Another immediate cost of casino gambling is the potential growth of gambling addiction. If it is true, as Rep. Dan Bosley wrote in May, that most casino customers come from within a 50 mile radius, then casinos in Middleborough and Palmer would serve mostly Massachusetts customers. Whatever problem gambling is already present within Massachusetts would surely be worsened by the introduction of casinos.
Yet another potential short-term cost is competition with the Massachusetts state lottery. The lottery is a significant source of revenue for Massachusetts cities and towns – approximately $1 billion annually. It is reasonable to assume that a casino would draw in at least a portion of the dollars that now go into the state lottery. Reducing the take for the lottery would place additional fiscal pressure on communities statewide. Even if casinos did not reduce the state lottery's take, it would then mean – as Rep. Bosley wrote in May – that dollars now going for a variety of goods and services in the local economy would be diverted to the casinos – given the fact that most customers would be coming from within 50 miles.
The long-term social costs of introducing casino gambling are even more compelling than the short-term ones. What kind of place do we want Massachusetts to be? What kind of values do we want to stand for – and pass on to our children? I agree with Rep. Bosley that it is naive to think that once casino gambling is introduced that it could be limited to only one site. Once introduced, casino gambling would likely become significant economically – as an employer, property owner, and general business presence. We need to think about what kind of community will evolve with such a presence. For one thing, such a community is likely to be less supportive of education, the arts, and other intellectual pursuits. For an anecdotal, but – for me – compelling example, one can look at the greatest gambling venue in this country – Las Vegas, Nevada. A member of my extended family is a teacher in the Las Vegas public schools. In his view, the fact that jobs in the gambling industry do not require a great deal of education means that neither the establishment nor the electorate of Las Vegas is supportive of education funding. While Massachusetts is not poised to become another Las Vegas, do we want the same sorts of influences on our politics and our values?
Massachusetts is a place that values education – for its own sake as well as its economic benefits. Governor Patrick has already – in his first eight months in office – made a major commitment to the biotechnology industry. This industry will require the best possible education system – to produce the labor force that will support this industry in the long term. Introducing casino gambling in this state would conflict with this goal.
Rep. Dan Bosley eloquently addressed why casinos do not make economic sense for Massachusetts in his Blue Mass. Group piece in May. For this observer, the social costs of casinos would be too high for Massachusetts. I hope that Governor Patrick will not back them.
UPDATE 1: Other bloggers expressing themselves on this subject include Left in Lowell.
UPDATE 2: The Massachusetts Insitute for a New Commonwealth (MassINC) will be holding a panel discussion on this topic on Tuesday, September 18, at 8:15 AM at the Omni Parker House in Boston. Details are here.
I helped get Governor Patrick elected, as did many other bloggers here. I am opposed to casinos in Massachusetts. Please, Governor Patrick, do not allow casinos in Massachusetts just for the short term gain. if you do, I predict it will become a huge stain on whatever your administrations accomplishes in the coming years. It will also cause some of us to doubt your credibility when you say you are for a new kind of politics in Massachusetts.
I worked on the Patrick campaign and I am also hopeful that the Governor will say to gambling lobbyists, “Not on my watch.” For all the reasons you and Rep. Bosley provided.
Regarding the impact on neighboring towns, an anecdote: Apparently, years ago when there was an active dog (horse?) racing track just over the line in Vermont, traffic lined up so far beyond the racetrack that there were traffic jams tangling up drivers trying to get to or through bucolic Williamstown, MA. The town and the Commonwealth were working on expensive road widening plans to solve the problem created by this perpetual gridlock when suddenly the race track shut down. Poof. No more traffic problem, no need to expensive structural solutions.
Let's avoid the problems before they start. Just say, “No dice” to MA gambling.
Great post David.
Many people in poorer communities spend a significant amount of their income on the lottery and or gambling because they feel it is their only hope. There is no greater false hope than gambling.
I predict that Governor Patrick with oppose gambling.
… that the spending decisions among the impoverished differ from classical “self-ingerest” economic models. The relative context of their upward mobility can make the money spent on gambling seem like a minor loss of utility.
More at Ezra.
I'm going to pick up that book.
In one breath you express concern for the people of the state with gambling problems, then you lament the loss of income from the state lottery. Isn't the lottery a state sanctioned form of gambling that takes tons of money from people who can ill afford to lose it? You need to take a stand: Does the state need to outlaw gambling in Massachusetts (including the lottery) because of people with gambling problems or not? Perhaps these casinos should be blocked for other reasons. Perhaps we could offset the social costs of gambling by using some of the money to help people who have or would have gambling problems develop healthier attitudes toward gambling.
Maybe I'm being too black and white here, but is buying $100 of lottery tickets any better or worse than playing Blackjack at a $5 table for a few hours?
