Two weeks after being briefed on the benefits and pitfalls of casinos in Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick and his administration are fighting to keep secret the completed studies that the governor is reviewing.
“We are not releasing anything, to protect the integrity of the process,” said Kofi Jones, spokeswoman for Daniel O’Connell, secretary of economic development, who headed a study group that assembled the reports.
In a letter to the Globe this week, O’Connell’s general counsel, Gregory P. Bialecki, cited an exception to the state Public Records Law to justify withholding the records. In a written statement last evening, the governor’s office reasserted the exemption and said the reports were being withheld to “protect the governor’s ability to get candid, confidential briefings on matters pending before him.”
Either something about building a casino is involved with national security, or there’s something in those taxpayer-funded studies that Deval doesn’t want taxpayers to know. Maybe stuff that would have been useful to know before our town meeting…maybe stuff that makes him look like a twit for being on the sidelines while other people like Tim Cahill stepped up. Maybe there’s nothing in there, and Deval is taking tips from Dick Cheney. Maybe it’s nothing — I don’t know, but durn it I’d like to find out.
Let’s just hope that Sal DiMasi will step into the yawning void of leadership on this issue.
but it’s an important and pertinent one. Keep humming that note.
I certainly sympathize with the frustration over not getting that information. But outside of the casino issue, what is most in the public interest in this regard? This is what the poll should ask.
<
p>
Is it more important that a study like this be made public?
<
p>
Or is it more important that those who go on record and in writing giving the Governor information, feel confident that they can provide honest and confidential information?
<
p>
I think it’s pretty safe to assume that there are always going to be people who won’t give an honest assessment, or won’t give any assessment at all, if they feel they will be put into the public eye for their troubles. But the governor’s job is to get every piece of information he can, and we presumably want him to.
<
p>
Where does the public’s “right to know” end? Does it ever? If the governor is forced to make this report public, can anyone he ever asks for advice from again expect to be able to give it to him in confidence?
when we stop paying for the knowledge [or when public exposure of knowledge violates individual liberties or endangers the public].
<
p>
Next question.
“Good advice must be kept secret!”
<
p>
That’s rubbish. You are not thinking liberally at all.
<
p>
A real liberal trusts the public with information that the public’s money paid for.
<
p>
By analogy, you must agree that when Dick Cheney met with the oil businessmen the public had no right to know.
<
p>
Or, perhaps you apply a different standard in that instance. Get back to me on that please?
I figured that would come up.
<
p>
I think there’s a pretty big difference between Cheney bringing oil lobbyists in to help make energy policy, as opposed to a governor trying to get a balanced report written to give him the best advice possible. The comparisons, while easy, are also lazy. There’s no evidence that Deval is focussing his research efforts on lobbyists.
<
p>
So again it raises the question: If the governor knows he’ll get worse advice but satisfy those hungering to know everything that goes on, is it in the public interest for him to get worse advice?
I think it holds a lifetime Players Club card at Harrah’s for him mom….
You make a good point in that if information was given “on condition” that it be kept confidential, and that source is valued, then confidentiality [unless it is within the “Freedom of Information Act – or FOIA as it is called”, should be honored.
<
p>
On the otherhand, FOIA seems pretty well neutered these days.
<
p>
Also, perhaps there is a position to be taken “between giving it all out and giving nothing out” where the source and identifiers can be redacted, but information made public? Just a suggestion.
<
p>
I do find “all or nothing” thinking generally not productive.
with this whole casino business. This is why I worry about charismatic politicians. When it seemed as though Deval supported the casino, it seemed reasonable to me. You know, why let that revenue go to Connecticut? However, my father did evaluation work for the GAO and now the World Bank, and he told me that typically, whenever revenue goes up because of a new stream of revenue from casino’s or lotteries, it typically goes down after a few years. In other words, taxes are lowered some where else, and the net effect is a more regressive revenue stream.
<
p>
Can someone tell me why this casino is a good idea? I thought maybe Deval see’s it as a foregone conclusion and he wants to get the best deal for the state, or maybe his secret study shows him some benefit. Either way, he should release the study, but can someone tell why we are entertaining casino’s here?
i’ll take a guess: because some people care more about making a pile of money than how they make it affects the community. simple as that. greed.
and I have to say as an ardent Patrick supporter, I’m disappointed. Of course, we’ll see what happens. Maybe he will release the study.
People like to gamble. Keeping casinos illegal because you don’t want the poor folks to lose their last nickel seems a little patronizing.
<
p>
The money they bring the state really is secondary to me. I don’t see why a consenting adult shouldn’t be allowed to spend their money in a casino without driving to Connecticut or flying to Las Vegas.
<
p>
There’s no one saying they should outlaw cell phones, lottery tickets, alcohol or video games, even though they take a fair penny out of the pockets of poor folks.
