Citizens of the Commonwealth are making history….again!
“No” votes at the ballot in West Springfield (Hard Rock), East Boston (Suffolk Downs), Palmer (Mohegan Sun) and Milford (Foxwoods) sends a resounding message to Governor Patrick and the Legislature.
The gambling industry, lobbyists, legislators, main stream media and special interests have exchanged multi-millions of dollars to influence the public opinion on these wrong-headed proposals. Milford voters stood up today and stated, “WE are better than slots!”
We do not want these predatory facilities in the Commonwealth. We do not want the developers back in 180 days creating hell in our communities. The law panders so greatly to the gambling industry that it allows for a come-back after 180 days.
It is time for the hubris of our elected officials to become humility and apologize to the People who pay your wages for the mistake you made by legalizing casinos/slots when the industry is tanking and Americans are seeking real economic opportunities not monopolies that drain regional economies and breed local low rollers.
We look forward to legislation to repeal the casino law in it’s entirety.
We urge you to support the citizens movement to repealthecasinodeal.org. Tomorrow is the last day to sign a petition and bring it to your city/town clerk.
Do it.
Sure doesn’t seem like people are that into casinos as a means of economic development. The closer they get, the more people seem to really hate the idea of having one nearby. So that points out that people really don’t want the predatory aspect of casinos around them, regardless of the promised economic boon.
Makes you think that another strategy would be more successful. Perhaps “big-bang” economic development — attract a mega-business with the right incentives, be it Boeing or Foxwoods — is not really the right way to do it. Perhaps we should focus more on ecosystems of smaller businesses — eg. Main Street businesses, and strengthening pre-existing cultures like, say … clean tech! (We’re doing well with that … could always do more.)
I’ve always found it peculiar that the Governor would expend so much effort on a strategy that emphatically does *not* 1.) play to Massachusetts’ considerable strengths, nor 2.) spread the burden of revenue-generation equitably.
Time to celebrate
Al Gore Style
…but I think you said it best Charley!
To me, this was a huge disappointment when Governor Patrick pushed for this. What we need is real economic development plans based on our own strengths, like education, innovation and community. Casinos are the antithesis of all of those, and a regressive way to raise revenue for the state government at the expense of the state’s residents.
Congrats to Milford!
The Springfield vote passed due to economic development. That was MGM’s main thrust – the unemployment rate in Springfield is astronomical – I’d bet upwards of 40% if you consider people who have stopped looking for work.
MGM came in promising 3,000 jobs. I looked at the responses that people posted on MGM’s facebook page, almost all the posts were people saying things like “I hope I can get a job working there”.
Most people here may not realize how bad things are in our state because of housing segregation. If you have a degree or a marketable skill, you live in the suburbs and you’re not doing that bad. Schools are pretty good for you. Life is generally OK.
If you don’t have a degree or marketable skill, there is just nothing. No jobs, no hope for jobs. Schools are pretty bad – not because of the teachers, but because you have 30 kids in a classroom, 25 of which are from extremely troubled households.
Main Street businesses are not viable outside of wealthier areas because prices are going to be higher than Wal-Mart. I was in Brookline a couple of years ago (I don’t usually get out that way), and was amazed at the little shops and restaurants there. Nothing like that exists in Springfield, the money just isn’t here to support that stuff.
There was an article published on Masslive.com today giving examples of the extreme disparity. For example, one zip code in Springfield has a median household income of $18,326. About a mile away, in Longmeadow, their median household income is $95,913.
Is it any wonder that people in a neighborhood with a median income of $18,326 are going to vote to put 3,000 jobs into the city? And MGM knew this, that is how they marketed themselves.
or in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, communities for which part or all are urban.
I’m not picking nits, I’m pointing out that the Boston city scene is desirable, and that people with means choose to live there. The other cities in MA don’t have quite the same broad caché.
A big part of the problem that smaller urban areas face is that people point at Boston – and write policies based on that. Boston is a world-class city, in a league of its own. When you think “urban”, you need to start thinking about the so-called Gateway cities – smaller cities which have a lot of multi-family housing, lots of poverty, lots of immigrants, and a commercial base that was stripped over the course of multiple generations by their suburban neighbors due to lower property tax rates and people fleeing darker-skinned poor people.
Boston has a critical mass that is partially there because it is so hard to work in Boston and live elsewhere. It also gained its wealth primarily via finance, not manufacturing, and this allowed it to avoid a lot of the problems our country has faced due to deindustrialization.
