BMGer Peter Porcupine recently observed that Deval Patrick will never be President because of casinos. My own view is that Deval would never be President regardless, but this did get me thinking about the collateral damage from casinos.
Imagine this campaign if …
Martha Coakley, Democrat not tied to casinos, runs against Charlie Baker, Republican not tied to casinos. I think her currently way-too-thin lead (three points in one poll) is much wider.
Steve Grossman runs as a successful treasurer who holds progressive positions. Casinos never come up, and he doesn’t push for them. He is then a more viable alternative to Coakley. (No, I don’t think he would have won, but it would have helped.)
Warren Tolman runs as a solid union guy, and he never dabbles in the casino business. (Remember, Maura Healey first separated herself from Tolman by coming out against casinos.)
Does Berwick even run? He had the clearest anti-casino position, and it made him my eventual second choice. If he doesn’t run, what happens with Kayyem? What would have happened if she ran anti-casino early on?
This is all unknowable, and probably pointless. But it bothers me that we’ve come to a point where both candidates for governor are pro-casino. (As you may recall, our last nominee said he opposed them in 2006.) I think it’s doing damage to our side.
Why? Because, I assume, deep down, Martha Coakley, Steve Grossman, all the others … never wanted casinos. Sure, they saw the potential benefit, and they were receptive to the jobs argument, but they know casinos are bad medicine, and they always sound conflicted when they discuss them. More damage.
Thank God we have the referendum, and thanks again David for your work on it. I think repeal is going to pass.
John Tehan says
…but we need all hands on deck to make sure it does. Please help us – go to http://www.repealthecasinodeal.org or email repealfielddirector@gmail.com to get involved!
johntmay says
In Nevada, they are looking towards high tech manufacturing to offset the loss of revenue and jobs now that gambling is down 20-30% in the state. In New Jersey, they are looking to turn the abandoned casino buildings into universities. And here in Massachusetts we are turning to casinos as if we are unable to pursue over avenues.
jconway says
I posted that article on Reno and their Mayor wanting to invest in “high tech, transit, healthcare and education” and thought to myself-if they want our economy and we want theirs-something’s not right.
Al says
of hoped for easy money to a politician, regardless of how fleeting it might be, or what the costs might be. All they can see are those promised dollars and no vote for taxes to raise those revenues.
SomervilleTom says
I am aware of no evidence that Ms. Coakley “never wanted casinos”. That sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Her record indicates that while expressing something like neutrality (like so many of her other positions), she has done all in her power as AG to block the repeal petition and make casino gambling happen.
I really don’t see any difference between the gubernatorial candidates on casino gambling — even “deep down”.
JimC says
It’s an assumption. I meant to say that, and have updated the post.
jconway says
I agree with JimC that if she or Grossman weren’t so in the tank for casinos that there would be a bigger and better contrast between her and Baker. Frankly, backing repeal is an even better road not taken for Baker. Go over to RMG sometime-none of those guys want this.
johntmay says
If I were Baker, I’d run against casinos and push for a value based economy of manufacturing, medical care, higher education, and tech development.
Trickle up says
Worthy of an economist, that one.
But okay, assume assumption. What does that say about them? Nothing good.
Certainly Coakley and Grossman were and are in a position to protect, or try to protect, the people of Massachusetts from predatory gambling. For the AG I would argue it is practically part of her job description to do so.
So we are to assume that C and G don’t actually want casinos, but are giving them a pass for political reasons?
Yech, that stinks.
I’d much rather assume that they’ve sincerely drunk the slots-barn Kool Aid, not that that is much better.
JimC says
You can think that, but it’s not really the point.
For 16 years, Republican governors threatened casinos at every turn. Deval came in — and granted, he faced some pressure from tribes — but he dived right in to casinos. I’m asking people to imagine he had said no. I doubt anyone, certainly neither Grossman nor Coakley, would be pushing for them now. And the fact that we have this law, that we are still trying to figure this out, that we have this rotten commission … all goes back to to that bad decision.
Politicians should remember the Seven Generations rule.
merrimackguy says
He clearly loves them. Baker only wanted one, he wants three plus a slots parlor.
Trickle up says
But you did make more than one point!