<
p>
If you’ve got NIMBY issues, that’s a different kettle of fish, isn’t it?
for the same reasons as NIMBY?
<
p>
The added revenue isn’t worth the traffic, crime, sprawl, decimation of local businesses and shopping areas, increase in low paying jobs, etc.
P.S. You forgot AC!
All that traffic around the factory, not to mention the millions of low paying jobs and shoddy housing for factory workers. And the watering holes and their happy hours. Not to mention those pesky union protests over dangerous conditions.
<
p>
We should thank China from taking away all that nastiness.
<
p>
I suspect the new NIAB club will be pushing for a Constitutional Amendment. Just don’t use the P-word. It didn’t work so well last time.
<
p>
To me, this has nothing to do with how much money the state makes.
<
p>
PS–I mentioned the biggest and most local. I didn’t forget AC or the scores of other casinos that are operating in the United States. I just didn’t think it was necessary to name every one of them. But feel free to run them down, if you want.
I think it’s time to seriously consider banning the lottery. Yes, it pours $980 million into the state budget, no small thing. But the state budget is something like $25 billion, and more to the point the lottery drains a lot more from those who play it.
<
p>
To me it’s not NIMBY, it’s NIMC — not in my Commonwealth.
Good call on the lottery, for the reasons you listed. Which neighborhood benefits? Seems to me the only folks who benefit are billboard companies, radio stations, and sports stadiums, all who get advertising dollars.
<
p>
Good call on NIMC instead of my NIABY [not in anybody’s back yard]. Cleaner and more elegant.
<
p>
Twofer.
It’s more a regressive tax than anything else.
Not sure how this argument couldn’t equally be applied to cocaine.
If you really think a casino is as dangerous to society as a crack den, it’s not worth having a discussion.
I’m not saying that the impact of gambling would be as bad as that of localized cocaine, I’m just saying that logic is flawed.
That is what I saw this summer. It was so sad – step out of the Neon World of the casino – and walk one block, and it is dark and blighted. Really sad. Not how Greektown was once upon a time, not at all.
the question was why are they building casinos. the answer is not so that we can kindly provide a place for gambling enthusiasts to do their thing. it is so that the investors can make a profit. do you really believe that the local poker klatch is funding this bid? really?
<
p>
the question you answered wasn’t “why are they building casinos?”, but “is it fair to disallow gambling to consenting adults”. Very, very different questions. And no matter your take on either, they aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
I was born in Detroit. Detroit is now largely African American. Scads of abandoned houses. Imploding auto industry.
<
p>
So what did they do? Put three casinos in Detroit. Three!
<
p>
The deal being that Windsor across the river has a casiono and was “sucking all the money out of Michigan and especially, Detroit”.
<
p>
Well, I checked out the Greektown Casino. Greektown used to be vibrant and interesting. The Casion has sucked all the life out of it. And the number of slot-playing zombies, all of them looking like poor folk, brought tears to my eyes. One foray to check it out was enough for me.
<
p>
When I am back in Michigan to visit, no casinos for me.
<
p>
Unfortunately, my professor brother has the “Texas Holdem” poker bug, he actually netted $3000 on it, so I guess he will go to those Casinos – but not me.
<
p>
And as for whether having honky-tonk oasis of neon in the middle of blight to generate $157 million in taxes was worth it – I think not.
<
p>
Not from what I saw, at any event.
And I second your take on Greektown. Used to visit it frequently with my relatives, who lived within walking distance. It was a true gem in a faltering city (I’ve seen more deer and pheasant within Detroit city limits than roadkill on US-23!). It is no more. Very sad.
I think that the Greektown Casion KILLED Greetown as a tourist destination neighborhood in Detroit.
<
p>
Also, mostly the service workers were black, and the patrons white – not scientific at all, just how it looked to me.
<
p>
Also Michigan and Detroit do not ban smoking in restaurants and public places, so it stank and made my eyes water, both.
i’ve never understood that arrangement. it makes no one happy. MI used to be so progressive with things like the helmet law and bottle return law (at 10cents per item, it still makes a difference). As a kid I watched the highway ditches go from being a trash heap overshadowed by billboards, to merely a ditch shadowed by billboards, decorated with the occasional clamshess from mcdonalds (which are now at least no longer styrofoam). The trouble all began in the 80s with Engler. The state really took a nose dive under his direction. Manufacturers are allowed to ignore licensing and environmental requirements, and disappear entire sand dunes for raw materials. ANd even granholm signed a bill allowing lakeside homeowners to remove lakeside vegetation. all for their selfish viewing preferences, the state loses a precious and fragile ecosystem – the beach strand. And now, with the anti-gay amendment that the majority of my former neighbors passed, I no longer spend time there except to visit my parents. I actually spend the extra bucks to fill up my car in Sarnia rather than give MI businesses any more pennies than necessary. It all makes me so sad.
