For the nominee of a party that for more than a decade has been running to “respect the will of the voters” by cutting the income tax to 5% (per the 2000 ballot question), this strikes me as a curious strategy.
Baker on Wednesday in an appearance before the editorial board for The Republican, Masslive and The Casa Latina said if he is elected he will work with the legislature to authorize a casino in Springfield – even in voters in November approve Question 3, a statewide referendum that seeks to ban resort casinos in Massachusetts.
“I’m going to vote against the repeal effort,” Baker said. “And if the repeal effort is approved, I’m going to file legislation to put the Springfield casino back on the map.”
Reasonable people can and do differ as to whether it’s a good idea to repeal the casino law (I, of course, will be voting in favor of repeal). But there is no question at all that, if the repeal effort is successful, restoring the legality of casino gambling in order to build a casino in Springfield would be a direct repudiation of what the people had just done. Between that and the growing discontent with Baker in the Republican base, one wonders whether Baker is treading dangerously close to running as what some might see as a “Democrat-lite” – a nearly sure path to failure.
merrimackguy says
If you’re opposed to casinos for many of the reason stated here at BMG (tax on the poor, etc) then you’re not voting Baker anyway.
If you’re on the other anti-casino extreme, the social conservatives, this stand is not changing your vote.
So my guess is he’s looking to scoop some votes in the middle.
It is consistent with his “give one casino a try” stance from 2010.
But overall I agree it will be “not the will of the voters” but not sure how relevant that is in an era where one side can inundate the airways, and so few people can follow the issue. The transmission of “will” to “law” is tricky here in MA.
I’m still waiting the medical marijuana. Didn’t I vote for that years ago?
Patrick says
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/16/grossman-democrats-may-help-gop-baker/eew0AyntvWrolbaOQl5xHJ/story.html
johntmay says
Charlie Baker, Steve Grossman and Martha Coakley all in full support of casinos.
striker57 says
Voters in Springfield approved a casino (as did voters in Plainville, Revere -twice – Everett, Leominster). Apparently the will of these voters doesn’t matter in your repeal effort. Why should a voter in Cambridge have the right to negate the voter in Springfield’s will?
Sounds like Baker is making a bid for Springfield voters who thought their vote should count.
David says
but surely the question whether Massachusetts should have casinos is a matter of statewide, not purely local, concern.
merrimackguy says
Were you okay with the decision of MA voters to repeal rent control in Cambridge and Boston, which I think the voters in those cities did not vote for? Or is that something different?
Not being confrontational, but trying to see the nuance here.
David says
I was OK with it.
fenway49 says
N/T
David says
nt
fenway49 says
I don’t like a bunch of people from the suburbs and woods telling the four cities actually affected they can’t have rent controls. Since 1994 proponents’ claims have been proven completely false, as I predicted.
johntmay says
So who Trumps who? Why should a voter in Springfield have the right to negate the will of the voters in the entire state? $ounds like big money has influenced $ome areas of the state. That is no reason to send us all down that rat hole.
HeartlandDem says
Go ahead and vote for Charlie if you want. I have watched union go Republican plenty of times. Remember Bobby Haynes’ post cards with 30,000 permanent middle class casino jobs and 20,000 construction jobs mailed across the state? I do. And his rants on the steps of the State House that unions aren’t Dems?
Anyone supporting this position is a low information voter.
There is no 1 Casino scenario.
Legalizing Slots/class III opens the state to tribal gaming.
No slots/no class III – no tribal gaming.
Show us one state that legalized slots and hasn’t expanded original legislation and/or watered down the payments and promises.
14% of Springfield population for a casino that will impact the entire state….in the middle of the summer under marching orders from the Mayor who hires many of those with jobs.
Charlie is just showing his vapid pandering as another elitist NIMBY joining Crosby, Patrick, DeLeo, Murray, Coakley, Grossman…….blah, blah, blah. He thinks we should do away with the Plainridge slot barn project, too. Charlie knows best.
Dump it in the dump……..Springfield…..that’s the Beacon Hill way.
johntmay says
Honestly, how many residents from Boston or any other major metro are dying to visit Springfield if only they had a casino?
jconway says
I think we should all go to Springfield and learn how to help revitalize it, and also what it’s citizens want and how to best help them. I’d say the same about Lowell, Lawrence, New Bedford, Lynn and any other city people would advise me not to go to.
