My hometown of Madison, Wisconsin, is in a bit of a spin over a proposal to upgrade a nearby Native American bingo facility into a full-fledged casino. There’s lots of local color in the conflict — with equal enthusiasm both for and against the proposal (the pro-casino group promotes the large payments to the city and county in a time of fiscal stress, the anti-casino bunch warns of the potential increase in crime, the stress on community infrastructure, and the broader moral issue of government-sanctioned gambling).
For arts and cultural managers NOT in Madison, however, two bits of the conversation warrant weblog commentary here:
First, many of Madison’s local arts groups have taken a stand against the casino, saying that if performing arts become a part of the facility (at ticket prices subsidized by gaming), local nonprofits could lose audience and income to unfair competition. Most recently, the governing board of Madison’s cultural big box — the $100-million Overture Center currently under construction — refused to endorse the letter of opposition from other arts groups, primarily because the board comprises mostly government appointees.
Part of the complexity of the arts/casino debate is that both play the ‘public purpose’ card. The local arts here, and in many other communities, frequently push economic impact, quality of life, and ‘creative class’ arguments about why they should be considered in public policy. The casino is emphasizing the cash value of its contract with city and county government in supporting social services, fire and police, and other essentials.
Which leads us to the second item of interest in this story for arts managers everywhere: economic impact. On both sides of the casino debate, there are economic arguments. And both sides have published economic impact analyses of how the new facility would affect the local economy (both available here). Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway), the serious researchers on each side find completely different results. Says one:
[The DeJope facility] is expected to generate almost $47,000,000 annually in economic activity within Dane County. The DeJope Casino will create 600 jobs through direct employment….The DeJope Casino will generate over $10,000,000 annually in tax and revenue sharing for the City of Madison and Dane County. Addition local sales and property tax revenue generated by casino operations is estimated at over $2.8 million. Under the revenue sharing agreements, revenue sharing with the city and county will exceed $7,200,000 each year.
Says the other:
An input-output analysis finds Dane County’s economy losing $148.6 million each year if a Native American casino is in Madison. A proposed casino has a 72,000 square foot building, 1309 gaming machines, and 39 tables. Each machine wins $190 a day, each table $1120, yielding annual gaming revenues of $106.7 million.
Why the massive difference in findings? Because each author draws different boundaries around their cost analysis; because each author is seeking to support either a client or a personal point of view; because such questions are insanely complex, and able to support whatever argument you care to make — especially if your goal is not really to understand them.
The casino studies only reinforce the problems with economic impact statements so frequently used by arts organizations and advocates. Even though they tend to be persuasive with local legislators, somebody will eventually become smart enough to see right through them.
PROGRAM NOTE: For those interested, you’ll find past posts on economic impact here and here.
