It looks like the completion of the Senecas’ luxury hotel in the Falls has opened up a bit of a market. The beautiful and historic Hotel Niagara will be undergoing a much-needed multimillion dollar renovation.
The operators of the nearby Conference Center Niagara Falls have said that a limited number of upscale hotel rooms in the city have limited their ability to book large events.
I wonder whether casino foes have produced or commissioned a study of the Seneca casino on the New York side with respect to the city economy. I mean, Niagara Falls, NY has been in the toilet economically for many years, and many Buffalo casino foes point to the the Falls example and crow that the surrounding area remains somewhat dilapidated. That, of course, is a silly argument unless one was operating under the premise that the casino could cure every ill. If anything, that casino brings people to the Falls who might otherwise go to the Canadian side. We are pulling in casino business from elsewhere. We are not cannibalizing the wonderful theater in Niagara Falls (which doesn’t exist) or the other high-end entertainment in the Falls (which, save for a few restaurants, doesn’t exist).
Likewise, I suspect that local dollars for a Buffalo Creek casino would “cannibalize” not so much ticket sales at Shea’s, (Joel Rose himself said on WBEN the other day that casinogoers “don’t go to the theater”), but would instead draw in money that would otherwise go to the bingo parlors and slots of Fort Erie, Irving, and Niagara Falls.
I don’t think anyone really believes that, and if nothing else there are loads of new downtown jobs in Niagara Falls that pay good money with benefits, and those jobs didn’t exist a few years ago. It’s not like those jobs cannibalized other jobs in other industries. It’s not like people went en masse from their jobs-for-life at Carborundum to start making beds or serving drinks or dealing cards. These had to be a net gain of jobs for that city.
It’s no wonder local casino opponents tend only to cite studies that are completed by PhDs who already subscribe to the anti-casino philosophy, and whose conclusions are no less subjective than those in a Seneca-commissioned study.
From the Federal Reserve’s Boston Branch:
Casinos that cater to a local market generally do not bring outside money into the economy through the spending of their patrons. In fact, such casinos may have no net ancillary economic impacts. Residents patronizing such casinos may simply substitute gambling for other goods and services. The secondary impacts of spending on the foregone goods and services would therefore be lost, offsetting any ancillary benefits from gaming expenditures at the casino. However, if a casino attracts gamblers who otherwise would be gambling out-of state, it can have net positive ancillary economic effects.
Nevertheless, a new casino catering to a local market can generate positive secondary economic effects through its employees if it induces an increase in total employment in and around its host community. Such affects are greatest for new casinos in areas of high unemployment (for example, rural Mississippi). Under such conditions, the increased purchasing power of workers who otherwise would be unemployed or “underemployed” generates multiplier effects. However, at the other extreme, a new casino in a tight labor market may cause competition for service sector labor.
Tags: gambling, News, Niagara Falls News, Seneca Casino