However, it appears that inevitably, we might just regret this easy fix to our long term structural problems. Economic development can also be arrested (a lot) by casinos, as smaller entertainment and retail businesses dry up trying to compete with the new, bigger kid on the block. The revenue streams casinos create is eaten up in new infrastructure costs (new police, roads, etc) and in trying to offset the economic impact to many individuals (addicts who lose everything, and the families that once depended on them). And who in the their right mind spends a day at a casino, then goes shopping at a store or out to a local restaurant that isn't located directly on the casino site?
Think of it this way: if a mother goes back to work after having kids, but pays over 50% of her new salary in daycare costs, was it really worth the social cost to that child who now is growing up in a less parent-driven environment? (Not that I'm advocating women stay home – why not the dad? – or don't realize the economic situation many families are in that gives them no choice.)
Governor Patrick appears ready to address these concerns with a stringent regulatory body. But that too will cost a great deal of money and eat into the revenue stream.
There is another area of concern I have: that the character of our state will change, especially if this opens up other opportunities for tribes to start casinos beyond the three proposed, via the federal approval process. Remember back to the sleazy Abramoff scandals surrounding that process? We don't need that in our state, nor should we become all about the casinos, like New Jersey or Connecticut have become. I think casinos cost more than you think they do, don't bring in that much in outside (non-Mass) revenue (at least, according to many studies), and in the end, diminishes a state. I'd rather take the slow way towards economic growth and prosperity, instead of puffing on the quick fix that casinos offer. I hope the state legislature feels the same.
I agree that casinos offer the state one of the least attractive ways to solve our budget problem, in large part because of the social costs. Unfortunately, there is more legislative support for casino gambling than any other revenue source or tax. I am afraid that liberal legislators will not be able to “just say no” and win. So instead they should follow the principles of judo – that is “use your opponents' momentum against them.” The way they could do this is to try to leverage casino legislation to include another revenue proposal that they want – like an increase in the sales tax or income tax.
Jack
A collateral point but, the average WalMart wage in Massachusetts is $11.68. http://www.walmartfacts.com/StateByState/?id=19.
You claim the average casino wage will be higher than that of WalMart. Care to support that? I'm sceptical because 1) most of the casino salaries are typically the lowest wage type employment: restaurant worker, etc…. and 2) there are no casinos yet in Massachusetts for you to reach your conclusion.
I've seen some comparison of Casinos to Walmart. Walmart pushes for competitive pricing and has probably done more to raise the low income purchasing power than the sum of all government run poverty solutions since LBJ. Further, WalMart stores often are the lynchpin for the localized development of other businesses nearby. Casinos do neither.
I don’t buy that Wal-mart is a lynchpin for localized development of other businesses–that probably ignores the local pharmacists and tire sellers and clothing retail stores that were outcompeted by Wal-Mart.
<
p>
Given that casinos have no windows and have internal restaurants, they will not aid the local diners or bars in whatever town gets a casino.
<
p>
I heard once on NPR that Louisiana’s casinos brought a boom in hardware stores near the casinos. You can’t gamble on a credit card, but your credit cards can buy a $500 table saw, which you can then hock at the pawn shop next door, for cash to gamble.
<
p>
So if the casino plan succeeds, buy stock in hardware companies. And expect to find some good deals on hardware at pawnshops.
They aren't white collar jobs, but more often than wal-crap jobs, come with bennies and slightly higher pay. Of course, I could also be being sold a load of crap…some googling and I can't find studies right now that say anything either way.
This is interesting though. A Frontline thing on casinos. It came from this list of pros and cons on Frontline's website on gambling.
from CT residents who can speak to the debates preceding Foxwoods/Mohegan Sun. Maybe invite someone from My Left Nutmeg?
A couple of things I know about Foxwoods.
<
p>
1) CT didn’t want the casino–the tribe which built it was the tribe which filed the lawsuit which ultimately led to gambling casinos on Indian Reservations nationwide.
<
p>
2) Foxwoods is pretty much in the middle of nowhere. So from a local economic development perspective it wasn’t the case of a big institution sucking the life out of a small city’s main street, as there’s no main street there to suck the life out of.