<
p>
/sad weepy rant over ;( /
I left Michigan in the late fall of 1983, and return to visit parents who are now “old, old” – in their 90s. When they are gone, I probably will not go back.
<
p>
The Michigan I knew in the 70s and 80s is gone, really.
<
p>
Part of it is the extreme “rust belt” economic depression, though, in my opinion.
The walls of Jericho’s Casino must fall.
<
p>
I don’t get the governor on this at all. It seems like every statewide official gets casino love once they get into office. Hold strong, DiMasi.
…what is the big to-do over casino gambling in a semi-rural town like Middleboro (as it appears to be)? I seriously cannot understand the issue regarding gambling.
<
p>
When I was barely a sentient being, NH instituted their state lottery, quickly followed by lotteries in other states. The other states didn’t want NH to hog all the goodies.
<
p>
After I became a sentient being (and although I was not catholic) I became aware that the RCCi (Roman Catholic Church, Inc.) had their gambling nights. Bingo, you know.
<
p>
Las Vegas and Atlantic City became somewhat wealthy over their gambling. (Atlantic City, not so much)
<
p>
The Amerind tribes are going gangbusters over their gambling. (I doubt that the Amerinds gamble so much–they probably rely on the greater fool theory–if they come, they will throw their money away.) Currently the people from Massachusetts who want to throw their money away at gambling apparently go to Connecticut, and CT gets some of the cut. Why not let them throw their money away in MA and let MA–and maybe Middleboro–pocket some of the cash? I seriously do not understand the big to-do over the issue.
-When you say that Middleboro is “semi-rural”, make sure you emphasize the rural part…it has one of the lowest population densities in Eastern Mass.
<
p>
-Comparing the lottery/bingo with a Class III resort is like comparing heroin and caffeine and saying that they’re both drugs. Scratch tickets and bingo halls have limited hours and low impact, and I would hope you know that. A casino/resort is a 24-hour operation. It will attract traffic and crime, and strain emergency services, in a way that KofC bingo night doesn’t.
<
p>
-Atlantic City, rich? Have you ever been there? Riverboat communities, barely. Hull towns of Native American casinos, not really at all. So aside from Las Vegas, that argument has no basis.
<
p>
-Middleboro would be taking on increased infrastructure obligations for a resort who will stop sending mitigation payments to the town in ten years.
<
p>
-I’m not sure what you mean by “Amerind”. It’s a slight step above “redskins” for offensiveness. Try Amerindian if you absolutely have to, but Indian or Native American are preferred.
<
p>
-Middleboro will not pocket the cash in a significant way or for a significant period of time. The town does not get a cut. That has been explained exhaustively.
…I was involved in Wellesley town politics in the mid 1980s and I discovered quite early that town politics are largely run by real estate brokers (likely your problem with the casino) and insurance brokers.
<
p>
Regarding “Atlantic City, rich?”, re-read my parenthetical phrase.
<
p>
Regarding your issue with my use of the term “Amerinds,” let me assure you that I am a native American, too, and I full well resent that some persons who claim aboriginal descent have tried to sequester it for their own exclusive use. I’m sure that you would go idiotic if I used the term “aboriginies,” even though that only means “people from the beginning.”
If town politics is bought and sold by real estate brokers, and federal politics is run by staffs and nobody really has to even vote…then why do you pay attention?
If town politics is bought and sold by real estate brokers, and federal politics is run by staffs and nobody really has to even vote…then why do you pay attention?
<
p>
As to the second part, because I have an vote as to who are selecting the members of the staffs. It is those people who get to select the members of the staffs that is the issue. I have made no bones here about the fact that Kerry should exit stage back.
<
p>
As to the first part, I really don’t pay attention to town politics too much, because they are certainly run by real estate brokers–and insurance brokers, which you neglected to mention. I was on a town committee in the mid 1980s regarding insurance. We worked very hard on the issue. The town’s insurance broker paid off the town’s head honcho. The select people–run by the real estate brokerage in town–thanked us for our efforts and dismissed us.
<
p>
What more does one need to realize that town politics are corrupt?
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”
<
p>
Still true.
Don’t forget the attorneys, who have vested interest in local real estate and local insurance!
This goes far beyond the issue of the casino and actually speaks about the relationship between elected officials and the citizenry.
<
p>
Someone needs to ask Governor Patrick how dare he not release this information. No matter the margin by which he was elected, he (and his cohorts) work for the citizens, not the other way around.
Governor Patrick is not “my guy.” I’m not a Democrat and I voted for Healey.
<
p>
Second, this goes beyond the D vs. R issue, it is about transparency in government. Whether it’s these casino-related documents not being released, or Vice President Cheney and the energy task force, we MUST demand that our government not operate in secrecy. Unless it involves issues of national security or ongoing investigations, nothing should be held back from the electorate. Remember, the government works for US.