I get what you were trying to say though, and would agree a casino would only make their particular urban issues even worse. As it did for Atlantic city, Joliet IL, Aurora IL, Gary IN, Hammond IN, and Detroit MI to name but a few.
johntmay says
Even Martha Coakley admits that, given any other option, she would not choose casinos. Somehow she thinks there are no other options? I can think of a dozen of more ways to revitalize Lowell, Lawrence, New Bedford, Lynn , Springfield that are in keeping with Massachusetts.
jconway says
Cambridge, Boston, and Brookline lost rent control thanks to the rest of the state. A decision that led to the slow but steady erosion of my hometown’s middle class. Not saying that was fair, but this sort of thing has happened before.
In the case of rent control, it’s repeal led to housing costs skyrocketing in the three communities that lost it, the flight of people to affordable housing in adjacent communities and the subsequent ‘Cambridge/gentrification’ of Somerville, Arlington, Alston, and now increasingly Medford, Malden, and Melrose as well. People in those communities were affected by the loss as well. Just as all of us will be paying the tremendous social costs for casinos for a long time to come, particularly if we are on the hook for bankrupty deals like Jersey is for Atlantic City.
SomervilleTom says
Your comment assumes that keeping rent control in place would have stopped the “steady erosion” of the middle class. I suggest that keeping rent control might have had several very different outcomes.
One very real problem that was effectively solved by removing rent control was arson. The number of “hot renovations” in Cambridge and Boston (I don’t know about Brookline) was large and growing. When property owners can’t raise rents, they find other ways to cope.
Massachusetts property values have been skyrocketing across the state. These arbitrary caps on rent (and therefore on rental property income) are no more likely to work than wage and price controls — those have also been tried, and failed miserably.
While casinos aren’t the answer, neither is heavy-handed attempts by government to manipulate the real estate market. In my view, we should be thankful that Cambridge, Boston, Brookline, and the surrounding communities are prospering. That prosperity is reflected in the vibrant night life, the abundance of fabulous restaurants across a range of prices, the flourishing of the region’s art and music scene, and a host of other benefits.
As difficult as gentrification is to handle, I would much rather we be facing the implications of that than, for example, attempting to handle the many and worse issues of either (a) having property values throughout the region plummeting (see Detroit) or (b) have residential real estate property be forced, by government fiat, to become or remain slums because property owners are unable to recover investments in maintenance or improvements.
One aspect is worth mentioning — owner-occupied rental housing. Somerville, in particular, has taken several steps to encourage and reward property owners who live in the buildings they (we!) rent. These include significant property tax rebates and greatly simplified permitting and licensing exemptions. In Somerville and Medford, for sure, buying a two- or three-family, living in one unit, and renting the others is a marvelous way to get into the market and to ensure that neighborhoods retain their residential flavor.
I’m no conservative, yet I think rent control (like wage and price controls) was a really bad idea that was discarded because it didn’t work.
Christopher says
I favor rent control (which is different from keeping it flat indefinitely) using the same logic for raising the minimum wage. Sometimes you have to put your thumb on the scales of the free market to make sure people can afford to live. To me raising wages and controlling costs when done in a balanced manner are two sides of the same keeping people out of poverty coin.
drikeo says
You couldn’t sell a rental property for more than the rents would cover. That cut down on speculation and it generally kept home prices attainable for the middle class. Homeowners didn’t like something cutting into their ability to become house-rich. Getting rid of rent control tipped the scales toward the people selling houses and away from the people buying houses, owning houses or renting houses. The Boston market would have blown up in the ’90s and ’00s even with rent control in place, but it probably would be significantly below where it is now. And homeowners wouldn’t need to dread their next assessment quite so much.
SomervilleTom says
It doesn’t sound like any of you have ever attempted to own and maintain rental property. It also doesn’t sound any of you were paying attention while rent control was in place.
What do you think would have happened to rental properties whose prices were capped at whatever the rent-controlled rents would cover when the Boston market blew up (and it started in the early 1980s, by the way)?
I’ll tell you what would have happened. Many of those buildings would have burned to the ground, and the ones that didn’t would have been turned into slums (because the owners would not have spent a penny to maintain them). There was no cap on the price of an empty lot, nor was there a cap on the price an owner could get for a new building erected on that empty lot after the unfortunate fire. I know that’s what would have happened because that’s what DID happen!
The best way to keep Boston, and cities like it, affordable is to ensure that WEALTH is more evenly distributed. When 1/2% of the population controls the lion’s share of the wealth, and the 99.5% fight over the crumbs that remain, then no government program is going to solve the problem.