Bob Oakes had a report on this on Morning Edition this morning.
Legislature is Definetly reject. If House approves it i will absolutely swear to God stop blogging. REALLY!!!!
I guess that would be ONE good thing to come out of legalized casinos! ;-P
(Kidding. Well, mostly.) ;-P
Y'all should know that by now.
I will miss you, though.
Here's how Mineau was quoted by the Globe on the casino proposal:
I have to say, it creeps me out to hear ya'll on the same side as Mineau on anything.
I remember when I first moved here, you couldn't buy alcohol on Sundays. That puritanical streak isn't the aspect of Massachusetts political culture that I feel comfortable with or like to see.
will be one of its most interesting features, as I noted a few days ago.
I also probably agree with Mineau on oxygen (good) and baby eating (bad).
Legalize and regulate marijuana. (0.00 / 0)
<
p>
If Patrick and the legislature think casino’s are an appropriate way to raise revenues, then I’d like to know, why not legalize and regulate marijuana sales? Remember how Patrick mentioned he was against decriminalizing marijuana because of his uncle who became a heroine addict? Well, I’m sure many people have horror stories about unlce’s who became gambling addicts once a casino moved into town. Seriously, legalizing and regulating marijuana works for Massachusetts. Lot’s of people here are pot smokers. According to a 2005 study, “Five of the 15 areas with the highest rates of marijuana use nationwide were in Massachusetts”
<
p>
http://www.boston.co…. There wouldn’t be any “economic transfer” because people here already buy marijuana in the black market. We could save a bundle on law enforcemnet and the justice system. We could cultivate(hahaha) a new industry of growers and sellers. And, we could tax the sales and capture alot of revenue. Further, kids may have less access to marijuana as a result. A 2002 study found “teens had an easier time buying marijuana than cigarettes or beer”
<
p>
http://www.jointoget…. Well, that’s my suggestion anyway. If we are going to legitimate vices, why not one that is already pretty popular here?
<
p>
by: melanie @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 18:05:45 PM CDT
Under this plan, since you’d be able to grow pot here with less fear of getting arrested, the price would be commensurately lower and we would thus be able to undercut prices of neighboring states where the inflated prices reflect the risk of arrest.
<
p>
And, as Wal-Mart teaches us, undercutting prices is the way to get all the business. This could be a massive cash crop for the state.
<
p>
Every state is going down the casino path. We should think outside the flower box, and go with a unique product that would truly grow our economy.
<
p>
Bravo, melanie!
Sorry, but recently agreed-upon community standards at BMG do not approve of arguments by analogy. This comment’s well developed comparison and satirical wit will have to be expunged. Economic projections only from now on, please.
What's tough about this Casino issue is having seen Deval talk about long term thinking during the campaign, and going for the quick fix now. 10, 15, 20 years from now, we'll be addicted to those revenues and start looking for the next quick fix. But what will our state look like? I have real concerns about Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, and our state's dollars going there. But I'm just not sure this is the state I signed up for.
That said, if the legislature does reject the governor here, and they may well (anyone wonder whether the governor counted votes before proposing this?), I would like to think that they'd come up with SOME plan for new revenue streams. Reject casinos. Reject corporate tax loopholes that even a lot of business leaderse support. Refuse to do any real belt-tightening. Don't want to raise taxes. Don't want the meals tax. It would be nice if the legislature had some actual ideas and showed some leadership on something, rather than just rejecting whatever the governor proposes.
The current crop of legislators were not elected on the premise that they have ever had an idea in their life. They were elected because they are Democrats and can shave booty off the state budget and bring it home to the folks. I have a neighbor, who I personally like, who was a highly placed person in the Democratic establishment. He will tell you without blinking that he has 26 family members placed in various jobs. His mindset is typical of legislators, and will continue for the foreseeable future.
