While I have no objections to gambling from a moral standpoint...I do not support casino gambling in Texas. Yes...there are Texans that drive to Louisiana and Oklahoma on occasion to gamble and that is Texans money that could stay in Texas. However, bringing casinos into Texas only makes them more accessible to more people--which makes it almost certain that more Texans can lose more of their money. This can be explained by opportunity cost--money lost to slot machines is money that cannot be used to make mortgage payments, start a business, invest in financial securities, etc, etc, etc. Gambling does not create new money. Additionally, gambling is highly addictive and can take a tremendous toll on society. The states with the lowest rates of problem gambling are Utah & Hawaii, which ironically happen to be the only states with no forms of legalized gambling (lottery, slots, table games, etc). I totally agree that Texans deserve the opportunity to vote on the issue and respect everyone's opinions, but I hope that people will consider both the pro's and con's and do not solely support casinos because they believe it will bring a little bit of the Las Vegas atmosphere to the Lone Star state. Las Vegas may be glamorized by the media, but the city is an economic disaster on wheels.
A show on HDNet (owned by Mark Cuban apparently) called "Drinking Made Easy" recently made a stop in DFW. Unfortunately they decided to title the show "Drinking Made Easy: Dallas" The funny thing was they only visited one location in Dallas. 3 were in Fort Worth (which they barely mentioned), and one was in Waco. To top it all off, on the episode guide online, they had this gem:
"Fort Worth, a major suburb just to the west of Dallas, began..."
^^^^This is a perfect example why being a Fact Checker for a media source is a job that appeals to me. This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine--yes Dallas may be the largest city in the metropolitan area, but that doesn't mean that every city within a 50 mile radius is a "suburb." There are absolutely zero (yes 0!) characteristics of Fort Worth that make it a "suburb of Dallas." I will once again point to other examples...Scarsdale, NY and Livingston, NJ are suburbs of NYC; Yonkers & Jersey City are not...Lower Merion Township, PA and Cherry Hill, NJ are suburbs of Philadelphia; Camden, NJ and Wilmington, DE are not...Hillsborough is a suburb of San Francisco; Oakland is not...Edina is a suburb of Minneapolis; St. Paul is not...Bloomfield Hills is a suburb of Detroit; Windsor, ON is not...Issaquah is a suburb of Seattle; Tacoma is not.
Sorry to showcase one of my many quirks, but I am a stickler for being politically correct when it comes to the City/Suburb dichotomy, haha.
One thing that I find interesting is if you look at census figures, Fort Worth is larger than several cities that are considered "big cities": Memphis, Boston, Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, Nashville, Milwaukee, Washington DC, Las Vegas, etc. The difference, though, is Fort Worth is not a "regional capital"; Dallas is. But there's one thing Dallas always forgets: Fort Worth is West Begins, which means that Dallas is Where the East Peters Out.
Fort Worth may have more people living within its city limits, but excluding Memphis, Nashville, & Las Vegas, all of those cities are "bigger" than Fort Worth. Fort Worth, along with many other southern & western cities (Dallas included) populations are as large as they are because they cover very large amounts of land area compared to their Northeastern & Midwestern counterparts. Fort Worth covers approximately 300 sq. miles of land area, whereas Boston contains just over 40. Philadelphia and Dallas have similar populations, but you could fit Philadelphia inside the city of Dallas 3 times. I don't mean to rant, but city populations only mean so much. San Jose, CA has a larger population than San Francisco, but the San Jose-San Francisco comparison is similar to that of Fort Worth-Dallas.
Fort Worth is by no means a "suburb of Dallas." The term "suburb" insinuates that Fort Worth is primarily a bedroom community for people that work in/near Dallas. While some people may fall into this description, they are a minority.
"Satellite city" may be a better description of Fort Worth in relation to Dallas. Other examples would be Oakland & San Jose to San Francisco, Wilmington to Philadelphia, Newark & Jersey City to NYC, Bridgeport & Stamford to NYC, Dayton to Cincinnati, Milwaukee to Chicago, Fort Lauderdale to Miami, St. Petersburg to Tampa, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe I'm on my own here but I'm pretty much tired of places that go to so much trouble and effort just to convince me how "Texan" they are. Ok, ok, I get it. You're so very incredibly Texan. I also get that you look like a bunch of very generic venues conveniently located under one roof.
Well said!! These places are completely kitsch and depict Texas as more of a theme park than anything else.