Here’s a modest suggestion for Governor Patrick. If (and that’s a big “if” — Casey has Sal DiMasi’s statement which features lines like “So far, our concerns for ushering in casino gambling have not been eased. We in the House remain skeptical.”) he succeeds in getting a law through the legislature that will implement his casino plan, he should commit right away to placing a referendum on the ballot for the next statewide election that would gauge whether the people of Massachusetts approve of it.
A bit of background: Referendum petitions are different from initiative petitions. Initiatives are laws that are enacted directly by the people. A referendum, in contrast, is an up-or-down vote by the people on a law that the legislature has already enacted. Normally, it’s difficult to get a referendum petition on the ballot, because the timelines in which to gather the required signatures are tight. But if the Governor were behind it, presumably it would happen.
This debate will affect everyone in the state, one way or another, and if the law goes through, it will change the state more than any other single law that I can think of. Everyone should have the chance to weigh in. That’s what civic engagement is all about.
…I don't believe in government by referendum. That's why we elect a Governor and a legislature…to represent us and to make the tough decisions. If voters don't approve of the decisions they make, we have option to replace them in the next election.
we have a referendum process in the state Constitution. If it’s not there for this kind of law, what’s it doing there at all?
…in my opinion, it doesn't need to be there at all.
or on issues where representatives aren't doing a good job representin'. No?
…what issues they are not representing us on? This is a very slippery slope, this government by referenda.
If we, the voters, don't feel that our Governor or our legislators are articulating our views, there is a much easier way to make our point — vote them out at the next election.
Referenda campaigns are notoriously subject to the significant political influence of big business interests. The gambling….err….gaming industry with billions of $$$ at stake would undoubtedly flood the airwaves of Massachusetts media with paid ads and PR flaks flogging “casinos are good for Massachusetts” line. While the Legislature is susceptible to such political lobbying from the casino industry, I am more confident in my elected representatives in the Legislature resisting such a sophisticated media campaign than my fellow Massachusetts citizens.
Civic engagement, incidentally, extends to citizen petitioning your elected representatives on behalf or against public policy proposals. If the Progressive era reformers of the Mass. constitution intended for the referendum process to be a common instrument for lawmaking, it wouldn't have made the signature requirements of referenda so difficult. We don't live in a direct democracy; we live in a Republic. Moreover, we should be more engaged in learning, analyzing, and responding to what our Legislature and the Governor are doing “on behalf of the citizenry” on a daily basis, instead of wasting time and resources on an expensive and unnecessary referendum campaign.
I am disappointed and surprised that Gov. Patrick, an intelligent if co-opted politican, would fall for the specious argument that casinos are an effective economic engine for economic development and revenue. The experience of many locales including Atlantic City, the Mississippi River casinos, and other locations suggest that they are, at best, a wash economically and can impetus for increased crime, domestic violence, compulsive gambling, and family break-ups. Why should the state be devoting casino $$$ to alleviate problems created by casinos when the state has the power to halt casino development altogether.
Finally, Gov. Patrick whatever happened to the prospect of biotechnology, alternative energy production and manufacturing, enhanced tourism, and aquaculture agriculture becpming alternative economic development engines to casinos? Why have these economic engines suddenly come up snake eyes in you high-stakes gamble on casinos?
Eddiecoyle,
To your last point. I don't think the Governor has said that the casino plan is the sole focus of economic development. In fact, I think this is part of a larger plan the governor has been unveiling. You talk about biotech. Was it not earlier this summer (or more precisely late spring) that the Governor announced his $1 billion biomed plan? Also, isn't bringing resort casinos (we aren't talking race tracks with slots, but resorts with hotels/golf courses/fancy shows, etc.) a way to bring enhanced tourism to the state? And don't forget the amount of construction jobs these three projects will create.
Speaking of Mississippi and casinos, I saw a segment on the news a week or so ago showing how the casinos that have reopened in Mississippi in the wake of Katrina have served as one of the bright spots that have helped that area in the reconstruction process after the devastation of the hurricane. Over the past decade, Nevada has seen it's population sky-rocket. I have been to southeastern connecticut several times and don't see mass poverty and rampant crime there. Apparently not every place casino gambling touches turns bad.
in Vicksburg, Mississippi last May. The warning that those who can least afford it represent the majority of participants/clients/suckers is remarkably accurate. The number of people at the, all you can eat, buffet (the food was terrible beyond belief) who were morbidily obese was also remarkable. One visit to that venue was enough for me. Like vegas, it was immensely depressing. There must be a better way for folks on marginal incomes to spend their hard earned money.
I don’t see where it is your place to decide what constitutes entertainment for your fellow citizens of the Commonwealth, or where it is your place to decide what they should do with their hard earned money.
<
p>
I’m not a big casino goer myself, but I see no issue with casino gambling which is responsibly sited, implemented, and run.
Fighting for what you believe in is.
