In 1994, the state where I used to live voted to allow riverboat
gambling. We saw the full results of what happens when a community
allows gambling casinos.
Dear Editor,
In 1994, the state where I used to live voted to allow riverboat gambling. We saw the full results of what happens when a community allows gambling casinos.
Traffic became a nightmare – the riverboat traffic essentially became a roadblock for travel across town, and for traveling to the town. The owners of the riverboat had assured us, with mitigating funds, that traffic would not be a problem. They were wrong.
I noted with regret what Gary Ramos was quoted as saying in the Free Lance that the proposed new location “will decrease traffic impacts on the area.” This is clearly incorrect. In our former small town, we found that the gambling boat spokesperson would say what they wanted you to hear, whether or not is was factually correct. This appears to be true here with Mr. Ramos also.
The traffic effect of the casino in our former state was the same thing we will see here in Hollister in the unlikely event that the gambling interest comes to our town – the casino will be a barrier to transportation. It will act as a wall – not much moving past it at many times of the day. Rush hour on Highways 25, 152 and 156, already intolerable, will become a total nightmare.
Pat Loe is right when she says “I don’t think any place in San Benito County is a good place for a casino as far as traffic is concerned.”
It should be noted that the incidences of driving while intoxicated soared when the casino opened. Simply, some gamblers drink, and the casino’s business is to attract a large number of gamblers. Casinos typically provide alcoholic drinks for little cost – an impaired gambler will lose more money faster. This meant that those leaving the riverboat casino were often under the influence.
The last thing this community needs is more drunk drivers on our already overcrowded highways. This town, in the last several years, has lost several to intoxicated drivers, including a wife of a very popular local teacher. Adding a casino will multiply this problem several fold.
At first, the police in my former state started patrolling the area around the casino, stopping those who were leaving the riverboat and giving them breath tests. Soon, the political power and funds from the casino “convinced” the local politicians and police department that it was not fair to target people who frequented a certain business. So the routine stops were halted, and drunk drivers continued to plague the area.
Again, I read with some remorse that the proposed casino for Hollister was going to fund certain police functions – with those funds come strings that will be pulled when it is in the best interest of the casino to pull them.
Only 24 percent of this community wants a casino. About two–thirds oppose it. This casino is a bad idea. Let’s kill it now.
Mel Tungate, Hollister