Let me turn it around for you – what is Boston specifically doing to make it a desirable city, and can Gateway cities do the same? Or what did it do to avoid becoming like the Gateway Cities?
Let me give you just one example of what is a massively start difference between Boston and Springfield. Springfield has a population of 155,000; Boston is 636,000. Springfield’s school population is 25,283; Boston is 55,114. In other words, Springfield has over 16 students per 100 residents; Boston has less than 9.
Let me throw another out there for you to chew on: Boston outsources its homeless population to cities like Holyoke and Springfield because it is too expensive to house the homeless from Eastern MA in Eastern MA. What do you think the impact of the forced resettlement of the poor from East to West might be?
My basic point is that it is very easy for a town like Milford to vote down a casino because Milford isn’t struggling the way cities like Springfield are. It didn’t have tens of thousands of unemployed and largely unemployable voters pulling the lever.
And I am confident that Mike Lake and hopefully other statewide candidates also approach the Gateway cities issue. It’s one of the reasons I wanted Murray or Curtatone to run for Governor. I would argue these cities could better leverage the assets they have, should get a one time investment spur from the state government, and should be better linked via transit and economically to the rest of the state. I don’t see casino’s being an integral part of development out there.
My friends in Springfield seem to be adamantly opposed to the proposal. Nobody is resenting the voters who may be tempted to vote for it, but I do think the costs far outweigh any benefits. Providing alternative and sustainable economic development that doesn’t make the situation worse is key.
Aurora, IL has many of the same challenges Springfield has as a post-industrial city with a low density high population spread out too thin for the city to properly police or educate, and a hallowed out downtown. The Casino injected significant revenue into the local economy in it’s first five years and now has petered out, catering primarily to local low income residents (which doesn’t help them), while being designed in a way that encourages people to spend money in the casino and not explore the downtown. The city has finally recognized this and is trying to build an arts district and creative corridor centered around the private Aurora University and the local community college, but it’s still struggling. The glitzy Walter Payton’s Roundhouse that was enticed by the casino has been replaced by the Domain Du Page brewpub catering to the young urban professionals slowly making their way back.
Much as Somerville was revitalized by fleeing Cambridge and Boston residents attracted to cheaper housing, perhaps Springfield can do what other small cities on the western periphery of Chicago have done and offer more small scale urban amenities to entice Bostonians and Metrowester’s out there. The housing stock is vintage and cheap, they have a great music scene, some colleges, and some corporate headquarters. Get them a commuter rail line for a direct link to the city and non-gambling nightlife alternatives and the young will flock.
that the details of Boston are wholly different from the other cities, and I get that. That’s kind of why I made the point I did.
So all of that applies to Boston too, except the erosion of commercial base.
I might expand “finance” to “knowledge-based” (finance, education, medical, research), but point taken.\
I know you mean “k-12” students, but I’d point out that Boston has a metric megaton of college kids — they add to the population without kids, but they also add to the non-taxable property tax base, because they’re associated with unis who don’t pay property tax. So it cuts both ways methinks.
I’ve never heard this, and it sounds terrible. I’d point out though that Boston does have an excess of 10% affordable housing; lots of other places don’t.
I think that Boston is embracing its density is key. People live in Boston because the proximity of services and cool stuff. One challenge that the smaller cities have is that, sure, they have a little downtown area, but it’s really hard to live (well) in Springfield without owning a car or, more likely for a couple, two cars. In many parts of Boston metro, affluent, educated people and families own zero or one car, and that allows the density and the transit options. When everybody’s got cars, you’ve got lots of parking lots, things get farther apart, nobody wants to walk or bike, mass transit loses ridership and then cuts back service, vicious cycle. The smaller cities aren’t dense enough to provide the benefits of living downtown, which means folks get the city problems without the city benefits, and leave for the ‘burbs. I think that — and remember, I don’t live in Springfield — that Springfield shouldn’t try to be a suburb; it won’t beat it’s neighbors at that game. Instead, be a city. Zone and build mixed use density, so that you get downtown areas which are livable and people can go days or weeks without driving. I don’t know “how” to do it, or even if it’s possible… or if the citizens of Springfield even want that. I just don’t see how the smaller cities can survive as is — they don’t offer the benefits of dense urban living, just the challenges.
P.S. Yes, I agree about the dynamics of Milford voting against casinos versus the dynamics of Holyoke.
