I remember being very impressed when then-candidate Patrick offered articulate and principled opposition to casino gambling in light of the profound social harms he knew were associated with the euphemistically termed “gaming industry.” Now, in the interest of generating revenue for the state, he is backing a proposal for state sponsorship of the very social harms of which he warned in the form of three state licensed casinos. Yes, his proposal calls for state issued band aids. But the planning for band aids only confirms that he appreciates the harm his casino proposal will cause.
Patrick got it right when he argued during the campaign that rather than debating whether we should raise or lower taxes, we should first consider what we want to do and then discuss how to pay for it. In that spirit those of us who were with him from the beginning are saying that it is time to talk.
Listen to the words the Amherst Democratic Town Committee — the party leaders in a town that supported Patrick more strongly than any other in the Commonwealth in the hotly contested Democratic primary, and again in the general election:
Amherst Democratic Town Committee
October 18, 2007
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS the platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party commits the party to “tax equity and responsible budgeting,” “special support for small businesses and agriculture,” “sustainable development practices to foster economic stability for both urban and rural cities and towns,” and the provision of “a sustainable revenue source to finance state government that support a healthy economy;”
WHEREAS casino gambling would not promote tax equity, responsible budgeting, sustainable development practices, or a sustainable revenue source, and likely would damage small businesses and agriculture in Western Massachusetts;
WHEREAS the Governor’s proposal for casinos in Massachusetts represents a missed opportunity to advocate for a more equitable tax system; and
WHEREAS the League of Women Voters Massachusetts and Representative Ellen Story have been consistent and forthright in their advocacy for more equitable taxation and their opposition to casino gambling;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Amherst Democratic Town Committee supports the League of Women Voters Massachusetts and Representative Story in their opposition to casino gambling in Massachusetts and in their commitment to a more equitable system of taxation for residents of the Commonwealth.
Motion made by Leo Maley.
Motion seconded by Diana Stein.
Motion, as amended, passed by a vote of 13 to 2 with 0 abstentions.
# # #
Here is the press release that is being vigorously emailed around the state:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Meeting on October 18, 2007, members of the Amherst Democratic Town Committee (ADTC) voted to support the League of Women Voters Massachusetts and local State Representative Ellen Story in their opposition to casino gambling in Massachusetts.
The ADTC resolution states that Governor Deval Patrick’s casino gambling proposal “would not promote tax equity, responsible budgeting, sustainable development practices, or a sustainable revenue source, and likely would damage small businesses and agriculture in Western Massachusetts.”
The resolution also stated that the Governor’s casino proposal “represents a missed opportunity to advocate for a more equitable tax system” in Massachusetts.
ADTC member Leo Maley brought the resolution to the Committee. Following an hour-long discussion, the resolution passed by a vote of 13 to 2.
“It was a lively and informative discussion. Committee members came to the meeting well-informed on the subject. Most members had read the very informative materials prepared by the League of Women Voters Massachusetts concerning the economic and social effects of casino gambling,” Maley noted.
“It is great to see this level of knowledge and passion concerning such an important issue at the grass roots of the Democratic party.”
“Many Committee members expressed their disappointment in Governor Patrick,” Maley noted. “Only one Committee member expressed support for Governor Deval Patrick’s casino proposal. Most Committee members were passionately opposed to the Governor’s plan,” Maley noted.
Maley, a community and political organizer, notes that he strongly supported Deval Patrick in last year’s Democratic primary and general elections and that many ADTC members had campaigned hard for Patrick.
“Amherst voted 84 percent for Deval Patrick in a three-way Democratic primary and again by 84 percent in the general election,” Maley noted. “ADTC members helped lead the effort for Deval Patrick in Western Massachusetts.”
Maley noted that “The Governor has done many wonderful things since he’s been in office. I continue to support him. However, it is unfortunate to see the Governor so out of step with his core supporters on this very important issue.”
Maley can be reached for comment by phone at 413-262-0630 or by email at leomaley3@hotmail.com
[Crossposted from FrederickClarkson.com]
It’s nice to see a post that respectfully disagrees with a decision the Governor has made and does not disregard the good things that he has accomplished. It’s not all black and white. There are other things that many will disagree with, and I hope your and Leo Maley’s approach can be used more often in persuading the Governor that he might want to rethink some decisions based upon his constituents’ view points. The recent rash of anti-Patrick postings and speculation about his performances do little to further conversation or clarify positions. Good post.