No – They are both the same.
The thing is, people don't tend to lose hundreds of dollars at a time with the lottery. Even those addicted to the lottery generally only buy several tickets in one week. Yeah, over time, that sucks, and they lose a lot of money total, but there's no sudden destruction of their whole lives at once.
But picture a gambling addict at a casino. They can easily, in one night, lose everything. Then they borrow money for the next fix, and lose that. Casinos are like the lottery, on ten doses of steroids.
Personally, the lottery also makes me uncomfortable. I'd rather get that revenue in another manner, and get rid of it. But now, we're addicted to it, and can't! The same thing will happen, but worse, for the tribes in MA who start casinos, and for the state and the community that casino is in, for the revenue it brings.
No thanks.
I don't know the answer, but it seems like you do, unless you buy a season ticket. Does anyone know?
and you have to be at leaste 18 years old to play…total lame-ness
http://www.masslottery.com/about/faq.html
Where did you get this stat “Gamblers Anonymous estimates that one in twenty gamblers becomes a problem gambler.” I checked the site you linked to and couldn't find it. Further I emailed Gamblers Anonymous to see if the stat had any merit.
Here is my email
one in twenty gamblers becomes a problem gambler
Is this true??Just trying to keep Casinos from opening in the state of Massachusetts and someone came up with that #. I want to check it out before hammering that bit of info home. – thanks
Here is their response
Gamblers Anonymous is here for the compulsive gamblers who want to stop gambling. We do not keep statistics here, therefore we cannot confirm your statement.If you would like more information on our program of recovery you can visit our website at http://www.gamblersanonymous.org Thank you.
David….where exactly did you get that stat?
The stat that I cited came from the Wikipedia entry on problem gambling. The stat is further footnoted here.
The real footnote is here.
A couple of days ago I emailed Gamblers Anonymous about your stat (1 out of 20 etc.) and they told me
“We do not keep statistics here, therefore we cannot confirm your statement.”
I know this latest footnote (from about.com) reads a little different
“Recent statistics from Gamblers Anonymous suggest that four to six percent of gamblers eventually become problem gamblers or pathological (compulsive) gamblers.”
But again – they are pointing to Gamblers Anonymous, and they don't keep stats???
I'm emailing Gamblers Anonymous again to check the validity of this new stat as well. But this isn't adding up David. I saw how it was posted on your site “The Eisenthal Report” and I'm wondering if you posted it anywhere else?
…if you got rid of your stupid graphics, maybe more people would take your rants more seriously.
I can understand people's concern for allowing casinos in Massachusetts: gambling addiction, potential crime, traffic, etc. But, as someone stated before, we already have gambling in Massachusetts through the government-sanctioned state lottery system and through the purchase of scratch tickets. We already allow this “bad” behavior to occur under current laws. Just because some people think gambling is a moral wrong (which it appears some of you do) does not mean all people should not be allowed to gamble. It should be the individual's choice to decide if they want to gamble, not the greater society telling them it's bad, wrong, immoral,etc.
As to the potential construction of casinos, it should be up to the local community to debate and vote on whether they want one in their town or city. If they decide they want a casino, Governor Deval Patrick should not have the power to tell them otherwise. There will negative side effects to be sure if casinos are built, but let's err on the side of liberty. Let's allow Massachusetts residents to decide if they want one in their town, allow Massachusetts residents (or anyone) to decide if they want to go to the casino, and let the market decide if it's succesful or unsuccesful. Judging by the crowds of people driving from Massachusetts to Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods, I think it would be succesful.
Oh, and I think gambling is boring as hell by the way.
It should be up to the region impacted by the increased traffic, pollution, municipal services and social problems inherent with a class III casino to decide if they are interested in hosting a casino. Erstwhile the leaders of the Commonwealth need to think long-range about changing the nature of tourism in Massachusetts while relying on regressive businesses for taxes to provide essential services in the state.
I certainly see your point about it being a regional issue. I think it would be reasonable to have a multi-town vote on the matter.
Let them go to CT.
The arguement that CT is making all the money is all wll and fine. If CT decided to legalize something ridiculous would we be required to follow their poor example?
Just where do you draw the line?
If CT decided to legalize something ridiculous would we be required to follow their poor example?
<
p>
MA and the rest of the nation did it after NH instituted their state lottery a few decades ago.
<
p>
I am seriously ambivalent over any proposed casino in MA, but let me pose this question. Does anyone know the percentage of automobiles with MA licences parked at either of the two CT casinos? I vaguely recall an article a few years ago that the percentage of autos with CT license plates was quite high at NH liquor stores (liquor was cheaper in NH). And the percentage of autos with MA license plates at malls in NH near the MA border (no sales tax).