Yes, I agree that a city should try and be a city, not a suburb. However iIt is hard to offer amenities when year after year you must cut municipal services due to declining property tax revenue and state aid (the city has been at the levy ceiling for 2 years now and non-Chapter 70 state aid is lower today than it was 14 years ago). Dense housing means more residents but fewer property tax dollars per resident. That’s a big problem, I suspect it could be a bigger factor than people realize – and it is something the state could address better.
The major problem, when you get down to it, is that our poverty rate is just too damn high. That impacts and impedes just about everything. Small businesses don’t start up because there isn’t enough disposable income. Properties get run down because there is no money to fix them. Poverty ruins schools. It increases crime. It keeps out the middle-class – our densest neighborhoods are also our most poor neighborhoods.
That is why although I don’t like the idea of a casino, I can see that 3,000 more jobs will help the city tremendously. I can see a casino offering downtown amenities that might cause people to want to live there.
It may cover up the cut and heal the wound but it will cause significant more harm down the road. We can look at Gary, Hammond, Milwaukee, Aurora, Rockford and plenty of other post-industrial towns in my current part of the country that enjoyed a brief revenue bump, wasted by politicians (great the Milwaukee PD got speedboats!) and as soon as that short term increase happens it is offset by the tremendous social costs the industry causes. I can’t tell you how many bankruptcy clients of mine in those areas were problem gamblers, and it always broke my heart. And if I was Everett I definitely wouldn’t trust Steve Wynn. He has a history of breaking the law and his promises.
The casino deal wasn’t sold as a municipal revenue generator. They sold it as jobs and entertainment. 2,000 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent jobs, with a commitment toward minority hiring as well. Don’t get me wrong – I think that the 3,000 jobs will be accompanied by a loss of jobs elsewhere in the region. But the region has primarily expanded by poaching businesses from Springfield, so maybe that is a just dessert?
I also expect there to be increases in the social costs as you describe – but again, Springfield is already impoverished, I don’t think people who are earning a median income of $18,000 will be spending much time in the casino. I think it is going to hit the middle-income people in Springfield’s suburbs. Honestly, a big part of me wants to have as much sympathy for them as they had for Springfield’s current situation, which unfortunately close to zero.
The other component is entertainment. We have the MassMutual Center in downtown Springfield, an arena that can hold around 8,000 for a concert. We also have the Springfield Symphony Hall which is geared toward around 2,000. Those venues have been largely empty of shows since Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun got into the game. I have heard that the CT Casinos make artists agree to a 75 mile, 2 year exclusivity agreement to play there. That has frozen Springfield out of that mid-range of entertainment completely (we can’t compete with the much larger Hartford Civic Center, which holds about 16,000 for a concert, but we used to get lots of good acts in the past).
I voted against the proposal, but I’m not entirely pessimistic about it.
I’ll post a blog tomorrow detailing things much more substantially, but for now, let me just say that the Casino Free Milford effort was the absolute best campaign I have ever participated in. People came together across party lines to defeat this thing – politics, indeed, makes strange bedfellows.
In an earlier post, I showed pictures of my truck the the rolling billboard that said “Keep Milford Casino Free”. My truck has Obama and Warren and Markey bumper stickers, but it was one of three – one of the other trucks had Romney, Brown and Gomez stickers. But we worked together to defeat this casino, and found common ground in doing so. I can say that I now have good friends who fly a Gasden flag at their house, and that’s something I never would have said were it nor for this campaign.
Milford had the largest percentage turnout of any casino referendum thus far. Foxwoods spent over $1 million – we raised and spent $28,000, and crushed them by a 2-1 margin. I’m feeling pretty good about things in my town tonight, and I will sleep well.
Much respect for you and what you guys have done today. An incredible effort and turnout.
And I completely agree about crossing party lines, and its a good thing! This fight has an amazing way of bringing together every person who cares about their community, regardless of political affiliation, against corporate interests. People can come to the same conclusions from many angles sometimes, and that can’t help but give me some faith in people.
AND: I hope everyone who voted in Milford today also signed the petition to repeal casinos statewide! (tomorrow at 5pm, last day to turn the signed sheets into city hall, print out at 5signatures.com! One last plug, we are so close to the signatures we need!)
I can’t even describe the elation I felt when I read the first precinct results, my precinct, #5 – 540 yes, 1,217 no!! I knew we had crushed them town-wide as soon as I saw those numbers – I was an observer at my polling place, so I was the first person in town to see them, other than the poll workers. I was jumping out of my skin as I texted the results to our victory party!