It’s my biggest beef (besides gay marriage) with Panagiotakos – nice guy, little too establishment and in with the favors crowd. It’s an even bigger argument against Rep Nangle – god, that guy irks me. His voting record is totally atrocious (for a Dem, maybe not for a far-right Republican), he’s actually not doing the job we sent him for, he’s not really connected to his constituency, and he got elected on the strength of his ties to the good ol’ boys rather than any contribution he could make…grrr.
<
p>
What’s worse – I moved into his district. Of all the luck. I’m looking around for his replacement every chance I get.
I’m a behind the scenes kind of gal. I want no part of running for office. (Actually, once in office it could be fun if only because you could get serious about policy, but it’s the running part I would hate.)
I hope you’re reconsider. You’re exactly what we need.
The pro or con for casinos in Mass seems to have a few components to it.
<
p>
1) State revenue costs/gains
2) Social costs/gains
3) State character diminishing
4) Native american tribes
<
p>
Spurious arguments:
<
p>
Quick fix: There’s nothing wrong with the quickness of the fix per se – I’d rather have already had the fix.
<
p>
Slippery slope:
I agree – we’re not going to ban booze and we’re not going to legalize marajuana, so lets just look at this proposal for what it is. (By the way – wont someone read the proposal before writing their next post).
<
p>
About odd pairings:
Gambling is not a dem or republican issue. To some extent the social costs side of the issue touch a libertarian chord.
<
p>
For 1) I think the state will clearly make more money and spend more money on balance there will be a gain.
<
p>
For 2) I think people will have more gambling problems as a result of this change. Perhaps the extra money gained could lead to some positive social change – it depends on your view of the govt’s use of money.
<
p>
For 3) This is a personal thing.
<
p>
For 4) Not sure on this, but I think it needs some more discussion. Are casinos a legitimate form of reparations? How much of that money really does go to the tribe?
Economic costs. Will a casino help this state’s economy or hurt it? Who will be winners and who will be losers?
<
p>
I think that in a 20-50 mile radius to a casino, there will be a significant impact on local businesses that rely on discretionary dollars. Restaurants in particular. I think that in a 2-mile radius of the casino the number of local restaurants will drop by 50%.
<
p>
I think that in that same radius, houses will start to get shabbier. It’s easier to postpone that new roof for $10k if you’re spending $2k/year on a casino. And given the revenue projections of the casinos, plus their expected draw range, there will be a lot of people into the casinos for $2k/year.
<
p>
Let’s talk race for a minute. If a casino is built in an area with a big non-white population, will it help that population? Call me cynical, but I doubt it — I think that the people doing the hiring won’t particularly recruit in the minority community because a whole lot of non-white employees just might scare away the patrons. I’ve heard people say they avoid Bay State Hospital because of “all the minorities working there”. Six Flags imports workers from Eastern Europe rather than reach out to the unemployed kids in Springfield.
<
p>
Economic impact is my biggest reason against a casino. A casino in Newburyport it’s far enough away from Western MA that it’s not going to significant impact the economy around me. But they’re talking of putting one in Palmer, Holyoke, Chicopee, or Springfield, and if that happens, it will get a lot harder for a lot of people to make ends meet around here, people who think it’s a pain to go to Foxwoods but who would find it easy to go to the casino down he block. Based on that, I’m against them in the state, and in surrounding states, for that matter.
There are 3 types of people –
<
p>
1) those who will never have gambling problems,
2) those who already have gambling problems, and
3) those who could develop gambling problems
<
p>
There’s no issue with 1 they’re either not going to the casino or their having their periodic and reasonable visit to the casino.
<
p>
As far as #2 goes, to some extent these people are like alcoholics living in a dry state. Sure they could drive to Connecticut or get on the Internet, or go on a casino boat or play the lottery excessively, but its not like there’s a place with big lights down the street. These people will have temptation put in their face.
<
p>
For #3, we now have a new crop of people who either get exposed to gambling for the first time and would not have, or are just more likely to go there when they’ve hit hard times etc. Maybe they’d have gone to church instead.
<
p>
On balance, preventing casinos because of people with gambling problems is like keeping an alcohol ban for people who are alcoholics. I know its not exact, but thats my view.