The nasty speculation about Gov. Patrick and his administration is about as well informed an unproductive as the speculation that Patrick could not win the primary because pundits and poobahs said it was impossible and besides — Deval Who?
<
p>
Candidate Patrick said he would need our help in governing. He also said he wanted to improve civic disourse from the a pathologically relentless negativity that passed for reasoned discourse for so long. Gov. Patrick was right, he does need our help in governing. The smokefilled room got his ear on casinos. Now a lot of the rest of us are going to be heard too.
I am not a big fan of casinos. I think they are low-grade econ development and a least-common-denominator form of entertainment that prays on those who can least afford it. That said…they are not the end of the world and the libertarian in me fights it out with moralising liberal in me.
<
p>
People are grown-ups and if they gamble that is their business. Alternatively, gambling is an addiction and is it really something we want to use to expand valued Govt programs. But, we already have the lottery which may be worse so who cares about three casinos. Those are the mixed arguments I have on the issue with myself.
<
p>
As far as Deval goes. I’m sure he doesn’t much like casinos but we live in a time of permanent fiscal crisis and widespread anti-tax sentiment so I imagine he felt like he had no choice. Patrick wants to expand Govt in a host of areas and that costs money. He also doesn’t want to press for broader tax increases so early in his term and live up to people’s worst fears about him. And the legislature won’t even pass reasonable local and corporate tax proposals so he’s sorta stuck looking for other options, even bad ones. And the public is generally in favor of casinos in concept (even if many of his supporters feel otherwise).
<
p>
The thing that bothers me most about the issue is the fact that casinos are becoming the defining issue of Patrick’s first term (since the drapes and Deville fell off the front page). I imagine the public does not know much about his agenda but they know he supports casinos. I just wonder if there was another way; letting legislative advocates do some of the heavy lifting to get casino proposals on the front burner and maintaining some distance until some movement was evident.
<
p>
Now, not only has he become the chief proponent of casinos but the issue’s high-profile and legislative diffidence toward his initiative have contributed to the idea that he is not getting much done. He’s gonna be judged rightly or wrongly on whether his casino proposal goes anywhere. That is too bad, because I imagine, like most of us on BMG, we didn’t vote for him because we wanted to play slots nearer home.
As of the 2000 census, one-quarter the population of Atlantic City was living below the poverty line. This was after 25 years of casino gambling in Atlantic City. Where is the economic development, and whom is it benefiting? The weight of economic evidence is that casino gambling costs a region more than it returns (after about a 5-year period). Patrick thinks that golf courses will somehow make up for this?
Would registered democrats , knowing what they know now re Governor Patrick, would they vote for him in the promary were it this November.
<
p>
Same question were the general held this November. Would the voters elect him?
with no hesitation. Even if I disagree with some of his decisions, he is far superior to any of the Governors the state has had in many, many years. He makes Romney look like the clown that he is for having used this state as a stepping stone. Deval Patrick cares about this state. He’s proven himself many times over with his actions. How he handles disagreement and alternative thoughts from his constituents will be interesting. Romney/Weld/Cellucci didn’t care once elected.
And how we handle disagreement is also important. The culture of trashing candidates and elected officials over single issues is bad for our public life together at every level.
<
p>
I say it is time for us all to grow up, get serious, and get organized.
<
p>
We will not allow casino gambling to go through in this state. We expect better from Deval Patrick. I expect we will get it too.
<
p>
Like candidate Patrick, we are appealing to our highest aspirations and our best qualities as citizens and as a people. I know we can do it.
How about doing the property tax relief that was promised and is driving people out of the State in droves because they can’t afford to live here?
Where are the 1000 cops promised to stop the murders?
Why are there NEW toll booths on the mass pike instead of tearing down the existing ones?
Why are cities and towns shutting down athletic programs?
Why do we have to pay for students to be bussed to school?
