If there’s anything that’s controversial about the casino question, it’s this: will the casinos bring the jobs and economic development they promise, or won’t they?
I would suggest that the evidence is against the pro-casino position. After all, can anyone point to a single instance, anywhere in the United States, where bringing a casino into a downtrodden urban area has turned things around? Yet that’s what the pro-Springfield casino folks say is going to happen. Somehow, Springfield is going to be different from every other time this strategy has been tried. I mean, Detroit has a bunch of casinos, but I don’t recall seeing any glorious turnaround stories coming out of the Motor City lately. To the contrary, three recently-opened casinos in the city didn’t prevent the city from filing for bankruptcy last year.
All of which brings us to today’s astounding Globe column by Thomas Farragher. He’s in favor of letting MGM build a casino in Springfield because … well, because MGM says it’s going to make things better, and by golly, the people of Springfield people believe them.
[W]hat really animates [Rico] Daniele — who, believe me, is easily animated — is the enormous economic life raft that will either be launched or scuttled next month just around the corner from the Italian market he has operated for 38 years in Springfield’s South End.
“It seems like we’re always broke,” Daniele said over lunch at his market Monday. “It’ll be a big spark for the city. There’ll finally be some vibrancy to Springfield. And if people don’t want to come, don’t come.”
Daniele, of course, is talking about the only thing anyone in Springfield is talking about: the $800 million casino project planned by MGM Resorts International for a city where the jobless rate remains stalled stubbornly in double digits, a tornado’s scars are still raw, and the stain of municipal corruption is not yet a distant memory.
I don’t know Mr. Daniele. I’m sure he is a very nice man, and it’s impossible not to feel for him as he watches his city struggle. But, at least judging from Farragher’s column, Mr. Daniele doesn’t have much in the way of qualifications to judge whether MGM’s projections for Springfield are realistic, or whether a casino project represents a genuine turnaround opportunity. Plus, gosh, what better cure for “the stain of municipal corruption” than bringing a casino to town?
For a contrary viewpoint, one might consider the words of a guy who should know.
No one should look to casinos to revive cities, “because that’s not what casinos do.” So explained the project manager for a new Wynn casino rising near Philadelphia.
Give the guy credit for being succinct. The same article offers this hard-to-argue-with point:
Casinos don’t encourage non-gaming businesses to open nearby, because the people who most often visit casinos do not wander out to visit other shops and businesses. A casino is not like a movie theater or a sports stadium, offering a time-limited amusement. It is designed to be an all-absorbing environment that does not release its customers until they have exhausted their money.
But Springfield is going to be different, because … well, listen to this, from Farragher’s conversation with Mr. Daniele.
“MGM is coming to this thing from the heart,” he told me. “They’ll do what they promise they’re going to do. If not, my 89-year-old mother and I will chase them with a broom.”
Let’s get one thing clear: “the heart” has nothing to do with why MGM is coming to Springfield. MGM is not a charity, for God’s sake. It is a money-making enterprise, and it is coming to Springfield because it thinks it will make more money than it spends. And forgive me if I don’t think that MGM is exactly quaking in its boots at the threat of Mr. Daniele and his mother running after them with cleaning implements.
What’s most depressing about this whole thing is that Farragher used to be an investigative journalist. “He spent eight years as editor of the Spotlight Team,” says his bio. Yet there’s no indication – none – that Farragher has done the slightest bit of investigation into whether MGM’s claims are remotely plausible. Nor, apparently, has he looked at other casino developments in cities that resemble Springfield to see if they have rejuvenated those cities. Wouldn’t that be useful to know? I guess when you get handed the title of “columnist,” you no longer have to do any, you know, reporting. You just have to write down a conversation with a nice man in Springfield, parrot the casino industry’s claims, and leave it at that. WTF.
Instead, Farragher’s “analysis” boils down to this: Massachusetts already has the lottery, and Springfield voted yes, so that should be the end of it.
[A]m I going to tell Springfield that it cannot benefit from gambling lucre in a state that profits handsomely from scratch tickets and incessant Keno games? No, I’m not.
Obviously, this begs the question whether Springfield will in fact “benefit” from plopping a casino into its struggling downtown. But Farragher doesn’t bother to investigate whether or not that might actually happen.
Farragher does go out of his way to assure us that he sure isn’t one of those rubes who’s going to be sucked into MGM’s profit-making machine.
I will never visit these casinos unless I’m on the clock for the Globe. When I drove cross-country to take a job in 1988, my traveling companion, who likes the ponies, suggested a side trip to Reno, where I went through 50 bucks in the time it took to ask, “Where’s the free beer?”
