Gaming's Uninhibited Potential - Black Hawk, Colorado

Today's New York Times has an interesting piece about gaming in Black Hawk, Colorado.  Black Hawk's gaming industry had already taken off- on a much larger scale than Colorado's other towns, where local restrictions -  such as for historical preservation - kept gaming limited.  Then, last year Coloradans voted to approve a gaming expansion that included 24/7 gaming, more table games (craps and roulette) and more importantly, an increase in betting limits from $5 to $100.  I don't agree with any betting limit, given that 99% of the population does not suffer from gambling addiction, but $100 is certainly better than $5.

The article is fairly clear on the success of Black Hawk gaming, where Ameristar is now planning a $235 million, 33-story hotel tower.  And in this economy, any business success is cause for celebration.  But what I really like is the new gaming deal that Colorado voters approved last year that established a specific connection between the state's community colleges and Colorado gaming.  The colleges will reap dedicated tax revenues from the new table games, larger bets and expanded hours. 

In my view, this is an ideal approach to gaming and public policy.  Colorado has a relatively low gaming tax (graduated to 20%), and unto itself, that is positive for helping the industry make money and therefore enhancing revenues.  But I especially like the new deal with gaming and community colleges because it emphasizes the extent to which gaming can supply additional, helpful public revenues to an important state entity.  Moreover, it doesn't project gaming as a savior of the state budget-- gaming revenues won't be counted on to fix a budget deficit. 

In interviews with reporters and other conversations these days, I'm often asked whether Maryland gaming will meet its revenue projections in the context of the state's budget deficit.  This is a good question, given that the referendum campaign focused so specifically on revenue projections, such that people now have expectations for a very defined amount of revenue.  That's unfortunate. 

Gaming should never be set up to provide x amount of money, because of all the variable factors.  I don't mind citing a broad range of potential revenue, but am wary of numbers that are too specific.  Rather, I like approaches like the one noted here in Colorado, where gaming revenue is set aside and understood as additional revenue for valuable public programs.  In New Jersey gaming revenue is specifically used as additional moneys to support urban re-development, property tax abatement for senior citizens, pharmaceutical aid for seniors and other services for the state's disabled population.  That's a win-win.