Why is it business as usual from the incredibly corrupt career politicians on Beacon hill?
Why are businesses and people leaving the State?
<
p>
You can talk about your highest aspirations and best qualities all you want but Where’s the beef? Patrick is a spectacular failure thus far.
Please spare us the marriage thing and the Romney bash as he’s been gone almost a year now so he’s irrelevant. . Just tell us specifically why Deval is so superior to all the prior governors. Facts and specifics would be appreciated.
I may have issues with certain of Deval’s policies and some of this tactics but I still think he is the best thing to happen to politics in Massachusetts in decades. Despite some of my critical comments I still feel really happy having voted for him and plan on doing so again.
Three years away from the election and he’s already got your vote. That’s keeping him honest…
<
p>
I find it rich that people who heap condescension of Bush’s blindly loyal supporters of Bush act exactly that way in reference to Deval.
My opinion could change, but as of right now, I see no reason to not vote to give Governor Patrick another term. I don’t agree with his decision on casinos, although I can understand his motivation. He is looking to improve the MA economy. His reasons are solid. We can question his decisions and provide input on why they might not be accurate. He has always said that he’s not perfect and that he believes in having dialogue. He’s doing things differently and is making changes. He is following through on his campaign promises. It’s not easy and it can be complicated. I can’t fault him on his vision or goals. They are the same as mine and they haven’t changed now that he’s in office. As someone once said to me: You will never agree 100% of the time with every decision made by an elected official. It’s important to look at the bigger picture to determine if, on a whole, you agree with the direction. In this case, I do.
It just amazes me that people can plan on voting for someone three years out. I’m not sure in which country I’ll be living in three years time.
<
p>
I will note, though, that you speak largely of Deval’s good intentions. I realize I’m in the minority in this site in that I judge a candidate by what they’ve done instead of by what they say they want to do. If Deval rights his ship and does some good in 3 years (and he hasn’t had much of a chance thus far to do stuff granted), I’d be happy to vote for him. But thus far — eh.
My opinion could change, but as of right now, I see no reason to not vote to give Governor Patrick another term.
<
p>
As I have said on the Internet many times before, one cannot beat somebody with nobody. To date, Patrick does not have someone who might be a Dem opponent. And, as far as I can tell, the Reps have not been able to recruit a candidate to oppose him.
<
p>
It is unlikely at this point in time that DiMasi or what’s-his-name from the Senate would run for Governor. Somebody vs. Nobody. No contest.
I’m not gonna vote for a Republican and can’t imagine a better Democratic candidate at this point…so yeah, saving a complete meltdown or an abandonment of basic policies I care about, I’m down with Deval. I didn’t pick the guy to be a one-termer, we’ve had too many of those already.
but then again, Romney would have won the last time if he had ran.
Just like Ogonowski was gonna win in MA-05.
have every Dem “superstar’ on the planet show up to endorse him. Kerry must be ‘hearing the footsteps” too. The Dems better do something about the deteriorating conditions here in the People’s Republik or they’ll all be out in the street in 08 selling apples where they belong.
…I broke an arm rolling on the floor laughing at this comment.
Not with a 34% approval rating.
I understand that the Casino decision is sparking controversy but it baffles me as to why? The opponents in this Amherst vote state generalities that make little or no sense IMO ..
for instance the claim that it (casinos)
“would damage agriculture in Western Massachusetts.” and it “would not promote tax equity” …
Umm .. You got me here.
I have absolutly no opinion one way or the other on this issue. I assume that some day I will have and look forward to that viewing that debate when/if it occurs but on first read it sounds to me that Amherst has once again jumped the gun and put itself on the cutting edge of absurdity.
I would liken this vote to announcing opposition to the “mission to mars” because it would not end the Iraq war and would damage salmon migration in the Yukon …
just my two cents …
As I’ve posted previously on the subject, this is not just about Amherst. There is a lot of opposition to casinos in this area (Western MA), and this is just one example of what one town decided to do in opposition. This is the tip of the iceberg.
<
p>
I understand that your perspective is from the Republican side of the fence where discussion about tax equality generally means more tax breaks for the wealthy. This is about the larger picture of having a vision of tax equality that addresses the needs of the local area, what are appropriate, healthy and sustainable approaches for long term economic growth and what is the best way to spread the tax burden fairly and equitably.