That’s right. Casinos are for suckers, as Farragher learned decades ago, and he’s no sucker, he wants you to know. But he must think that there are a whole lot of other suckers out there who will flock to MGM’s Springfield palace and somehow turn the struggling city around.
If only there were some evidence that anything like that might actually happen.
First, the “stain of municipal corruption” is an invention of the Globe. The reporter is very clearly projecting his view of Springfield onto the city. The Albano years ended ten years ago, and even then, the corruption was not municipal in nature – it involved tangential non-profit agencies such as the Housing Authority.
Although I don’t know Mr. Danielle (Rico) personally, I have been in his store, and I know precisely where it is. Rico is in the trenches every single day and he sees that there is nothing economically going on in the vicinity of his store. Nothing. Buildings were demolished due to the tornado, entire blocks. There is a lot of empty space down there, and his customer base is almost nonexistent. To him, holding out would be like telling a starving man not to eat instead of eating a Big Mac because the Big Mac is bad for his health.
Yes, the casino is going to take money out of the region – but they’re not going to take most of it out of Springfield because Springfield residents don’t have anything to take. They’re going to take it from the region and will provide Springfield with more vitality than it has in the process. Because there is nothing there now, and no one at the statehouse had been very interested in changing that even after we were hit with a fricking tornado! I mean, seriously, don’t you realize that when a tornado goes through your community and takes tens of millions of dollars off the tax rolls, that this is a push from behind toward the Proposition 2.5 levy ceiling?
And although I realize that due to being predatory, a casino is not exactly the same as a chain restaurant, I don’t see people protesting chain restaurants which also harvest money out of the local economy and send it back to corporate headquarters, paying local workers minimum wage in the process. I mean, isn’t that what an economy is all about – moving money around? And if a Springfield-based casino can bring in more net revenue from outside the city, then the city economy will improve. And if it can bring in more net revenue from outside the immediate region, then the economy in the immediate region (like from people traveling up Route 91 to ski, or from people who are at a conference downtown – currently warned to “not leave the hotel” – will improve, right?
MGM has been selling the idea of an “integrated casino” to the city. It is not a castle like Foxwoods. It has restaurants that open onto Main Street, it has retail placed in separate buildings from its gaming area. I don’t think a casino is going to hurt Rico because he is already on life support. People do not go to his store because his near-downtown neighborhood is dead, with the traffic only consisting of the people who live in the nearby housing projects.
I’m telling you – if you want people to be against a casino, then you need an alternative. You can’t just insist that they should roll over and die for the greater good.
Sorry, but your metaphor of “telling a starving man not to eat instead of eating a Big Mac because the Big Mac is bad for his health” is circular nonsense — it assumes the point you are attempting to argue. A better metaphor is telling a man dying of thirst not to drink rather than drinking seawater because drinking sea water KILLS you.
Some of us having been trying to present an alternative for some time now. Rather than finding yet another way to plunder the already poor — or intentionally take the life savings of someone struggling to stay afloat — the state should TAX THE WEALTHY.
That’s right. TAX THE WEALTHY. Raise the gift/estate tax significantly above some reasonable threshold. Raise the capital gains tax (both short and long term) significantly above some reasonable level. Raise the personal income tax rate, and expand personal exemptions to protect all but the very wealthy. These can all be done by simple legislative order.
Use the resulting increased tax revenue to fund construction projects and increased local aid to struggling cities and towns like Springfield.
Governor Deval Patrick courageously attempted to move the state in this direction — and was torpedoed by Bob DeLeo, alleged Democrat.
It takes COURAGE and COMMITMENT — something neither nominee has demonstrated in this race.
Particularly if we want capital projects. The solution is writ large.
unless you can point to somebody doing something even remotely resembling “insist[ing] that they should roll over and die for the greater good,” you’re arguing against something that doesn’t exist. Sort of like the “vitality” you expect the casino will bring. Just what is this vitality, anyway? People from somewhere else, going to another somewhere, stopping at the casino and spending money there? How does that help Springfield or Rico? The casino won’t get most of its profits from Springfield, but will get some, and what it does get from Springfield is going to make your “they don’t have anything” statement even more true. I suppose an economy is about moving money around, yes – but the farther you move it, the less chance there is that it’s going to do the locals any good. Nevada is pretty far away.