JimC says
I changed the first item about Coakley and Baker to align with the others, in which casinos simply don’t exist as an issue. (Left the Berwick / Kayyem one though.)
nopolitician says
And then what for Springfield? Will the state step up with 3,000 jobs for the city? Will it work to redevelop a multi-block area devastated by tornado, with vacant land on Main Street three years after this disaster happened? Will it help Main Street attract businesses other than nail salons, social service centers, dollar stores, and pawn shops?
Will the state replace MGM as the entity that will bring in restaurants, concerts, a movie theater, a bowling alley, higher-end retail to the downtown? Or will it help Springfield find another partner that will do the same?
Or will it just tsk-tsk Springfield and tell it to get better on its own?
JimC says
But I believe Springfield is better off without a casino.
johntmay says
At best, casinos are good at exploiting the available wealth from a prosperous area. Vegas did well because it harvested the wealth from nearby California. Atlantic City, for a time, did well harvesting the wealth from NYC, Philly, and so on. Who in their right mind has wanted to want to go to Springfield all these years and will only now go because there are casinos?
Peter Porcupine says
The state has many ways to help them. For example, they could site a state lab there to explore gerontology or opiate treatments – two currently well funded initiatives. The IBEW could get almost as many jobs building something like that as they could a casino. When the state sites such facilities, it does it in expensive Metro West because ‘that’s where people live’ and perpetuate the cycle of expense around the city and destitution in rural areas.
These type of things do not happen because Boston legislators do not see any up-side for their constituents and vote to keep the pork closer to home. Rural areas do not have enough votes to get regional school transportation funded regularly, let alone development of new facilities. As a ‘commonwealth’, the Legislature’s attitude is All for One and One for Themselves. This was not always the case; once every city and town had its own Rep until Progressives got the house cut to 200 from 351 and made it population based in the name of cost savings of salary. Then, urban legislators had to work with rural ones. Now, they just out vote them.
So they figured gambling might appeal to them – they can’t be too bright if they live there anyways. In consequence, they will do nothing for Springfield even if they easily could.
(Oh – I think it was me that cast aspersions on Patrick’s Presidential prospects over the legacy he leaves)
JimC says
I think it was you. I’ll update the post.
Christopher says
While election was by town rather than by artificial districts larger towns were allowed to elect more representatives.
nopolitician says
I’m not sure if your answer is fully serious, but the problem that Springfield and its residents face is that the vast majority of them are not qualified to work in a laboratory. That is a major problem in this state in general – our plan has been to focus on high-end jobs, and the byproduct has been to take the people who aren’t qualified for those high-end jobs and shunt them to poor Gateway cities like Springfield.
The 3,000 casino jobs are going to be mostly lower-income jobs – which most of the state says “eeeww!”, but the 3,000 people who will be employed by them are going to be pretty happy about it.
stomv says
And, furthermore, to the extent that middle, upper middle, and better paid jobs are created in Springfield, there is an economic multiplier. This isn’t “trickle down” — this is the very real notion that people go out to eat. With a steady income, they get some repairs done on their house. Etc.
nopolitician makes a good point I think. Don’t want casinos? Fine, but come up with some good economic development for Springfield. Get some jobs there now, get a neighborhood buzzing as up and coming, etc.
I disagree with porc that Boston outvotes the rest of the state. Boston is only 10-15% of the legislators, after all. Nevertheless, the hollowing out of Springfield isn’t good for the Commonwealth, and particularly (and perhaps unfairly), if you don’t want casinos, you’ve got to talk about economic development alternatives in places like Springfield.
drikeo says
Springfield should be the economic hub of western Massachusetts. Casinos would end that. White collar companies don’t want to be associated with a casino town. In fact, the casino development in Springfield could chase away the remnants as Mass Mutual.
Springfield needs to rezone, redevelop and rebuild. In fact, chances are pretty good that other developers would leap at the chance to build all the non-casino stuff associated with the casino project (along with office space and housing to make the whole thing sustainable).
nopolitician says
Why would Mass Mutual be chased away from a casino that is over two miles from its headquarters? Do white-color companies like to be associated with cities with annual double-digit murder rates? With extreme poverty? With substantial unemployment?
Springfield isn’t suffering because it hasn’t “rezoned”. There is all kinds of empty, developable land in Springfield across the entire spectrum of zoning. The city has no money to “redevelop” or “rebuild” at the level that needs to be done – or at any level, for that matter.
