Herewith a brief overview of today’s talk on the casino issue. Governor Patrick will formally unveil his plan today at 1 pm at the State House.
- Matt Viser in the Globe gives a good big-picture overview of how things will shape up over the coming months as this issue gets hashed out. What strikes me is the strange bedfellows this thing is going to create. Groups that are used to being at each other’s throats — like, on marriage, Kris Mineau’s Mass. Family Institute and the Catholic Church on one side vs., among others, bloggers like Dan and Ryan on the other — will suddenly find their interests aligned on casino gambling. We seem to be heading for an alliance of the (for lack of better terms) far-left and far-right, who generally oppose casino gambling, against the middle, which seems more inclined to try it. We may also see curious geographical alliances emerging, depending on who wants what where.
As for Beacon Hill, it’s looking like Deval and Therese fer, and Sal agin’. (Also, this is basically the plan that Treasurer Tim Cahill has been pushing, so of course he’s in favor.) That could change — neither Therese nor Sal was talking yesterday, since they obviously would prefer to review the plan itself than what was leaked to the press. But so far, look for the big battle to be in the House.
- The Globe’s editorial board has, at least tentatively, come out in favor of the Gov’s plan, thereby putting themselves squarely in the “middle” part of the alliances I mentioned above. No word yet from the Herald, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t do the same. The Globe says that Patrick’s 3-license competitive bidding plan “appears sound,” and says that opponents like DiMasi “must come to terms with Patrick’s proposal or provide revenue ideas of their own.” Since DiMasi has been the major roadblock for Patrick’s other revenue-raising ideas, like local-option meals taxes and closing corporate loopholes, it would seem that he ought to detail how he plans to fix the bridges, and sooner rather than later.
- Reaction, from both residents and elected officials in the likely-affected areas (like East Boston and New Bedford), is predictably mixed. Especially interesting is that New Bedford’s city government seems absolutely in favor, while its state senator (Mark Montigny) is apparently against. I have no clue how that one will shake out.
- As Dan has pointed out, it stands to reason that three casino licenses elsewhere in the state will weaken the position of the Wampanoags who want to build in Middleborough. Check out his post for links to more coverage on that aspect of today’s announcement.
Much, much more to come.
Please share widely!
which will DiMasi accept — local options, casinos, or some third option?
DiMasi helped bring this on by his stubborn opposition to the Municipal Partnership Act and to closing corporate tax loopholes. The money has to come from somewhere, and I think the best option for those of us who realize this but oppose casinos is to pressure the house and the speaker to take another look at smart sustainable revenue sources and resource sharing. (Gas taxes definitely part of it too).
Three Casinos in Mass means big big advertisement dollars for both papers. Bigger than loss of Jordans and Filenes. Bigger then god ole Ernie Boch, Jr.
This is about money as far as Globe is concerned.
Quit starring at me!
who gamble do not have problems. If this is done responsibly — in a way that attempts to help people who have problems and allow people who don't to gamble responsibly, I don't see what the problem is.
The vast majority of people who gamble don't have problems. I'd wager — heh — that the vast majority of gambling is done by people who do.
<
p>
And problem gamblers account for many more times the amount of money wagered than ‘responsible gamblers’.
<
p>
Gambling/gaming produces profits that are simply not explained by economics if everybody ‘gambled responsibly’ (never mind the contradictions in that phrase…) Bookies and loan sharks live off the proceeds of repeat customers. The entire economic structure collapses if you remove the problem gamblers from the equation.
Profits are another story as well. The “whales” — big gamblers, play games where the house cut is low, lower still after all the comps. You find problem gamblers on the slots, which are basically muggers that plug into an outlet.
Deval may be starting with 3 casinos to be operated by GamblePort, but that will be cut down. Even Mass. can't sustain three resorts. If he pushes ahead with this glut, he guarantees their mutual failure.
Pity all the Indians aound Boston were killed in King Phillip's War, or there'd be a tribe THERE that could operate the casino. But, since there isn't, and their entrance into Boston was only recently legalized, I don't see the Boston casino coming off – or is that Deval's plan for the moribund Hynes Convention Center?
And what is up with New Bedford? Is the plan that the social service and drug problems are ALREADY so bad, nobody will notice the 'additional social cost'? Tell me – would YOU walk back to your car in New Bedford after winning some money?
“Pity all the Indians aound Boston were killed in King Phillip's War, or there'd be a tribe THERE that could operate the casino.”
It occurs to me without that slaughter, there wouldn't be much of a Boston in which to open up a casino.
I’d like a link for that one. The Globe archives are all online, so let’s see it. I’ve looked and haven’t found it — all I’ve found is statements that he had an open mind and he wanted more information, which he now has — but maybe I missed it.
“Deval Patrick, a Democrat, said in a statement that he opposes casinos”
I kinda question that reporting. I just do not recall Patrick ever committing himself either way on casinos during the campaign — and I was watching. Anything else out there?