The problem in Boston since the 1980s is the excessive and increasing concentration of income and wealth. Solve THAT problem, and the housing affordability problem solves itself. That’s not “trickle down”, it’s “clawback”.
dunwichdem says
Sorry, didn’t mean to downvote (trying to scroll on a phone).
drikeo says
Springfield shouldn’t get unilateral say on an industry that would undermine the regional economy and send social ills spilling over into neighboring communities for the same you can’t start an open air sewage treatment facility in your backyard.
The entire march toward casinos in this state has been bass-ackwards. It should have started with a statewide referendum and public hearings on what types of casinos should be pursued and where they should be located (e.g. how close to major population centers). Instead, we got inside baseball and a half-baked law. If the rest of Massachusetts wants to stop this unholy mess then Springfield will just have to find a less sleazy way to revitalize its downtown.
JimC says
I don’t like the substance of his position, but strategically, I think it’s an OK move for him. He can easily cite the Springfield results if they are close, or forget this altogether if repeal passes. Meanwhile, if you’re really pro-casino, he’s staked out a position that’s stronger than anyone else’s.
Incidentally he can also cite the Legislature’s history of ignoring ballot question results, if he’s serious about this.
Donald Green says
Charlie mostly functions on the conservative end of his party(no indexing of the gasoline tax, cut taxes willy nilly, anti-ACA, health insurers properly run themselves, favors trickle down economics laced with unfocused charity where the system falls short, and thinks the main issue in Ferguson is lack of a job not racism). His values do not sit in making a more cohesive prosperous society, but rather plugging holes so they don’t show up so much, since lacking resources is overcome with self determination, without significant help from your fellow citizens through government. The administrations he served in saw reductions in education, transportation, and health care funding. These perspectives make him a Republican even though he rounds his corners better than the more crass Mark Fisher. The solid Republican in the GOP Primary is actually Mark Fisher. Those who take a R Ballot should be voting for Mr. Fisher, not Charlie Baker.
merrimackguy says
The BMG perception of the MA GOP is Fisher, but the leaders of the party are Baker, Tisei, Jones and Tarr. They are also the people most connected to the people with money, and of course that’s important as well.
Remember that there’s very little Republican grassroots in MA. That is why in the most recent primary the guy with the most grassroots support (Sullivan) lost to the guy supported by the leadership (Gomez).
There have been occasional insurgencies (the Ron Paul delegate caucus wins) and the state committee has been overtaken (through a concerted effort) by the right side of the grassroots, but most of the 11% is pretty tame.
jconway says
Will be lucky to get 15% at the polls, and we all know he barely got the 15% at the convention. It’s gonna be Baker.
And I would agree that he actually sounds more moderate than Grossman, who is massively enthusiastic, Coakely who is evasive, or Berwick who is against the proposals. A fairly similar plan to the one that is proposed by Warren Tolman, whom I don’t think we should call ‘democrat-lite’. Striker is a sound liberal who is backing casinos for his union members, I am opposing it since the known social costs outweigh the anticipated economic benefits. But it seems like a rather poor litmus test, advocacy aside.
Laurel says
Scott Lively will be on the November ballot.
merrimackguy says
Pro-life people are notorious this way.
Laurel says
They may largely be the same voters as the anti-choicers, but not completely.
jconway says
He is the author and main consultant to the Ugandan government which has passed some of the most severe laws against homosexuals in the known world, including jails and fines. I strongly hope he doesn’t get more than a few hundred votes, he is truly a David Duke candidate fueled by hatred and bigotry.
jconway says
Showed that Lively is a truly awful person. I hope his own family doesn’t vote for him.
Christopher says
This is part of why I’ve never been a fan of direct democracy anyway, but if we are going to have ballot questions I’ve wondered whether we should amend the Constitution to prohibit overturning the popular result by the General Court that was elected on the same ballot.
centralmassdad says
That certainly complicates matters if he and Coakley are the nominees.
johntmay says
if he and Coakley are the nominees…….what are the key differences?
Christopher says
…I haven’t heard Coakley state that she will deliberately pursue casinos, popular repeal notwithstanding. I certainly trust Coakley more than Baker to look out for the middle class over all, and I’m especially skeptical of a health insurance executive managing that area of public policy. PLEASE let’s not go down the not a dime’s worth of difference road!
jconway says
She just serves the insurance executives using her public sector positions of influence.
centralmassdad says
But the difference for me is that I will not vote for Coakley, and I think this is a big issue.
I may have to blank it.
Trickle up says
First of all, the question of whether to allow this kind of gambling, and if so how, is not a home-rule kind of thing. It has state-wide impacts.
Also: Sorry David, but referendum is such a blunt instrument that I’m afraid the way is open to carve out an exception for Springfield even if repeal passes.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in against casinos. But I hope Repeal is also courting voters who can be persuaded to vote to repeal the law even though they might be okay with a casino in Springfield.