Do you think the arguments you’re making are any different from the ones made in Detroit, or Atlantic City, or any of the other depressed places that casinos were going to rescue? I don’t think they are.
is whether there’s any evidence that what you’re hoping will happen will actually happen, should MGM come to town. Yes, in the short term there will be a burst of construction jobs and, once the thing opens, a burst of economic activity as everybody in the area hustles in to see the shiny new object. But the real question is whether that will last. In Atlantic City, the shiny new Revel lasted two years. What if MGM in Springfield fares about the same?
They’ll get some form of a state bailout. Just like every casino that’s struggled in every state in this country – which is almost all of them these past few years.
I am by no means a casino booster. I do, however, see what MGM is selling – hope. Their plan has always focused on two things: they will bring a lot of people to downtown Springfield, and this casino isn’t a box that just keeps people inside.
Did you know that there is no entertainment venue in the MGM plan? They’re going to use the existing venues downtown – the Civic Center and Symphony Hall. They’re not going to be connected to the casino, so this will put people on the streets. There will be restaurants there which can be entered from the street, not the casino. There will be outdoor entertainment. There will be a movie theater and an outdoor skating rink. There will be retail shops.
There will also be market rate housing built. That is a big problem downtown, most of the residents are in subsidized housing, and can’t support any local businesses. This housing will be targeted to the employees.
Most of you Haven’t been in this neighborhood. You aren’t aware of the total lack of vitality there. It is embarrassing. It makes the entire city look bad when the hotel employees warn the guests that they shouldn’t leave the hotel – not because of actual crime, but because it is so desolate that it seems like there would be crime. It is embarrassing that if someone is staying at one of the downtown hotels, you can’t tell them a nice place to go down there. There is nothing to do.
Is it possible that MGM has lied, and won’t deliver all that? I suppose so, but I have to imagine there are penalties in place if they only build the gaming portion and not the other amenities.
Is there a chance that this will kill Springfield? Maybe, but I think that without something, death is even more certain. It will certainly change Springfield, and that is something we need
Your posts would suggest otherwise.
The Mayor’s Chief of Staff was a municipal employee & was corrupt. Also, the Housing Authority, et al was neat the center of political culture in the city…not some random tangential nonprofit.
Could go on, but I don’t want to sidetrack this post with a history lesson in Springfield corruption. This revisionist history you stuck in shouldn’t go unrebutted though.
The mayor’s chief of staff was definitely a thug, and he was convicted of tax fraud for a silent ownership in a local bar, one that had mob ties. However he was not accused of of nor convicted of stealing from the city. He probably did give out patronage jobs to people he was friends with or who supported him. The main complaint people had against him on the municipal front was that he was arrogant, relentless, he played his favorites, and he punished his enemies.
There were four instances of organizational corruption ferreted out:
* The Springfield Housing Authority, which is a state/federal agency whose board members are mostly appointed by the sitting mayor. Ray Asselin, the Executive director who went to prison, had been in the job for 30 years. He was convicted of bilking the agency for over $1m in cash and services (like having employees do work on his house), and his son (a former state representative) was convicted of receiving these ill-gotten benefits (he had been voted out of office once the accusations came out). There were also allegations that a system was in place to allow politically connected individuals to request special treatment for people looking for housing vouchers, basically putting them at the top of the waiting list.
* The Hampden County Employment Consortium was another non-profit which received funds from the city. One of Ray Asselin’s sons (James) was convicted along with James Krzystofik of bilking that agency of over $100k by paying themselves “consulting fees” while overseeing the agency.
* The Massachusetts Career Development Institute was another non-profit which received funding from the city. Several employees were convicted of giving out a no-show jobs to a woman who was related to the local mob boss, one to the son-in-law of the deputy director, (Giuseppe Polmeni) and one to a former student who the executive director, Gerald Phillips, may have been having an affair with (and Phillips and Polmeni cashed some of that woman’s checks and took the money for themselves).
* The Friends of the Homeless shelter, another non-profit which received funding from the city. The director, Francis Keough, was convicted of extortion from a contractor. He apparently was using homeless shelter funds to renovate a house he owned at the beach.
There was some local organized crime involved on the fringes here – the bar that Ardolino owned was partially owned by the local mob; the woman employed in the no-show job was the niece of the local mob boss. The organized crime seemed more or less incidental to the situation though.
Those matters are not trivial, but they are not municipal corruption, which would be defined as using municipal funds or services improperly – because the organizations involved were ancillary non-profits which received some funding from the city.
And the one thing that people seem to forget – this happened more than 14 years ago and there have been no issues since that crew was thrown out of office. So at what point do people stop talking about the “stain of municipal corruption”?