billion for the state looks even more ludicrous to me based on this.

I also asked Lavigne in an email exchange after he sent this to me about the bleak picture the racetracks have painted for their industry today, and why they would be a better vehicle for capturing the "leakage" than regular casinos. Here's what he said, reproduced with permission:

The Racing Commission did indeed paint a glum picture. There is no denying the shape the industry is in right now. The primary reason is that purses in Texas are so low, there is no incentive for breeders to breed in Texas. If they take the same horse and breed it in Louisiana, NM or OK they will be eligible for much larger prizes. A large chunk of the money made in this bill will go toward growing purses here that will be competitive with not only with our neighbors, but with the eastern seaboard, where racing has had a lot more success. This model is the reason our industry in Texas has fared so poorly. When parimutuel wagering was legalized in Texas, there were very few (if any) racinos in our bordering states.

We don't oppose the proposal for regular casinos on its face, but we do object to the disparate tax rates. That would surely kill any chance racinos would have to be successful.

As to why we think racinos would better capture the money than casinos? I think that is the wrong question. Both would be able to get at that money. We do have to look at political reality though. What is more palatable to the legislature? Full on casino gambling overnight? Or a smaller expansion at existing sites with legal wagering already taking place.

The Governor and many Republicans have repeatedly said that they do not want to expand the footprint of gambling. We believe our proposal is a more modest one.

The most important thing to remember about these figures is that the Comptroller will ultimately make the decision as to how much money these proposals would raise. She will do her own math.

So there you have it, the case for racinos. My thanks to Mike Lavigne for engaging me on this. If someone with the casino interests wants to show me their numbers, I'll be more than happy to do this for them as well.

Finally, on a related note, whatever reservations I have about casino and/or racetrack gambling, I do support an expansion of legalized poker in Texas. HB222, introduced by Rep. Jose Menendez as the Poker Gaming Act of 2009, would establish poker as a "game of skill and not a lottery or gift enterprise prohibited by the Texas Constitution" and would thus allow for the creation and regulation of legalized games. In particular, it would allow establishments that hold a license to serve alcoholic beverages issued by TABC or a license issued by the Racing Commission to have the ability to host the game of poker. There was a hearing for this bill yesterday in the House before the Licensing and Administrative Procedures committee. I have no issues with this bill and support its passage.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on March 26, 2009 to Budget ballyhoo
Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)