As Jimc suggests upthread, it’s hard to see Baker being hurt by this.
jconway says
And it might be because headline after headline shows casinos being a bad economic investment and a terrible engine for economic revitalization in hard scrapped urban communities. It’s going to be easier to repeal the deal when we persuade people on the fence that it is a bad deal and a bad bet.
Leave the sanctimony of morality and taxing the poor out of it, valid oppositions, but ones that won’t win in November.
drikeo says
The negative outlook Moody’s issued to the entire gambling industry makes the clear case that this is bad economics. That’s the real political hammer that probably no one in the governor’s race is going to wield. How is the person in the corner office going to move our economy forward if he/she can’t even grasp basic economic information?
hlpeary says
First, let me say i think the Repeal Question 3 will fail in Novemeber and all this will be mute…but, for arguments sake let’s say it did pass, it would be repealing the actual Enhanced Gaming Law as it was written…”to allow up to 3 casinos and 1 slots facility”… if that law is repealed, whether or not to have 1 casino in the state becomes an open question and if Baker wants to propose that, that has nothing to do with a ballot question that shot down 3… many may vote to repeal because they were okay with casinos but not 3 of them…whatever…I think the law will stand as is…it’s not my idea of an entertaining evening but I think the jobs and tax revenue that will stay here rather than heading for CT, RI and ME will be put to good use by our own cities and towns.
hlpeary says
will get my glasses on… : (
jconway says
They aren’t really generating jobs or revenues in any of those states, in fact casinos are shedding them there, certainly not jobs or revenue that our economy, which is already the one Reno says it wants is already generating.
David says
The “repeal” is not actually a full repeal of the 2011 gambling law – that’s just what it’s called because it’s easier than explaining the legal technicalities. What the ballot question would actually do is make table games and slot machines illegal again. In order to bring even a single casino to Springfield or anywhere else, that part of the ballot question would obviously have to be undone. Which would, indeed, repudiate the will of the voters.
hlpeary says
David, if you are correct that this question makes gaming legal or illegl in the state then I think voting NO on the repeal question would be the better thing to do to keep the state’s options open. If we really want to do away with gambling in Massachusetts, we would have to shut down the Lottery (games and Keno), close the racing tracks and ban Bingo. To argue against a casino while gambling is going on in practically every convenience store in the state is bizarre. (Don’t you just love those bread and milk stores that have put in booths and counters so you can play Keno and scratch tickets more comfortably!…I don’t play the Lottery but I don’t mind that others like to because that Lottery gambling money is helping build schools across the state.)
Trickle up says
This reminds me of the arguments that since we “accept” tens of thousands of deaths from auto collisions annually, we have no grounds to object to other things that kill fewer people.
I can think of several ways that lottery tickets are better than casinos, can’t you? And beside, it’s casinos on the margin, not the lottery.
hlpeary says
Gambling is gambling. The anti-casino folks argue that a casino will target the poor but poor people don’t have the money to go to casinos, they go to the local convenience store and scratch tickets…middle class people go to casinos because they have the cash to afford that kind of entertainment. The anti-folks say that casinos are a terrible temptation for the small percentage of people who may be addicted to gambling…but you have to travel to a casino while you just need to go out to buy milk to be tempted by the Lottery. I just find it amusing that the very people who are now telling us how evil a casino business would be are the same people who told us back in the early ’70’s that the Lottery would send the state to hell in a hand basket.
Trickle up says
The point, I think, is that there is more than one way to slice a question.
You have asserted, but not shown, that voting to limit table games but not the lottery is “bizarre.”
But what if my objection to slots and casinos is that they suck money out of the state? What if it is that they threaten to cannibalize the lottery?
By the way, what is bizarre about that? Or do you just mean, That’s not a concern of mine, so let’s dismiss it?
If anything is bizarre, it is a foolish consistency that prevents you from hearing (note: not agreeing with, just understanding) arguments and criteria and concerns that do not fit your pattern.
johntmay says
..is a poor argument, but that is the argument being made when we say that “We have the lottery and the lottery exploits the poor so what’s so bad about casinos exploiting the poor”.
What I want to know from Democrats running for office is this, “Since we know that casinos exploit the poor, why are you for adding one more avenue of exploitation?”
kbusch says
I think the underlying message here is that Mr. Baker is not swayed but what’s popular but sticks to his principles. He’s very upright.
Some may find that pose attractive. Certainly no one here would suggest that we would be best governed were everything subject to plebiscite.