My perspective is from the libertarian side of the fence, that is taxes bad, buisiness and jobs good. My only hold on supporting the casinos outright come from the ethical viewpoint of not particularly caring for government being the sponsers of an addictive product. That said, people gamble anyway so if they are going to do it, why not have them do it here instead of in CT.
Since I assume you are also an environmentalist, think of all the gas that wont get burnt by having them go the distance to pump the slots ..
I am familiar with SE connecticut and have been for some time. When the casinos moved in I heard the same arguments you make now. Unlike the assessment of moral deprevity and destruction of ecosystems the area is largely unchanged today. However there are a few more jobs, albeit lousy ones, which were a plus in the light of EB moving out leaving the area without a major employer.
So tell me about economic fairness and how its better to do without potential revenue ..
that exceeds the costs of supporting an already decaying infrastructure? I don’t know the answer, but from the non-industry generated reports I’ve read, it doesn’t seem that casinos are the panacea lobbyists make them out to be. Has the town of Ledyard improved as a result of the casinos? Are there any other businesses that increased and flourished in that area as a result of the casinos being plunked there?
Those are the points that need to be debated, and I imagine that the data is still being gathered.
My hunch is that whatever revenue can be gotten from casinos will just come out of the lottery, or at least a lot of it.
Then it will be argued that jobs created at casinos will be offset by lost opportunity at lottery emporiums …
Also how will the developers contribute to infrastructure improvements ect …
From my understanding a detailed proposal hasnt even been made and until the data is compiled and presented it is ludicrous that people are already voting … based on what information?
There is currently another thread by dkennedy here on BMG with some good links. In particular, I was just checking out casinofacts.org. The answer to my previous question about Ledyard is answered in one of the videos. The Greater Springfield area can’t withstand much more destruction of existing businesses.
<
p>
We can agree that questions need to be answered (and asked) about the issue. The DTC in Amherst did homework on the issue and put it to a vote based on existing evidence. Other towns will probably do the same.
I am bothered by the fact that this issue is already so polorized that reams of information seem available and are all put forth by either opponents or proponents of a proposal that hasn’t been made yet.
One of the first things I do when I look at something new is examine the source and it, and it looks to me like everything is already biased one way or the other.
<
p>
The only FACTS we know at this point is that Patrick has endevoured to explore going foreward with a plan to promote 3 out of at least 7 casino “concepts” located in various GENERAL locations throughout the state. Where they will settle on and what the details will be when the actual proposal is finaly hashed out is unknowable.
<
p>
I just wish people would keep an open mind and wait to see what/if anything comes of this and stop protesting the non existant.
for concerned citizens to activate and be heard above the din of lobbyists. There is good reason to protest vocally before the damage is undoable. The legislature needs to hear that people want more information, more study, more open discussions. That’s the path that must be taken to have a say. The proposal is on the table. Now is the time to do something before it’s too late.
NEWSFLASH: Noone was going to build a casino in Amherst and noone ever intended to build one out there.
NEWSFLASH: We dont live in a vacumn. What we dont do here, someone else will do somewhere else.
<
p>
Like it or not this state is balanced on gaming, we were on the cutting edge of lottery exploitation. Boston is addicted to spending that money and revenues from it are falling. Now with other states creating Mega Lotto’s and building casinos up to the state line there are more and more hands digging into the same rancid pie. I see this proposal, whenever it comes, as Devals way of trying to modernize the product, the “offering” if you will, to allow this state to KEEP (or maybe even increase) its market share of the gaming pie.
<
p>
By the way, I’ve got to tell you my personal interest in this issue. I have always refered to the lottery as a “bonus tax for the stupid” and if my wife didnt drag me to the casino twice a year I’d never step foot in one. At least if they build them here I wont have to waste 6 hours in the car besides flushing the cash at the slots 🙂
is the route to Amherst from the Pike. Palmer is one of the proposed sites.
