As summer drew to a close, there were optimistic signs that the Atlantic City casino industry was beginning to recover, but November’s revenue results revealed more worrying figures with no end in sight for the city’s woes.
“There’s no sugar coating it,” said Joe Weinert from the casino consulting firm Spectrum Gaming Group. “It’s another poor result for the Atlantic City casinos.”
In November, Atlantic City’s 11 casinos won $299.3 million which represented a massive 13.4% decline in revenue compared to the same period in 2008. Overall revenue throughout the first 11 months of 2009 was also down by 13.5% to $3.7 billion.
The casinos hit hardest were Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino down 25.8 percent, Caesars Atlantic City down 23.1 percent, Resorts Atlantic City down 21.4 percent and the Atlantic City Hilton down 20.7 percent.
Commenting on the latest figures, Gaming Analyst Brad Dawkins said: “The economic recession has severely damaged the casino gambling industry across the US. And anytime an industry goes down, it is its biggest suppliers that are hurt the most. For the casino industry, that means Las Vegas and Atlantic City.”
In related news, the continuing decline in Atlantic City revenues spelt bad news for casino employees hoping to see a full ban on smoking in their work place. At a recent Revenue and Finance Committee meeting, future discussions on the proposed ban have now been postponed two years until the end of 2011.
Following the announcement, Joseph Corbo, president of the Casino Association of New Jersey said: “Given the fact that the casino industry is now, a year later, experiencing the most challenging set of circumstances in its history, the Casino Association of New Jersey agrees with City Council that there could not be a worse time than now for it to consider a more restrictive smoking ordinance.”
Once a ban is in place, most people will not return to the websites to find out that it was repealed. The damage has been done.
Desire versus Rights
When debating the pros and cons of smoking bans, we need to ask whether it
makes sense to protect and defend private individuals’ rights to their
property. If we agree that private property rights should be protected, then
we should make a clear distinction between private property and public
property.
Omitting legal jargon and using common sense, private property belongs to a
private owner, and public property belongs to the public or to some
government entity that represents the interests of the general public.
Those who favor smoking bans prefer to consider bars and restaurants to be
public property simply because the public is invited to visit those
establishments. However, opponents of smoking bans recognize that the
invitations to the public are by the graces of the private owners, and the
property remains private property.
Let’s consider for a moment that you own a home and that you consider your
home to be your private property. Do you give up your private property
rights when you tell someone to, “Drop by any time?” What if you also tell
that person to, “Bring some other folks along?”
Have you just issued a standing invitation to the public? Is your home no
longer private and now considered to be public property? Where do we draw
the line?
There is confusion between public property and private property primarily
because some people, such as anti-smoking proponents, want to elevate their
desires to the level of being legal rights. They choose to ignore what
should be a clear distinction between private and public property so they
can pretend that private businesses are actually owned by the public,
thereby giving the public the right to control the use of the property while
preventing the true property owner from controlling the use of his own
property. Many business owners who take the risks and pay the price of
ownership of their business property are suffering in areas of the country
where smoking bans have been put into force. Those who promote smoking bans
fail to see (or don’t care) that their desires for sweeping smoke-free
environments are causing hardships for honest, hard-working people and their
families. They fail to see (or don’t care) that their desires should be
secondary to the rights of others.
Those supporting smoking bans know that they have the option of not
supporting businesses that allow smoking. They know that they may patronize
businesses that choose to ban smoking. But that is not enough for them. Do
they not recognize the importance of respecting people’s right to control
their own property? Do they not recognize the value of freedom?
The desires of anti-smoking groups should not take precedence over the
rights of private citizens. When one person’s desires are allowed to trump
another person’s rights, then all our rights can easily be swept away, and
we have no protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
[...] smoking sections http://www.njgasp.org/i_leg_jurisdictions.pdf not quite up to date Atlantic City Revenue Falls As Casino Smoking Ban Shelved Until 2011 [...]