An interesting development.
Patrick told the Herald he would reject a compromise that would allow slots at racetracks up until the first resort-style casino is built in the Bay State.
“I don’t think we will ever get the destination resort casinos if we have slots at racetracks,” he said. “The slots are a cash cow for the developers, and a destination resort casino can be very prosperous too, but they have to commit to a significant investment to do that.” … “I am not trying to be a jerk,” he said. “I am crazy about the speaker. We have a great working relationship. But I haven’t seen anything to persuade me to change a position I’ve held since I settled on this subject a couple of years ago.”
Here’s one way this could play out. The legislature is not going to move a bill without racinos, IMHO; Speaker DeLeo has made that clear enough. So a bill with a destination resort or two, plus slots at the tracks, makes it through the House — but quite possibly not with a veto-proof majority — and easily clears the Senate. Patrick then vetoes it, on the ground that racinos run the risk of too many social costs without the countervailing economic benefits. Then, if the House can’t override, it dies.
If you hate casinos, and if your enthusiasm for Governor Patrick suffered as a result of his casino position, how would you take his veto of a racino bill? If you wrote him off as a result of the casino thing, could you be persuaded to reconsider?