Why Say No to VLTs?

There are numerous reasons why we oppose VLTs. Below are just some of the reasons.

1. VLTs provide the most addicting version of gambling. It is highly visual, quick and easy in that it requires no skills. VLTs display the greatest rate of gambling addicts. When gambling appears in a community, it brings a wave of addiction. In a mature gambling market, compulsive gambling typically seizes the lives of 1.5% to 2.5% of the adult population. That amounts to three to five times the number of people suffering from cancer. The New York Times published that brining VLTs is like going on the Wrong Track. And I quote, "The state should not be expanding gambling at its racetracks - the euphemistically named slot machines that are a gambler's version of crack cocaine."

2. VLTs will bring social and economic costs. Studies show that costs include bankruptcy, tax fraud, loan and credit card fraud, embezzlement, assault, theft, child and spousal abuse, investigatory, judiciary and penal costs, overloading of infrastructure, payment default, loss of business and several others. Gambling costs more than raising taxes. Each compulsive gambler costs the economy between $14,006 and $22,077 per year. Various studies have placed the costs from equal to revenues to five times revenues. We find the issue of traffic, crime, and intrusion into the quality of life of a single family residential area to be troublesome.


3. Most at risk are those who live close. Studies show that eighty percent of VLT gamblers reside within 10 miles of the casino. That mean that parents, seniors, veterans, and workers of the surrounding communities need to spend their free time and money at the Casino in order for it to survive. Therefore, it is the citizens of the surrounding location who are most at risk in facing the social and economic hardships from VLTs.

4. VLTs will not help our children. Dr. Zabilka a former proponent to VLTs in Kentucky states the follow reflection: "... (Ten) years ago I had my first experience of seeing children in my classroom suffering from hunger because there was no money at home for food, because it had all been spent on the lottery. That experience was so strong that it changed me from an indifferent occasional bettor and participant in office pools and sweepstakes, to a passionate opponent of gambling in all its forms." We do not want the children of our community to suffer. "I believe that our state legislators should be responsible and find another way to fund our schools. We can't destroy neighborhoods and people's lives and that's the piece people just don't get." - educator and Baltimore, MD City Council President, Sheila Dixon. We are in total agreement.

5. Funds from VLTs are unpredictably and unreliable. The funds are handled similarly as the Lottery, where revenue isn't going directly to education as originally intended nor stated. Many consider the lottery system as a failure as the VLT system following in suit. A figure of $20 million dollars, similar in nature as the one given to Yonkers was presented. However, what was misleading was that the $20 million dollars are going to fund the education of Elmont's children. Instead it is divided.
Divided in funding police. Funding for beautification project. Then the rest divided among three school districts.
What amount will be left for Elmont? How much of it will actually benefit the children of Elmont?
We will find Elmont with a extra funding of maybe $4.6 million combined for our two school districts. For some it may seem a lot. However, when you look at it in terms of the big picture; elementary and high school budgets at over 60 and 140 million respectfully. We are getting no more than a 2% increase from the state. To note, this figure does not include any additional expenses, and with school budgets rising after each year, its financial contribution will be even more minimal.
This is something that our state representatives should be working to get for the children of Elmont, without the need of installing VLTs, and its potential to damage families, children's' future, value of our homes and quality of our life. Just like the plan given to Yonkers and Saratoga, the funding is always dependent on its placement in the New York State budget. The funds come from the general fund, and therefore we technically do not have a guarantee, if we'll consistently get that amount (agreement is for up to $20 million), or any amount five years from now.

6. VLTs in New York has not lived up to expectations. State representatives originally expected machines to have a $400-$500 per day revenue. Yonkers Raceway fell dramatically with its current $192 per day revenue. Even resort community Saratoga Springs, only reached $258 per day revenue per machine. Based on a June 2007, NY Times article, Casino operators at Yonkers want the State to help them, because they are losing $12 million a year and sought for Senator Larkin to propose a bill to help racinos, by reducing their obligation to education by 20%.

7. There are currently too many racinos in New York State. The idea of having multiple near by racinos to the NY Metro area is troublesome. Aqueduct is currently less than 8 miles away from Belmont. Multiple competitive racinos may actually hurt funding.

8. VLTs will change the image of Belmont Park negatively. We believe it is important it is that we maintain the integrity and character that has made Belmont a destination point for racing enthusiasts and tourists alike. We introduced the idea of adding a museum, to highlight the location of one of the historical rich location in the history of American racing. We believe that potentially adding a family oriented tourist location at Belmont Park will benefit everyone involved.VLTs will hinder this notion.

9. VLTs are morally wrong. "Avoid gaming. This is a vice which is productive of every possible evil., equally injurious to the morals and health of its votaries. It is the child of Avarice, the brother inequity, the father of Mischief. It has been the ruin of many worthy families: the loss of many a man's honor and the cause of Suicide." - George Washington, 1783.

The following organizations are opposed to gambling and / or VLTs:

National:

Citizens Equal Rights Alliance
Community Forum
Concerned Women for America
Focus on the Family
National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling
United Property Owners
Reservation Report
United Methodist Church
USPACT

New York:

Casinos-Free Sullivan County
Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County
Citizens for a Better Buffalo
Don't Gamble Our Future
Oneida Land Claims Victim
New Yorkers Family Research Foundation, Inc.
No Casino 1000 Islands
No Casinos Erie County
NoSaugertiesCasino
Save the East End
Shawangunk Ridge Coalition
Stop the Casino in Hampton Bays
Upstate Citizens for Equality
Western New York Coalition for Progress
Coalition Against Gambling of New York
Conservative Party of New York State

Following are representatives opposing gambling and or VLTs:

Frank Padavan - State Senator - Vice President Pro Tempore - Republican 11th District Queens
Sheldon Silver - State Assemblyman - Assembly Speaker - Democrat - 64th Assembly District - Manhattan
Sam Hoyt - State Assemblyman - Democrat - 144th Assembly District - Buffalo
William Parment - State Assemblyman - Democrat - 150th Assembly District - Jamestown

10. VLTs have created unnecessary casualties. We do not want what happened in South Carolina to happen here. South Carolina eliminated VLTs after a baby died as her mom gambled on VLTs. We must face the harsh reality and consequences of VLTs.

11. Youths are most at risk. October 2007 New York State report stated that 1 in 5 youths are hooked on gambling. This is largely due to on-line and electronic type gambling, that are identical to VLTs. Promoting VLTs at an elementary school only helps to promote this troublesome issue. Representatives in Albany should be working to help prevent gambling, and especially protect our children.





We agree in a plan for beautification. We agree with a plan to improve upon the restaurants (3-4) already inside Belmont Park and perhaps add another. We agree to install stores and shops. We also would be in favor of a convention center / hotel inside Belmont Park, similar in nature to the historic club house demolished in 1960. Something that will highlight and showcase the historic nature of the grounds. There is no need for VLTs nor their consequences.

We as residents of Elmont, and the surrounding communities must not be fooled by the false hopes of politicians seeking reelection. We must examine all the facts, look both sides of every issue. Why are some communities so adamantly against VLTs and casinos? What makes individuals think that Elmont is different and thus is a positive thing? Is it because the people from Elmont are different from other communities? Yes, we want change. We want positive change; and yes, the locals want respect.