Legislators debate removal of local control for Keno in New Hampshire

In a recent meeting of the New Hampshire House Finance Committee, lawmakers engaged in a heated discussion regarding proposed changes to the state's Keno program and the distribution of lottery revenues. The proposed legislation aims to eliminate the local option for towns to decide whether to allow Keno, a move that has sparked significant debate about local control and potential revenue generation.

Supporters of the change argue that removing the local opt-in requirement will allow for statewide advertising of Keno, which could significantly increase revenue. Estimates suggest that this could bring in an additional $2 million in the first year and $10 million by the second year. Proponents believe that a more extensive advertising campaign could attract more players, similar to how other lottery games are marketed.

However, opponents of the proposal express concern that it undermines local control, a principle that many New Hampshire residents value. Critics argue that towns should have the authority to decide whether Keno aligns with their community values and needs. They emphasize that the original Keno program was accepted by communities with the understanding that they would retain this decision-making power.

The meeting also touched on the broader implications of gaming revenue distribution. A proposal by House Representative Sweeney suggested a revenue split of 70% to operators and 30% to the state, which has raised eyebrows among some lawmakers. They argue that this model may not be sustainable or beneficial for the state, especially when compared to neighboring states like Maine and Massachusetts, which have lower percentages allocated to operators.

As the committee continues to deliberate on these issues, the outcomes could have significant implications for local governance and the state's budget. The discussions reflect a broader tension between maximizing revenue through expanded gaming and maintaining the autonomy of local communities in decision-making processes. The committee is expected to revisit these topics in future sessions, as they seek to balance the needs of the state with the values of its residents.