And it is ludicrous for you to suggest that “other developers would leap at the chance to build all the non-casino stuff associated with the casino project”. I am flabbergasted that you would be so naive. There have been some buildings empty in Springfield on Main Street for over 30 years. The opportunity is there – there is no interest, and there hasn’t been any interest in decades.
drikeo says
The one thing you are right about is it’s been a decades-long slide in Springfield. However, the casino panacea fantasy you’re living in is pure unadulterated manure.
There is a way out. It takes foresight, commitment and time, but it works. Cambridge did it with Kendall Square. Downtown Boston has done it in building a skyline and attracting a mix of businesses that leverage the immense brain power flowing from the region’s universities. Somerville is going to house something like 20,000 jobs in Assembly Square alone and that many more again when the Green Line extension gets built. Quincy is rebuilding its downtown so that more people can live and work there.
What you’ll see in every city is a mish-mash of zoning restrictions that make it nearly impossible to pull off urban revitalization without the creation of a redevelopment authority or a massive special permit involving a district overlay. That’s exactly what Springfield is handing its casino developer without the city ever taking control of that process itself. It’s the lazy man’s plan for prosperity and a brighter future, which I suppose makes it perfect for Springfield.
However, casinos actually make all that crime and local poverty worse. Go check out Chester, PA or Atlantic City, NJ or downtown Vegas off the Strip.
They also lead to significant increases in white collar crime, absenteeism and decreased productivity. This is an older Frontline report, but the same factors are at play today. It cites a study from the ’90s that found a business “with 1,000 workers can anticipate increased personnel costs of $500,000 or more per year-simply by having various forms of legalized gambling activities accessible to its workers.” Businesses aren’t stupid. They don’t want to create cost centers or locate next to entities that compound socioeconomic ills.
So, you’ve got actual, concrete examples of cities in MA that have done the whole smart growth/redevelopment plan and succeeded against a history of casino towns across the country that have failed to attract and actively driven away white collar employers. Does Springfield want to be the place where all those graduates from area colleges go to work or does it want to be the place where the dwindling local blue collar population spends the remnants of it free and not-so-free cash?
It’s choosing the latter right now and that’s an incredibly stupid choice. However, the smart choice would require planning, commitment and patience and why would Springfield want to do that when Penn National is flashing cash and promising the moon?
nopolitician says
Your “success stories” involve communities in close proximity to Boston, a world-class city with both incredible consumer demand and energy. That’s a little like looking at the child of super-successful parents, a child who got into Harvard, and then pointing to the kid from the single mom and saying “see, he can do it, you’re just a loser for not doing it too”.
I was impressed with one of the communities you suggested – Quincy. They had a comprehensive plan for their downtown. However this is where Springfield’s budget constraints kick in. When I search the Quincy city directory for employees in their planning department, it shows 16 employees. When I search Springfield, there are five listed in Planning, and five listed in Economic Development. Even if some of Quincy’s listed employees are administrative assistants, Quincy has 2/3 the population and 1/2 the land of Springfield but has 50% more employees to do this kind of development planning.
Quincy’s demographics win hands-down. It has a median household income that is almost twice Springfield, a median house value that is 2.8x that of Springfield, and a labor force participation rate of 67% (compared to a LFPR of 59% in Springfield). It wins in services too – it has a police force per 1000 resident of 2.03, compared to 2.38 for Springfield – despite having a crime rate that is significantly lower than Springfield.
Quincy’s downtown is also just eight miles from downtown Boston. It is very attractively placed for people interested in Boston.
So while Quincy (and Cambridge, and Boston) may be doing good with the abundant resources they enjoy and with the favorable development environments they are in, it is not right to point to them and then criticize Springfield for not doing more with less.
If the state would just increase its aid to Springfield so that we could have the city services that we need, that would go a long way. I mean really, the police disparity should be a top priority – if Springfield is considered to have a big crime problem and Quincy does not, then how can Quincy justify 2.03 officers per resident but Springfield have just 2.38 per resident?
jconway says
You feel like the state has abandoned your city, and like striker points out, a job is a job-particularly to those that are jobless and need all the help they can get. I have been beating the drum since the first day repeal got on the ballot that we have to make an economic argument and propose a robust package of alternative to offset the job opportunities that voters in these areas may feel they are losing if the casino bill is repealed. But these should be good jobs, at good wages, in long term sustainable industries.
