I’m not sure whether this qualifies as a surprise or not, but here it is.
Governor Deval Patrick plans to propose as early as tomorrow that the state sell licenses for three full-scale resort casinos in Massachusetts, citing their potential to spur economic growth, create jobs, and generate new government revenue, according to State House officials who have been briefed on his plan.
Patrick will recommend that the casinos be licensed in three regions: Southeastern Massachusetts, Western Massachusetts, and an area that includes Boston and points north, the officials said. His announcement will mark the culmination of months of study and the end of a long stretch of public silence on the subject of legalized gaming.
All three licenses would be put up for competitive bid, in a process that is expected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in immediate and direct state revenue, the officials said.
The Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe would have to outbid other competitors if it wishes to quickly proceed with its plans for a resort-style casino in Middleborough, the officials said. If the tribe decides against seeking a state license or fails to receive one in the bidding process, it could still proceed with a longer, more arduous federal approval process that could result in a fourth Massachusetts casino.
The governor will not recommend allowing slot machines at the state’s financially struggling horse and dog tracks, the officials said, a decision which is sure to set off protests and a major lobbying push in the Legislature from the politically powerful track operators.
There’s lots more in Frank Phillips’ article – go read it all. And commentary is already bubbling up in the blogosphere – Dan Kennedy, David Eisenthal, and HeartlandDem, three staunch casino opponents, have weighed in already (early birds getting the worm and all that), and no doubt there will be plenty more to come.
Meanwhile, also in the revenue enhancement department, the Transportation Finance Commission is set to release its long-awaited report on Monday. According to the Globe, the commission
will recommend that the state raise the gasoline tax by 11.5 cents a gallon next year and impose a “user fee” of 5 cents a mile to drive on major state highways.
The gas tax, unchanged since 1990, would rise from 23.5 cents to 35 cents per gallon, with future annual increases tied to the cost of living. As for the “mileage tax”:
motorists would be charged for every mile they drive on all major state roadways – not just the Massachusetts Turnpike – using technology that allows the state to track their mileage and bill them automatically. According to the commission, such fees could bring in more than $5 billion.
There’s other stuff too, like getting rid of police details on state road and bridge projects (saving $100 million, if you can get it past the police unions); scaling back the MBTA’s extraordinary pension and retiree health care benefits (if I had started working for the T after college, I’d be looking at retiring with a full pension in a couple of years! woohoo!); and transferring the Tobin Bridge from Massport to the Turnpike Authority (rearranging the deck chairs? too harsh, perhaps).
Every one of these proposals, from the casinos to the gas tax to the T’s pensions, will be very controversial, and each will gore someone’s ox. As they are bandied about over the coming weeks and months, bear this in mind: we really do need to fix the roads and bridges, and it would be great to find a way to get property taxes under control. Every one of these proposals has benefits, and every one of them has costs. Don’t forget either side of the equation.
At least it’s clearer to me what progressive means in Governor Patrick context.
My opinion from February.
I dig on the increase in gas tax; I think it's long overdue. But why also charge people the 5 cents a mile for major state roads but not other roads? Why not just increase the gas tax another penny*? I suppose part of it is to get long haul trucks and folksjust driving through to pay a bit more than their fair share [just like we get $2.00 for single rides on the T but CharliCard holders pay $1.70]. Still, it seems like a lot of extra hassle to create an unnecessarily complex system of toll collection.
Get rid of tolls and yank up the gas tax even more. It has the added bonus of encouraging folks to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, thereby reducing air pollution, global warming contributions, and consumption of Middle Eastern oil.
* A guess on the extra amount needed, since there are lots of miles driven on roads that wouldn't be charging the nickle.
From stomv @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 18:30:06 PM EDT
<
p>
I dig on the increase in gas tax; I think it’s long overdue.
<
p>
Not until an accounting is done to determine how much revenue is diverted from road construction and maintenance to general revenues at both the state and federal level.
<
p>
But why also charge people the 5 cents a mile for major state roads but not other roads? Why not just increase the gas tax another penny*?
<
p>
Because, as I’ve said here earlier, heavy vehicles, particularly large trucks, cause much more damage to the roadways than relatively light passenger vehicles. Why should the latter pay to compensate for the damage caused by the former?
<
p>
I suppose that a transponder or GPS arrangement could be rigged to account for the max gross weight of the vehicle, but that would presume that every vehicle had a transponder or GPS arrangement, vehicles from out-of-state included. Query how MA would enforce the latter. Actually, here in Germany, the federal government instituted tolls on the Autobahnen for large trucks, managed by transponders; every truck had to have one to drive on the Autobahnen.
<
p>
Why not do it on every road? Why bother? The extent of the data that would be collected would be virtually unmanageable. And, by the way, that is one of the purposes of the gas tax–to build and maintain the roadways. Do away with the diversion of monies from the gas tax, and then we can talk.
<
p>
Well, the heavy vehicles would pay more, because they burn more gas. A lot more gas. I don’t know whether that would compensate for the increased damage they do or whether lighter vehicles would pay disproportionately more — do you know? Do you have anything on this point?
Who is to say that medium to long-distance truckers even bought their fuel here in MA?
I don’t know whether that would compensate for the increased damage they do…
<
p>
… and this was some time ago, no, the taxes on the increased fuel consumption for heavy vehicles would not compensate for the damage done by them on the roadways.
<
p>
A regular passenger vehicle causes virtually no damage to the roadways. A large truck heavily loaded does.
<
p>
There used to be “weigh stations” at major entry points in a number of states, where trucks would be weighed and charged entry fees based on their weight, the fees apparently being supposed to go to road maintenance. The weigh stations seem to have gone away.
In order to implement the 5 cents a mile charge, the state government will have to have a record of where you’ve been driving; if they didn’t, their system of billing wouldn’t be accurate. Not a chance that this information will stay confidential. They’ll have to have a record of where and when, and you just know it’ll be used.
<
p>
Somehow, I never thought Massachusetts would be the first state to invite Big Brother to stay.
From the Globe article:
<
p>
to having “new technology” that would allow the police to ticket you once you edge over the speed limit. You know, all in the name of “public safety” and “revenue streams.” There's an ick factor there.
Additionally, at the end of the day, what assurance do any of us have that the state will spend the money on roads? Chapt. 90 money has dwindled significantly in terms of real dollars…and our roads and bridges are a disgrace….so who is going to make sure that all this extra cash is going to be spent appropriately? It's not going to be the Legislature. You hate to be cynical about it, but after reading about the cool pension benefits that several agencies get….it's hard to get enthusiastic taxes without appropriate oversight.
Knowing Massachusetts I have a feeling that all the new tax increases will pass while all the fiscally conservative elements of the new proposals like axing state police details for tolls, ending generous pensions for MBTA workers, and reducing the salaries of toll collectors will likely fail to get passed. Essentially in Massachusetts why bother saving money and cutting taxes if you can just have your cake and eat it too by taxing and spending?
And then it’s just a short dive down the slippery slope)
to having “new technology” that would allow the police to ticket you once you edge over the speed limit.
<
p>
The tickets on the MA Pike have the time and place of entry (same, probably, with FastLane)(. When you get off the Pike at a toll booth, it would be a simple matter for the tolltaker (or FastLane computer) to determine at least your average speed based on distance and time between entrance and exit from the Pike.
<
p>
That was one of the issues with Fastlane was noted years ago. They promised not do use that information, but you believe government promises at your peril.