We didn’t lose a single precinct – we drubbed them something fierce. I hope the legislature gets the message – and seeing me working across the aisle should send a chill down their spine. We’re staying together to effect positive change, this is going to be fun…
…by 57% turnout for a one-question vote on a non-regular election day. Too bad the regular elections a couple weeks ago didn’t get those numbers.
And to be a fly on the wall?
Where?
Sputtering Stan Rosenberg, Lap Dog who conducted his propaganda behind closed doors? Smirking Chimp whose ego was stroked and insulted USS Mass after spending buckets of taxpayer dollars conducting cheerleading phony surveys that overstated revenues and jobs?
‘Racino’ DeLeo?
Kathi-Ann Reinstein of the closed door meetings excluding the media and the public?
Governor Slot Barns who agreed to support an INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS…..well….until he was re-elected and made promises behind closed doors.
Senator ‘Bad Memory’ Petrucelli?
Gam[bl]ing Commission Chairman Steve ‘Double Standard’ Crosby? who knew about PLainridge’s ‘indescretions’ in April yet allowed the Town of Plainville to negotiate in BAD FAITH? Ooops!
AG Martha ‘Always Running for Higher Office’ Coakley who ignored the ILLEGAL RAFFLE conducted by Plainridge for MANY years and never felt the need to investigate Sticky Fingers Piontkowski.
Hey! What’s a MILLION $$$? What’s a little corruption?
[And she wants to be what? Governor, you say? Martha is the greatest assurance we’ll have a Republican Governor!]
Like no other issue, PREDATORY GAMBLING highlights the need for greater transparency, ethics reform and CHANGE.
Let’s REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!
And work for change.
We’ve had too long to think about this bad idea and might actually be changing our minds about it.
Wow, super impressive, and great news — congrats to all the grassroots folks in Milford!
And thank you for highlighting the repeal petition — I confess I’ve been living under a RaiseUp MA rock for the past 2 months and hadn’t clued in to this.
Printed out a sheet and will bring it to Malden City Hall before they close tonight! Hope you get the needed sigs!
with RaiseUp MA.
Very satisfying to see the mountains of sheets rolling in and the Legislature responding.
Here’s hoping all this grassroots organizing here in MA is contagious!
From: State House News Service [mailto:news@statehousenews.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 12:26 PM
To: NEWS@STATEHOUSENEWS.COM
Subject: PATRICK: CASINO LAW “WORKING EXACTLY AS IT’S SUPPOSED TO”
PATRICK: CASINO LAW “WORKING EXACTLY AS IT’S SUPPOSED TO”
By Matt Murphy
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, NOV. 20, 2013……Following the rejection Tuesday of a proposed Foxwoods casino by Milford voters, Gov. Deval Patrick said he does not have second thoughts about the expanded gaming law that turns two years old on Friday.
With a few cities still competing for casino licenses amid dwindling competition, Patrick repeated that casinos are not central to his economic development agenda.
>>> Watch video of the http://www.statehousenews.com/video/13-11-20gov/
“No, I don’t think the law should be repealed. I think it’s working exactly as it’s supposed to, which is to authorize up to three destination resort licenses and one racino, I guess it’s called, and to let local communities make decisions about whether they wanted the facilities in their own communities,” Patrick told reporters.
East Boston, Palmer and Milford voters this month rejected casinos, but Patrick noted strong support in Springfield.
“I think this is something we can do well if we do it the right way. I think the framework of the legislation is the right framework. This has never been central to our economic growth strategy. It’s, for most people, harmless entertainment,” Patrick said.
As far as I know the sites still in the running are:
– Everett
– Springfield
– Suffolk, if it can be repurposed as Revere only
– Taunton, (smells worse on the inside), pending federal approval and renegotiated compact
– New Bedford?? (Only if Taunton falls through)
– Plainville (racino)
– Some other proposal backed by the Gay Head Wampanoag? (Freetown, Freetown/Lakeville or Fall River)
Glenn Koocher was a mentor who taught me to be unafraid of raising hell on the student school committee, and I also remember the Day on the Hill I attended quite vividly. It was either in 2004 or 2005. Keep up the good work. MASC is an organization that is quite unique to the Commonwealth, as are school committees in general, and I am glad to see you advocating on behalf of teachers.
I’ve moved it, the powers that be can feel free to delete
for legalizing sports betting to fund education.