Angeljean Chiaramida
SEABROOK — If New Hampshire approved casino gambling tomorrow and Seabrook’s Yankee Greyhound racetrack was the first in line to add video gaming machines to its offerings, Seabrook’s selectmen would have no problem with the scenario.
In fact, as they watch Massachusetts’ governor promote casinos in their neighboring state, all three men are wondering why New Hampshire hasn’t beaten the Bay State to the punch.
“I definitely favor gambling coming to the dog track,” Selectman Brendan Kelly said in a recent interview. “Ultimately, it’s going to be some place, and it could be nearby (in Massachusetts). If it’s going to happen, let it happen here, and let’s get a part of it.”
Kelly’s sentiments were echoed by his fellow selectmen, Bob Moore and Dick McCann. Although all three men favor casino gambling at Seabrook’s Route 107 dog track, all three also expect a piece of the action for the town.
“There are a certain group of people who are gamblers,” Moore said. “If they’re going to gamble, we might as well get it here and have the town benefit from it.”
McCann, who spent years as a state representative from Seabrook, sees gambling as a way to recoup some of the money Seabrook loses every year when the state utility tax takes a big piece of the nuclear power plant taxes to fund education.
“I see the gambling as a way for us to get back what the state took from us when they taxed the power plant,” McCann said. “I see it as a source of revenue to offset and lower property taxes for our residents.”
The selectmen said they’d be willing to consider placing a nonbinding referendum question on the warrant to see what residents think about gambling, as Salem, N.H., has done twice. In Salem on both occasions, voters indicated they wouldn’t mind if Rockingham Park expanded its gambling options to include video gaming machines along with horse racing.
Seabrook native and former Selectman Oliver Carter Jr. said Seabrook residents as a whole have never indicated a problem with hosting a dog track in their backyard. Nor does he remember a significant change in Seabrook’s quality of life when the racetrack opened its doors in the early 1970s.
Carter, who is now the town treasurer, said that through an agreement with the track, Seabrook gets about $2,200 a day every day live or simulcast races are offered there. If adding video slot machines or even a full-fledged casino would give the town more revenue, Carter doesn’t think the local population would reject the money.
With four New Hampshire racetracks — in Seabrook, Salem, Hinsdale and Belmont — many in the state believe broadening the scope of gambling options wouldn’t harm the Granite State’s quality of life.
State Rep. Al Weare, R-Seabrook, also supports expanded gaming through slot machines at the local track, and he uses much the same logic as the selectmen.
State Rep. Mark Preston, D-Seabrook, has a unique perspective on the issue, as a town police officer for 27 years. Preston believes the campaign against gaming launched by the anti-gambling lobby is primarily “scare tactics.”
“People are gambling already,” Preston said. “New Hampshire residents are going to out-of-state casinos (in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey) every day to gamble and using the Internet. Wouldn’t you rather have them spend their money in this state?”
But in wading through the mountains of literature on gaming, state Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-Exeter, who represents Seabrook in the upper chamber, sees some truth behind the fear of gambling addiction.
From her reading, she’s come to understand bingo and instant lottery tickets don’t provide the same addictive high that slot machines do. She sees the danger as real. But as with most issues, that danger has to be weighed against others that can come from a lack of money, like when spending cuts hurt children, health, welfare and education, and put off repairs for deficient bridges.
Hassan has repeatedly said she hasn’t ruled gambling out nor in as of yet.
Governor demurs
In his first term of office, Democratic Gov. John H. Lynch appeared to be against expanding gambling at the state’s racing venues.
“I would only consider expanded gambling if I became convinced it wouldn’t jeopardize our quality of life, and I’m not at that point,” Lynch said in July 2005.
Last month, Lynch’s spokesman, Colin Manning, repeated those words almost exactly, noting he “would have to see clear evidence that the expansion of gambling would not negatively impact New Hampshire’s quality of life.”
Manning refused to indicate what the “clear evidence” had to be. He also insisted no matter what Massachusetts does, Lynch would make his decision based on New Hampshire criteria only.
For others in New Hampshire state government, however, the pressure of Massachusetts drawing New Hampshire gambling dollars across the border to fill the Bay State’s coffers is a consideration.
Hassan is still researching the pros and cons of gaming as she makes her mind up on which way to go.
She sits on two powerful money-related Senate committees, Finance and Capital Budget, along with two other senators who favor and have sponsored gambling bills in the past, Lou D’Allesandro, D-Manchester, and Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester.
“I agree that the Massachusetts (gambling) proposal changes the dynamic here a bit, but I don’t know just how,” Hassan said recently. “For those who are interested in gambling here, they have to get their heads around how it might look if gambling is approved in Massachusetts.”
Hassan agrees with D’Allesandro that there are benefits in allowing gambling casinos before Massachusetts.
