Look, who’s to say he’s wrong. There are certainly people out there making the argument that all gambling is unseemly and should be banned. But that’s just not the argument you’ll get at Ryan’s Take. Furthermore, it’s not the prevailing argument being waged across Massachusetts, at least in the blogosphere. Representative Dan Bosley’s arguments are the ones most people keep making – and considering he was the anti-casino voice in the forum Father McGowan recently participated in, McGowan should have addressed Bosley’s concerns in the Globe column, instead of dumbing the whole issue down.
To keep this dialogue honest, here are the important facts: gambling isn’t going anywhere. Despite McGowan’s assertions in his column, that’s not the war being waged in Massachusetts. What is at stake are casinos, something that is thankfully not synonymous with gambling.
Why not take on all gambling? Perhaps, in part, because Father McGowan makes some good points: gambling, while dangerous, is a fabric of human nature that can’t be wiped off this Earth. For a less ethereal reason, many people oppose casinos because they do far more harm than give people a place to legally feed their addictions. Casino resorts hurt local businesses. They don’t do what so many politicians promise: provide the state with vast quantities of taxable income. Instead, they mostly redistribute taxes a state already gets, often at the expense of those who can least afford it. When many say they’re against casino resorts, it’s because they know local businesses can’t compete. The morality of gambling is often left out of the equation.
Ultimately, citizens of Massachusetts have to decide what is going to be better for our economy. Thousands of strong and stable local business with homegrown owners – or three gigantic casinos, owned and operated mainly by forces outside of the Commonwealth? If people want to know what separates those who are for casinos in this state from those who oppose them, don’t look at Father McGowan’s column for any insight. Instead, ask anyone that question – do they support local businesses over gigantic casinos – because it stands at the very heart of what divides those who think casino resorts are a good idea from those who think they’re wrong for Massachusetts.
So if the argument is against “casinos” but not against “gambling”, what kind of compromise is possible in MA? How should we legalize “gambling” without legalizing casinos?
<
p>
I think the issues are tied together much closer than you claim, though if you can indicate how we might get one without the other, I’m amenable to changing my opinion.
Basically, no one (except the feds) can stop the Wampanoags from building a casino on their land. The question is how big it will be, and what kinds of gambling will be allowed in it. If the state doesn’t legalize class III gaming, they can’t have it there — though that does leave open the option of “bingo slots” like they have in RI. And, of course, if anyone in the state (racetracks, commercial casinos, whoever) gets to do class III gaming, so do the Indian tribes.
<
p>
Not legalizing class III gaming is likely to prevent the introduction of commercial casinos, because the investors don’t think there’s enough money in it. I don’t think there’s any law against “casinos” as such (though I could be wrong) — the question is what can go on inside a casino.
OK, I think that makes sense. I was under the impression that “Class III Gaming” was specific to the feds’ indian gaming legislation, but of course you are correct that if the state grants commercial licenses for gaming areas (including table games), then the tribe will be free to do what they want, by extension.
<
p>
My question was trying to get at whether there would be any way to legalize gaming itself, without necessarily licensing any casinos. It doesn’t seem to be the case, for the reason you said (legalizing any Class III = tribe casino).
<
p>
The reason I ask is because there seems to be two strands in the “anti-” debate — first, that casinos would not be desirable because they are “state-allowed big-business monopolies” that enrich out-of-state conglomerates and kill small business, and second, that gambling is inherently bad, perhaps in some sort of a moral sense, and also because it causes myriad social problems not worth any benefits of allowing it.
<
p>
It seems possible to accept the first yet reject the second, making licensing of small-scale gambling operations only seem like the way to go. How realistic that is, especially since the tribe would then likely build a major casino, I just don’t know.
To the question you end with. If we allow Class III, they’ll eventually be able to build their mega resort casino. Unfortunately, with one minor exception, we can’t have small-time casinos or gambling operations. Honestly, I probably wouldn’t even be against them if there was a way to do it. But there just isn’t, because the Wampanoags would eventually get federal approval to build their mega resort casino. And if they do, sadly, the cat’s out of the bag.
Cruise ships can leave national waters and gamble, like they do in Lynn.
<
p>
2. The Wampanoags have already stated that they’d seek to build a bingo hall if they don’t get state approval. Not only is that well within their rights, given federal and state law, but I also view it as a fair compromise that would allow the tribe to collect revenue, but not destroy local economies (and perhaps have a small impact on gambling addiction, though that’s only a wild guess).