Dear Editor,

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” You think that maybe Gertrude’s quote is not appropriate–maybe a bit over the top–as it relates to Mr. Gumer’s admonishment delivered to the Black Hawk City Council? What about another classic: using the Quixotic adventures metaphor of Don Quixote and Sancho going off to fight the “windmills” in an effort to save and uphold the honor of Lady Dulcinea?  

According to local reporting, Mr. Jason Gumer, Vice-Chair of the National Association Against iGaming, who also serves as General Counsel for Monarch Casino, reminded the Black Hawk City Council members of the perils and troubles that will be visited upon Black Hawk, its citizens and by extension, citizens of the entire State, if igaming were to be approved. The discussion/presentation, according to the reporting, included adverse impacts on labor income, economic output, loss of local profits and other negative impacts.  

A more consequential threat posited by Mr. Gumer is the effect igaming will have on “public health.” The predictions are dire, especially those affecting “health.” One begins to wonder if all efforts directed at allowing igaming should be stopped immediately, given the ominous consequences articulated by Mr. Gumer.  

Is “disingenuous” too harsh a term to describe the reaction by those officials and others who claim an economic disaster as well as a “falling-sky” is what will result from approving online gambling?

Singularly peculiar is Mr. Gumer’s reasoning in explaining existential support for his group’s position, which includes his simile: “This is being able to kind of sit in your bed on your cell phone and spin the slot machine over and over,” which continues by enumerating the number of states that allow igaming and a reference to something, “…happening in England…”; and his own fait accompli: “…but nothing’s been further from the truth.” Well then, that should suffice in convincing “anyone” that igaming would be a dreadful outcome for all of us.

The incongruence of Mr. Gumer’s argument for his position is not empirically supported. It may be true that “only” seven states have approved igaming. One should not infer (as Mr. Gumer wishes) that because “only” seven states allow igaming, the remaining states do not wish to allow igaming. It is an illogical and unreasonable argument. As for what is “happening in England” – we don’t know what’s happening in England.  The presentation made, as described, is a non sequitur argument.  

It appears that “sprinkled” throughout his presentation to the City Council were statistical data that support a negative impact brought about by igaming–lost labor, loss of income, loss of tax revenue and others.  These data show significant losses and adverse impacts associated with igaming. 

I am not a statistician, mathematician, demographer or social scientist, but it would certainly provide some credibility to Mr. Gumer’s proposal/assertions if we (readers and members of the public) knew and understood how baseline data were developed to assert the negative impacts of igaming. I don’t believe many folks would be swayed one way or another by an empirical fact that “only” seven states allow igaming; or that something bad may be going on in England.  

On this matter, I believe that Mr. Gumer’s argument is further diluted when he asserts possible ill-health effects. Does he really have empirical data that demonstrates gambling, while sitting on your bed, just like sports betting, is going to affect your health? If he does, he should publish it.

You know what this “sounds” like to me: “I’ve got mine and you’re not taking it away!” Some years ago we voted for legal gambling/gaming in Colorado–Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek. We also have sports betting that is ubiquitous and arguably (by some) more prevalent. I remember the arguments being made against “gambling communities” by Amendment 4–“we’re not going to be a Las Vegas,” and lots more.  

The argument, I believe, being made against igaming immediately reminds me of anti-trust provisions, except that this issue is not a business-to-business transaction and anti-trust provisions would have no bearing on these matters. In this case it is an “industry” clearly attempting to preclude individuals from participating in an activity that profits only the gaming industry. Sports betting is going on right now–someone “sitting on their bed” is betting on matters of a particular sport.

I’m not a gambler and like most “working” folks, have a visceral negative reaction to putting my well-earned quarter in a slot machine, knowing that it’s gone forever! But I also understand and appreciate (in the intellectual sense) the fact that Gilpin County is the recipient of significant tax revenue from the “gambling communities” of Blackhawk and Central City. 

I make no judgments about my fellow sentient deciding the form of entertainment in which he or she wishes to engage. I enjoy relatively low taxes in Gilpin County because the gaming industry provides a “subsidy” for  taxes paid to Gilpin County and for that, I am grateful. It could also be the case that taxes paid by igaming participants would or could far surpass tax revenues derived from casino gambling. I am sure there are demographers and/or economists “out there” who can determine that outcome–it may even turn out to be a “zero-plus” outcome for tax revenue derived from gaming.

Igaming is not important to me. It is bothersome, however, that an industry whose income is derived “from gaming” is working to preclude the “public-at-large” from “igaming.” 

Why is it that “one” industry can dictate to everyone else how and when we can “game” with our own money? That decision should not be left to politicians, commissioners or other public officials whose votes and favors are being sought by those who stand to win or lose and who have the financial wherewithal to support their objectives. 

It is unseemly to use undemocratic methods to preclude folks from participating in lawful activities. I believe the “gaming industry” (writ large) would improve its public “image” if they worked at finding ways to attract more folks to the casinos instead of actively pursuing means to preclude them from participating in alternative forms of legal entertainment. It may take more than a Quixotic “miracle” to ensure we’re not “trampled.” 

Rudy V. Garcia

Gilpin County