Casinos are oversaturated in this part of the country, if the Atlantic City and Foxwood layoffs and closings don’t convince you the NY casinos failing just three years after construction should. I strongly believe a Springfield casino will be yet another blighted abandoned building in 5-10 years time, the jobs will be shed, and then the community is left with another empty eyesore as the rest of the state looks away. Casinos are the fastest way to get the rest of the state to give up on real solutions to Sprinfield’s problems.
drikeo says
Yes, the Boston area has advantages … because it’s spent the past 40 years making itself into a world class city/region. Go back to the early ’70s and it looked like Boston was headed inexorably down the drain.
No one’s debating that Springfield is in terrible shape. However, Springfield is making the same “well, it can’t get worse” dice throw Chester, PA tried. It didn’t work there and it’s not going to work any better in Springfield. What you’re going to get is a casino inside a crappy city, not an development that can start turning around the city. On top of that Moody’s issued a negative economic outlook for the entire gaming industry. Don’t drink the poison, because it’s not going to lead to some kind of cosmic ascension for Springfield.
To echo what jconway said, you want to see the rest of the state truly abandon Springfield? Build that casino. First it will be, “but we gave you a casino.” Then it will be, “but you were warned that casino thing might go sour.”
Meanwhile, the dirty not-so-secret of Boston is it’s getting expensive for talented and educated people. If other MA cities take advantage of that and look to remake their city centers and revitalize their neighborhoods, there’s a lot of employers and talent who will leap at that opportunity. Springfield is going to miss that wave if it builds the casino.
jconway says
It might be Boston or Cambridge level wealthy now, but its been a 20 process to get it from Scumerville/Slummaville (what we called it even when I was a kid) to the hipster and soon to be yuppie enclave it is today. New Bedford, like my dads hometown of Salem, is a coastal city with an ugly coal plant and at present-a lot of cheap waterfront real estate. Like Salem, its downtown could be revitalized (and that place was totally dead when I was a kid in the 90s) and it could use whales the way Salem uses witches to bring in a year round tourist flow.
Springfield has the Basketball hall of fame, a great music scene, events like the Big E (which I didn’t even know existed until last year) and some nearby universities to tap into. And an up and coming art museum. Utilize these areas.
Look what North Adams did to this abandoned factory . Obviously, this requires a lot of investment on the states part in better transit, better infrastructure, direct connections to Springfield, and probably some IMF style loans (money in exchange for outside fiscal management) to get it back on its feat. But that is far less likely to happen with casinos, which is not only a quick fix to avoid the long term revenue solutions that would actually get us better transit, etc. but also an easy way for us to say we saved Springfield and look the other way.
HeartlandDem says
This is an industry that lies, hedges, debts with abandon, thrives on conflicts of interest and seemingly for the most part does so with impunity. So, I will wait and see what the actions are and not even place a penny bet on the words of casino moguls and their minions.
hlpeary says
Heartland speaks of an industry that ” lies, hedges, debts with abandon, thrives on conflicts of interest and seemingly for the most part does so with impunity.” Is your reference to the MA State House, the US Congress or politicians in general?
jconway says
My current city of Aurora, IL also bet big on casinos revitalizing its downtown and it had the opposite effect. Small businesses closed, downtown became even more of a ghost town, and the casino customers just parked at the massive garage, went to the casino and spent their money at the all you can eat buffets rather than any of the local restaurants. There are still no major retail anchors in the downtown area.
It stands in stark contrast to Naperville which wisely invested in local buses to connect its station to its downtown, free parking downtown, and a host of local area Chicago restaurants and venues opening up satellites in their downtown. It allowed its downtown liberal arts college to expand and open up museums free to the public, and operate a local transit system for its students. Its also invested in high tech, attracting a lot of professionals to relocate to the area, giving them nightlife to enjoy in a highly walkable downtown, and also doubled down on schools to ensure they stay there to raise families. These cities are right next door to one another, both are former farm communities turned into exurbs, Naperville went the streetcar suburb route and Aurora went the casino route. Its obvious which one worked out.
Fortunately downtown Aurora is finally getting an expanded college campus of its own, lofts, more restuarants, has a brewpub already, and is investing in its schools and better transit systems. Its starting to catch up, but it wasted 15 years chasing after a big payday that never materialized and almost never does.