It's nice, David, that you're still trying to find room in your heart and mind for Patrick and this proposal (“a modest suggestion”? Do you have an ounce of rage inside you?), but as sabutai, JimC and countless other people who were pretty pro-Patrick have written today, this announcement is a failure of political leadership and moral vision, and the proper response for us (non-politicians) at this point is not to delicately consider “all sides,” but to do what we can so that our own vision of social and economic justice carries the day – that is, organizing and trying like hell to defeat this obscene plan (not to say – though some are – the guy who offered it up).
If real engagement on this issue comes in the form of advice, blogging or a plebiscite (the three forms of “weighing in” I can think of), then the bad guys have won.
Amen!!
You don’t like casinos. I get that. But don’t assume that everyone shares your view.
I was assuming no such thing. Would I be exhorting people to break out the torches for an issue that I considered a point of agreement?
And I didn't actually mean that you should feel rage for the decision to allow casinos. I know you're okay with casinos (even as the least of all evils), and though I disagree, I'd at least like to see you drop for one second the obsession over strategy and the endless search for consensus, and to make a moral case for your ideas. Now is not a time for getting along, despite what Gov. Together We Can and Sen. Audacity of Hope tell us.
The phrase “casino economy” had until now been merely an apt metaphor for neoliberalism; now it stands to be the reality from Palmer to East Boston to the South Coast. The subprime lending fiasco has done wonderfully by the poor, right? What else are casinos but yet another legal opportunity for big capital to promise desperate people a chance at the American dream, and to obliterate the economies of surrounding communities? If you like casinos, David, then justify them in the affirmative. A spine, not a smiley face, is what this issue calls for. Christ, at least respond to Rep. Bosley's devastating undressing of the purported benefits of legalized casino gambling! Just stop trying to guide us down the path of happy mediums.
Someone find me a study that suggests Mohegan Sun has “obliterated” the surrounding community please.
I was there this summer. I had a great time. Ever been to a casino Jeremy? Ever had a good time? If yes, how can you say that you have no problem going to Foxwoods or Mohegan, but you would have a problem with a hypothetical, similarly situated Massachusetts casino, and have that NOT be NIMBY-ism at its worst?
How is gambling, in and of itself, a moral ill? As opposed to drinking, smoking, and, oh, I don't know, high yield bonds? My brand of liberalism still involves a modicum of self-choice. If I want to go to a casino and blow a hundred bucks in a weekend, so be it. I'm a big boy and can make my own decisions. So can other people. No matter how much they make a year.
….is from rural Connecticut and the vast majority of his family still living there works at either Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods. They mostly struggled before the casinos opened and now they are all actually doing well. His brother, despite only having a high school education, is doing exceedingly well and was able to work his way up from the warehouse to upper management. I realize that the economic landscape in MA is different, but the notion that casinos by definition decimate surrounding communities is not, in my anecdotal experience, accurate.
Point of clarification: I never would have put “sabutai” and “pro-Patrick” in the same sentence.
If anything I would support an actual initiative to make MA a casino free zone and have the people vote over the whims of their currently mistaken governor. Of course again the average joe six pack likes his slot machines so we might lose that one, but it would delay the process considerably and voting on a ban rather than an allowance means that even if the anti Casino forces lose the election the pro-Casino forces still dont win either, unlike a referendum phrased the opposite way.
I agree with Bluetoo. We elect leaders to lead. Why don't we just put every issue to a referendum. Then we can all wallow around and divide folks rather than ever do anything that moves a progressive agenda forward. To all those folks that supported Deval Partick for Governor, where do you think any $$$ is going to come from to fund any new policy initiatives? Yes, lets create a casino free zone here in MA. Then everyone else will build them all around us and we can just sit back and enjoy our crumbling roads and bridges and continue to drive the elderly out of their homes……………that's progress!
There will be plenty of debate at the Statehouse and folks will have a chance to be heard. All recent public opinion polls show that amajority of voters approve of a casino plan for MA. Let's get to the substance of the debate. Referendum sounds like an anti-gay marriage type strategy.
Finally, for everyone who is against casino revenue, for whatever reason, what is the solution for the revenue problem of the Commonwealth?
Is to improve the cost effectiveness of the state by stabilizing state worker and retirement packages to have them reflect the dreaded private sector, put the brakes on the MBTA retirement package, cut back on some of the overly generous social service programs,stop funding “feel good” non profits, demand higher productivity of some state divisions that are notoriously famous for sick time/overtime abuse (corrections/state police) stop police road details, cut the size of the state motor vehicle fleet, demand state contractors uphold their contracts to the letter (ie the Big Dig” debacle, and those are just starters.
Then there are the exhorbitant and ridiculous state legislator salaries and perks, the state legislators “per diem” giveaway.
Time for folks to bite the bullet like they were required to circa 1976 during the Massachusetts state financial crisis. State employees actually had payless paydays. There were cries and wails that it was the end of times. It wasn't.
