By GARRY RAYNO, Distant Dome
Sometimes decisions made 20 years or even 10 years ago have a major impact that was unforeseen at the time.
Take for example prison reform that sought to address the inmates who refused to take any of the rehabilitation programs while in prison and were back on the streets after their sentences ended.
Both parties worked to establish a system that would provide an “early release” if the inmates participated in intensive programs and services to hopefully prevent them from re-offending and returning to prisons.
At the time the prisons were overcrowded and yes expensive to house the inmates yet many were leaving without any rehabilitation and as expected coming right back in after a few months on the streets.
But rather than funding the services and programs directly, lawmakers decided to stand those services up with the money saved when inmates were released but that takes time.
It did not take long for a couple of the early-release, career criminals to commit some well-publicized offenses and lawmakers were scrambling to change the program.
Much the same has been true with bail reform several years ago that was significantly changed this legislative session.
About 30 years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled the state had a constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education for the children of the state and four years later the court said the state’s way of paying for it was unconstitutional.
The lawmakers took a while to address the issue particularly the funding and the choice initially was either an income tax or casino gambling before they settled on a mishmash of a statewide property tax and increased tax rates on existing levies that has largely been in place since and ultimately did not make the funding system any fairer or improve the educational opportunities for children in property poor school districts, the reason the suit was filed.
The governor at the time, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, pushed for expanded gambling with casinos at the state’s three horse racing tracks in Salem, Hinsdale and Belmont.
At the time, the only casino in New England was at Foxwoods in Connecticut, with other casinos in New Jersey and Nevada.
Revenue estimates at the time were that the casinos would generate over $200 million in revenue but would be negatively impacted if Massachusetts decided to approve casinos.
But the House would not bite on casinos although it was the Senate’s preferred method of funding the education system to address the lawsuit. Both the House and Senate passed an income tax proposal although Shaheen told them she would veto the bill, but the two bodies could not agree on one plan, so it died before Shaheen had to act.
About three years later, the new governor Maggie Hassan also proposed expanding gambling in the state as a way to increase funding for education with one and maybe two casinos.
The legislative effort to increase revenues through expanded gambling was led on the House side by Rep. Dick Ames, D-Jaffrey, who headed a commission that answered what was frequently the criticism of casino gambling bills: they lacked the regulatory structure to effectively keep it honest and from expansion to other areas of the state without extensive review.
The leader in the Senate was Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, D-Manchester, who tried and tried to convince his fellow lawmakers of the wisdom of expanded gambling to help pay for state public education without success. He retired this year.
However, as Massachusetts and Maine both moved ahead with casino gambling projects, the benefits for New Hampshire’s coffers shrunk to the point casino gambling bills are few and not taken seriously these days.
But the story of casinos in New Hampshire doesn’t end here. Today there are 12 casinos and four more in various stages of coming to fruition in the state, with legislative approval.
For years charities in the state held fundraising casino nights in church basements, Legion halls and community centers.
While lawmakers were voting down state-backed casino gambling, in 2006 they approved charity gambling in stand-alone facilities making raising money easier for the charities without the rigmarole of hiring an operator, finding a hall etc. to raise money.
Charities could sign up with the hall operators for so many nights a year and have a representative at the location in order to receive what was set at 35 percent of the handle, or the money left after winners are paid.
The 35 percent has been a fungible number when rent and other expenses were taken out by the operators.
The halls were locally owned when they began but some were soon sold to large gambling corporations.
More halls have been added indicating the owners were making money while charities were receiving their 35 percent and the state its 10 percent as well.
The situation changed when historic horse racing was added to the mix in 2021 and estimated to produce about $6 million a year for charities, which was a very low assessment.
New Hampshire is one of only five states to allow historic horse racing, which operates much like a slot machine.
In the 10 casinos where it is installed, historic racing has generated three times the revenue of traditional table games.
Under the law passed in 2021, operators retain 75 percent of the profit, charities receive 8.75 percent and the state 16.25 percent.
In May the 12 casinos generated about $14 million with historic horse racing accounting for more than $10 million.
The current moratorium on new historic horse racing machines was extended by this year’s legislature for another seven years.
And with only one exception, all the casinos in New Hampshire are owned by out-of-state companies.
The one exception is the Concord Casino owned by former state Sen. Andy Sanborn and his wife Rep. Laurie Sanborn, both Bedford Republicans.
Sanborn lost his operator’s and hiring licenses after he was investigated for misusing federal COVID relief money by purchasing race cars for himself and his wife.
Sanborn has until the end of September to sell his Concord casino before it will no longer be approved as a charity gambling facility.
The interested buyer is an out-of-state gambling company.
In any event, there are likely to be at least 16 casinos in the state in the next year or two and not one of them will be owned by a local person or business.
Charities don’t want to see any major changes as they are able to reap the rewards with little to no involvement (they no longer have to have a representative on site to receive the night’s earnings).
There is a commission studying the changes to the charitable gambling industry and it hired a Pennsylvania company, Spectrum Gaming Group, as its consultant with a report due next month with recommendations.
Twenty years ago, the big concern was the proliferation of casinos and the number of slot machines a facility could hold, not wanting the facilities to be just slot machines.
Some of the charity facilities have expanded into entertainment complexes just like in Las Vegas, Reno, etc.
In the late 1990s, lawmakers did not want the Granite State to be known as a gambling mecca with casinos in all corners of the state, but that is what is here now and millions of dollars have gone into private pockets and not state coffers where those greenbacks might have helped property poor school districts provide better educational opportunities for their children.
Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.
Distant Dome by veteran journalist Garry Rayno explores a broader perspective on the State House and state happenings for InDepthNH.org. Over his three-decade career, Rayno covered the NH State House for the New Hampshire Union Leader and Foster’s Daily Democrat. During his career, his coverage spanned the news spectrum, from local planning, school and select boards, to national issues such as electric industry deregulation and Presidential primaries. Rayno lives with his wife Carolyn in New London.
