A response regarding casino loss limits

David B. Knight of Cape Girardeau is the owner of Ole Hickory Pits, which manufactures commercial and residential barbecue ovens. He also is one of the principals seeking to redevelop an area of downtown Cape Girardeau from Broadway to Sloan Creek that would include a casino. In the op-ed column below, Knight responds to columnist Michael Jensen's recent column, "Lose those loss limits." Jensen's column is repeated below, with Knight's comments in italics.

By David B. Knight

It appears likely a measure will be on the November election ballot in Missouri that would end the $500 loss limit at Missouri casinos and put a moratorium on the number of casinos in the state. (By definition, a moratorium is a temporary delay. The "Schools First" initiative permanently prohibits additional licenses, except for those casinos now under construction. Cape Girardeau is already under a moratorium imposed by the Missouri Gaming Commission in anticipation of the outcome of the initiative, even though it is yet to be certified by the secretary of state.) A challenge to the wording of the petition title of the proposal was ruled in favor of the measure this past week, and that should set the stage for the November vote. (What the court decision actually did was set the stage for a timely challenge on the issue of "single subject." (Missouri Constitution, Article III, Sec. 50.) In her ruling, Judge Joyce stated, "This claim is not ripe until the secretary of state certifies the petition for inclusion on the ballot." There are two additional challenges that Judge Joyce did not hear. One challenge involves the inaccurate fiscal note crafted by the secretary of state and the attorney general. The other challenge is that the text of the initiative is inadequate because it does not include all the relevant required statutes that would be repealed by the measure. Judge Joyce did dismiss a challenge based on the language of the ballot summary. However, the aforementioned arguments were not before her.)

As a bit of a disclaimer, I am one of those frequent flyers at Missouri casinos as well as elsewhere. Make of that what you want. Those flashy slot machines are my form of entertainment in lieu of hunting or fishing or, increasingly, playing golf.

Having said that, the hypocritical $500 loss limit (according to a study conducted by the University of Missouri, at the request of the Missouri Gaming Commission, gamblers seem to have no strong feeling about the $500 loss limit. Therefore, the only hypocrites are gamblers who voted for the prohibition but continue to gamble) at Missouri casinos is an archaic and ridiculous attempt to "save" gamblers from themselves. (As Missourians, we have numerous laws to "save" us from ourselves, such as speed limits and seat belt laws. Missouri voters authorized the $500 loss limit and have rejected every attempt to change it. Likewise, the Missouri Legislature chose not to act (see Senate Bill 430) on removing the limit.) Only in Missouri do we practice this asinine form of gaming monitoring.

When first approved by Missouri voters a decade and a half ago, gambling in Missouri was sold on two fronts: First, the proceeds would largely fund education in the state (which it has and does). Second, we would "limit" the amount a person could lose in a casino to $500 every two-hour session (which it also has done).

The end result is that those who have the resources and the desire to perhaps wager more than that amount simply flock to nearby states (according to an article in The Kansas City Star, casino boats posted one of their best months ever while statewide gambling revenue jumped an impressive 13.4 percent to a record $153.5 million; the Missouri Gaming Commission has even studied the problem of gamblers having to wait so long to get a table in the casinos) where loss limits are a laughingstock. Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma and nearby Tunica, Miss., all conduct their business without the stigma of loss limits. And no study in the world will show that Missouri has "saved" problem gamblers with the dumb concept of loss limits. The limit was simply a ploy to gain voter approval. It worked, but now it's time to recognize reality and remove this bogus process.

I have spoken to literally hundreds of Missouri casino-goers. Without reservation, they say the removal of the loss limit will not motivate them to gamble any more. It's simply an inconvenience that forces you to adjust your entertainment based on what time you enter the casino. (Isn't that the point of the $500 loss limit?) And it's hypocritical even for staunch gambling opponents.

Other than to accommodate the casino guests, the practical impact of this ballot measure is enormous. (Unfortunately, this statement is only half-true. What has been left out is the millions of dollars in revenue that the city of Cape Girardeau would receive from the gaming tax and gate receipts.) The Missouri State auditor estimates the ballot measure could generate up to $130 million annually for elementary and secondary schools, $7 million for higher education and $19 million for local governments where the casinos are located. (This is the same Missouri State auditor who omitted from the fiscal note on the official ballot summary the negative impact on state and local governmental game tax revenue, due to the initiative's prohibition on additional gaming licenses. The average Missouri casino license generates $29 million in game tax and related fees, which is shared by the state and cities such as Cape Girardeau.) Those are big bucks, and they are needed instead of yet another tax increase.

Of course, the reality is that this measure will likely get ignored come November. (No, the reality of this measure is that the casino industry, which sponsored the initiative in the first place, is prepared to spend millions of dollars statewide to see that it passes this time.) After all, we have bigger fish to fry on the November ballot.

But that does not diminish its importance to our state's revenue or to the millions who enjoy the fun and entertainment of casinos in our state. (But it does diminish revenue to Cape Girardeau by millions of dollars. Think water parks, storm water retention, raises for city staff, new fire trucks and paddy wagons.)

The question of gambling is an emotional one and one where there are few gray areas. You either oppose gambling on moral grounds or you favor the casinos in our state. (The issue is not that simple. The problem with this initiative is its numerous subjects. former attorney general William Webster stated, "Doubleness in submission at elections is considered a species of legal fraud upon the voters because it may compel the voter, in order to get what he most wants, to vote for something which he does not want." Such as being in favor of money for schools but opposed to creating a monopoly within the gaming industry.) Either way, the casinos are here to stay, and it seems foolish -- if not downright stupid -- to limit their ability to both entertain and produce revenue for Missouri. (The Missouri casinos are doing quite well without the measure. Besides having a record month in May, they continue to expand their casino operations and adjoining hotels throughout the Missouri gaming industry.)

The picture of the mom or dad gambling away the kids' school lunch money is phony.

The true picture is one of Missourians just like yourself who enjoy the excitement of visiting these venues and spending their hard-earned money how they choose.

The state most certainly doesn't limit what you can win (actually, the state does limit how much you can win. The state vigorously regulates the payouts of all slot machines. By regulating the payout, the state actually determines how much you can win) (and they can tax).

So why should they control what you lose? (Because millions of Missouri voters said so when they approved riverboat gambling in Missouri and have continued to resist changing the $500 loss limit, along with the Missouri State Legislature ever since.)

Michael Jensen is a Southeast Missourian columnist and publisher of the Standard Democrat in Sikeston, Mo. (Fortunately, I believe Michael Jensen did spell his own name correctly. Other than that, he needs to do his homework next time before he states his opinion. All kidding aside and in all fairness to Jensen, I am positive he did not intentionally mislead voters with his op-ed column. I believe he fell victim to the casinos' crafty language connected with the proposal. The attorney general and secretary of state should have known what a "single subject" for an initiative petition should look like. Fortunately, the secretary of state has a chance to get it right. The secretary of state must issue a certificate stating whether the official ballot wording is sufficient or insufficient. I believe the voters of Missouri should not be forced to make the choices afforded by the multiple subjects in this proposal.)