1)There is no revenue problem we have pretty fat state coffers already
2)Spend existing money better-ditto MCRD on cutting waste, pensions, pork, and patronage
3)Casinos dont bring in new revenue they merely replace one unpopular method (taxes) with a voluntary method that those paying the tax enjoy, essentially what I am saying is that if casinos do come in and we get money from them some other tax will get cut and no new additional revenue will be made, also look at CT it still had a fiscal crisis after Foxwoods mainly because these deals end up benefitting the casinos and not the state
4)Infrastructure-Since NIMBY pushes casinos, especially resort ones, out into the middle of nowhere they end up requiring MORE COSTS on infrastructure, also this new highway and gas tax scheme could take care of that without needing a casino
…regarding your item IV, it isn’t just NIMBY that pushes casinos, particularly resort casinos, it is also the availablility of land.
<
p>
Example, a resort casino could never be built in Wellesly, because there isn’t enough vacant land. I suppose that the town could use eminent domain to condemn property (viz the US Supreme Court’s Kelo decision) to acquire the necessary property, but it would cost the town a major fortune to acquire it.
<
p>
Rural areas? Not so expensive. And that’s why resort casinos are sited in rural areas.
Starting as soon as Gov. Patrick made his announcement, people (regardless of their position on the casino issue) have the chance to weigh in on the airwaves, by calling their state Representative and/or Senator, talking to their neighbors about it, writing to the newspaper, organizing protests, etc., etc., etc. THAT is what civic engagement is all about.
Civic engagement is most definitely NOT about putting up for “referendum” policy after policy in front of the voters, where potentially millions of dollars will be wasted fighting a battle that diverts attention from numerous other issues. (I purposely put “referendum” in quotes, since this logic applies to initative petitions as well…the only difference being that this is a case where the legislature has acted, as opposed to not acted).
Of course, David is not claiming that he wants “policy after policy” in front of the voters, just the casino issue. But why single this one out? He claims that this will “change the state more than any other single law that I can think of”, which is a possible reason. The only problem, of course, is that if you ask 100 people what law they think will “change the state” more than any other, you'd probably get 100 different answers (or at least more than just that one!). Anything from gay marriage to taxes, to parental rights, to whatever. So I suppose I don't see why the casino issue is any different.
An Act For Unemploment For Political Consultants.
KA-CHING! Man, the amount of money that would be spent on that race. All the focus group, poll driven ads would suck the life out of the noble concept of Civic Engagement. A quaint thought though.
Does not give a damn about any referendum or initiative. They never have and they never will. The electorate will relect them no matter what they do. History proves that.
If there is so much support for casinos as the proponents say there is, then why hasn't the casino industry and the state's racetracks put the issue before the voters as a statewide referendum? We've been hearing about how much support there is for fifteen years. It's certainly not because they lack the money to pay for signature gatherers or to run a statewide campaign. Right now, they could bypass the legislative process and put it directly before the people. The only reason they haven't is because they know it would go down to defeat.
The idea that a majority of state residents support bringing casinos into their communities is simply myth-making. The polls suggesting that a slim majority support casinos have only probed the issue in a superficial way- they are not an accurate gauge of the public's thinking. And all the proof you need is the fact the casino industry has never sought to pursue a statewide ballot campaign.
While I agree with those who oppose government by referendum, I think the issue of legalizing casinos is the rare exception. It's an issue where the more people understand it, the more they are opposed. Why explains why legalizing casinos fares poorly in most statewide referendums because the process has allowed people the time to closely consider the facts and a chance to participate in the debate.
…One, I’ve never heard of a referendum petition before. I would consider what is described in your link to be an initiative petition. I classify them as follows. An initiative petition is initiated (hence “initiative”) by the populace to change the law (add, repeal or amend) when the legislature is unwilling to do so. A referendum is a matter referred by the legislature to the populace for confirmation.
<
p>
Two, I am particularly dubious of legislating by initiative petitions. It was legislating by initiative petitions that has made California virtually ungovernable, what with Prop 13 and the various initiatives that mandated spending for this, that and the other, have made it virtually impossible for the state to pass a budget.
<
p>
Three, I’m also dubious of legislating by allowing elections for Prop 2 1/2 over-rides in MA (or anything else, such as the casino vote in Mittleboro) to be presented at anything other than a general election, but that’s another issue.
I don’t know if the MA system is unique, but we do allow voters to initiate an up-or-down vote on a recently-enacted law, which is called a “referendum” in the MA Constitution. If the “no” votes win, the law is repealed. Maybe it’s just a semantic quibble.
Maybe it’s just a semantic quibble
<
p>
…and I’m not going to make a big deal about it. And thank you for the citation. I made mention of it merely because I had never heard of it before.
<
p>
Now as to the meat of my comment, I’ll reiterate that I am dubious of legislation (either by initiatives or referenda) for the reasons that I mentioned regarding California. I seriously would not want Massachusetts to become similarly ungovernable. MA, particularly at the local level, has problems enough as it is, for reasons that I have described here in past months.