There are many good reasons one could be opposed to casino gambling in Maine, or at least valid concerns one would want addressed first. That a casino, such as the one proposed by the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes, would create too many good jobs is neither a good reason nor a valid concern.

The Maine Restaurant Association found itself in the awkward position of suggesting such at Monday’s meeting of the casino task force. Within that awkward position, however, is an issue that should be considered as this legislative-commissioned study moves forward.

The association’s concerns, as expressed by Executive Director Dick Grotton, are that the Southern Maine project, at the size and scope envisioned by the tribes, would employ some 4,700 workers at the $650-million resort’s casino, restaurants, hotel, golf course and other facilities, with many of those workers coming from the hospitality industry at wages and benefits far surpassing what most restaurants can pay, thus exacerbating the tourism industry’s existing labor shortage. Those may be concerns of the restaurant association; they should, however, be of no concern whatsoever to the task force or to the Legislature to which it will report. The only reasons Maine should be interested in legalizing casino gambling at all are the revenue it will generate for the tribes and the state and the jobs it will create. If the jobs a casino will create are better than the jobs that exist, good for the casino.

An issue that deserves consideration is how a casino can be structured so that it enhances, rather than harms, existing businesses. It is widely recognized, for example, that the glut of full-service casino resorts in Atlantic City had a devastating effect upon existing businesses, from hotels and restaurants to beauty parlors and souvenir shops. It also is widely recognized that the ability of full-service casino resorts to subsidize these peripheral offerings with gambling proceeds gives them a competitive advantage. Mr. Grotton calls this “predatory pricing” and he is correct in calling it unfair, particularly since a Maine casino would be a monopoly. The best guarantee that a casino will create good jobs is by preserving a competitive environment among diverse employers for the best workers, not by giving it an edge that drives other employers out of business.

Some places have figured out ways to give existing businesses and new businesses not associated with the casino a chance to prosper because of the casino. Michigan and Ontario, for example, limit the size and number of peripheral businesses the casino can operate (two restaurants, for instance, instead of 10) and require that the actual design of the casino allow other businesses to locate near enough to enjoy the expanded customer base. Some of the riverboat casinos of the Midwest are required to operate shuttle busses to the host community’s business district to boost existing businesses. Any state that licenses a casino can require strict accounting practices so that the gambling proceeds are not allowed to underwrite other offerings.

It’s a competitive world out there, so let the best employers win. The concerns of the Maine Restaurant Association about fair competition, though, are valid and the experiences elsewhere offer ways to address them.