New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan seen here in May of this past year was a supporter of the defeated casino bill (Image: ALEXANDER COHN / Concord Monitor)
In terms of casino gambling, the homely house always wins. However in some situations, that doesn’t necessarily refer to the casino itself. New Hampshire’s home of Representatives voted straight down a bill that would have allowed the state to license a casino that is single the state, continuing a tradition of the House voting down casino proposals in the Granite State.
The vote, which came on Thursday, ended up being one that promised to possess a closer outcome than previous bills on the subject. The regulations that would have already been placed into spot could have been more substantial than in a similar bill last year, while the limits on the size associated with the casino up to 5,000 slots and 150 table games would have already been nearly the same. However in the finish, the anti-casino forces won down by a comfortable margin of 173-144.
Governor Supported Gambling Bill
That ended up being a defeat for Governor Maggie Hassan, who had backed the casino bill. Supporters for the bill had argued that now was the full time to add casino gambling to the state, because they stood to reduce out for a great amount of income when neighboring Massachusetts began opening casinos within the not-too-distant future.
Those opposed pointed to the long-standing traditions of the latest Hampshire, which had never encompassed casino gambling. They worried concerning the social costs of expanded gambling, and said that there are better how to raise revenues than adding a casino, which could alter the image of the state. That last problem had been a particularly contentious one: some said that the state’s image as a cozy, quiet resort center complete of intimate bed-and-breakfasts could possibly be sullied with the addition of a significant casino, while advocates for the casino pointed out that other states had successfully added land gaming without making it the facial skin of the state per se.
According to lawmakers in support of the casino, the annual revenues from the venue could have been as high as $105 million significant for a state that is small. They suggested integrating the casino to the state’s current reputation as a tourist destination.
‘This is another draw to our state,’ argued Representative Frank Sapareto.
Casino Loses to Antagonists
But in the final end, the anti-casino votes won out. In particular, numerous feared that adding a bank that is massive of devices could generate numerous problem gamblers, pointing out that people games were the ones most associated with gambling addiction.
‘What is it us anti-casino types have against gambling enterprises? It’s the slot machines,’ stated Representative Patricia Lovejoy.
While the vote might not have gone her method, Governor Hassan proceeded to argue in favor of a future casino for the continuing state, hoping that ultimately lawmakers can find a solution that worked for everybody.
‘ Despite today’s vote, I continue steadily to believe that developing our own plan for one high-end casino is the best program of action for investing in the priorities that are critical to long-term economic growth,’ Hassan said in a declaration. ‘Soon, we all will start to see the impact of Massachusetts casinos right across our border in the form of lost revenue and possible social costs.’
There is a Senate casino bill that passed early in the day this year that could still be sent towards the House for a vote, nevertheless the odds of it passing the House are slim. The 2 legislative figures have disagreed on how to finance costs, such as for the expansion of Interstate 93: while the home passed a gasoline goverment tax bill a year ago, the Senate rejected the measure, while the alternative has been real of casino proposals.