<
p>
I’m so glad that your wife drags you to the casino to “flush cash”. She might want to go more often if one were minutes away. You might want to think a little more about that! 😉
But her stepmom is an absolute zoid. When her husband died she sold her house and threw the money away on the slots in like 2 years, so I know exactly what your saying … but to your point, NO distance would be far enough away to keep her from throwing every penny she can scrounge together on those slots. If the casino was across the street from her house she couldnt waste any more money than all the money she has which she already does.
Palmer … damn, if I lived in Palmer I would have been all over that one … PLEASE, expand the tax base and get this property tax down off the moon, is what I would be thinking.
Ah well, guess there is a reason that main street echoes down there.
what on earth has you convinced the property tax base would go down rather than up? Increased infrastructure needs, police, fire, emergency, school increases, etc., could well make it not worthwhile for that type of business. Never mind the changes that could occur to the landscape both physically and psychologically. People live in small towns for a reason and it’s typically not to deal with city traffic issues, porn shops, drunk drivers or New Yorkers (sorry honey!) speeding through town to get to the casino.
I doubt anyone has proposed forcing a development down a towns throat. In the end the local planning board and the voters of that town decide and not some fringe in Amherst.
I doubt a local planning board would sign off on a loss.
I am not saying it is unheard of to find corrupt local officials but that towns voters will know a good deal when they see one, or not …
We shall see.
It’s not just going to impact one town. A casino would impact the entire area. If one town negotiates and approves, the surrounding towns may stand to lose the same amount and more than the benefit to a single town. The decision needs to be based on the region, not the town.
<
p>
I’ll give you a good example of what happened in this area with something not nearly as big. Six Flags was opened in Agawam, just west of Springfield. During the summer season, it is virtually impossible to navigate through traffic in this area to get over the bridge west of Springfield. There didn’t seem to be any thought or planning prior to the decision to create a Six Flags theme park here. It can be more than just a traffic annoyance. If there is an accident on the highway (as so frequently occurs because out of staters have no clear indication where to go to get easily to their destination), the entire area is flooded with traffic. We have only sufficient infrastructure to support local traffic, yet we are overwhelmed with what currently exists. When the Big E (Eastern States Exposition) happens for three weeks of the year in September with millions of attendees over the course of the event, I can’t even get on to the main street in my town. It’s a nightmare that thankfully only lasts for a couple weeks. Without planning, the same scenario may happen in the entire region because of a casino. Where’s the cost/benefit analysis for this? Is there a cost/benefit analysis? We don’t know. Is there any plan this time around for dumping a huge attraction in the middle of the Greater Springfield area? We don’t know. Is there already a problem? Yes, and it has not yet been addressed.
Arent you the one that has heckled my zero poulation growth reflections from days of yore? sigh, if only I had Shermans “way back machine”…
As to traffic woes, sigh, its a reality these days everywhere. You, the one who wishes me more immigration, whines about traffic? lol
<
p>
Anyhow .. thats why the devil is in the detail.
Planning boards are not blind to these details you mention … but by the same token neighboring UNAFFECTED towns will still try to pile on the bandwagon and seek undue remitance, they always do. Some towns are actualy effected, some arent. Common sense usualy wins out.
Now take the hypothetical Palmer location …
Assuming its in the downtown area off or near route 20 …
What effect would that have on Amherst? Will many people be taking the scenic route down from Vermont to roll the dice?
No, but obviously the actual corridor from the turnpike exit would have to be rebuilt and typicaly in a succesful negotiation the developer gets stuck eating a good part of the tab.
Then of course Amherst will argue that their local nik-nak dispensers will lose business due to the attraction being built 15 miles away … Umm, really?
When you are in the FoxWoods region next time notice all the recent highway construction into and around Norwich. The area is booming now, attractions SPUR further economic development. They do, it does happen, the world will not end …
or instead the area could have stood as a relic of a long past indutrial age, a virtual abandoned ghost town complete with boarded up storefronts.
The local residents get to decide that.
The only thing I see where Ledyard screwed up was by adding the “indian reservation” to the equation, that one detail IMO loused up the entire revenue sharing picture. Put it on commercialy taxable property and its a goldmine to any local community.
that would not have been me on zero population growth nor on increased immigration. Confusion on your part.
<
p>
I wish you all the best with your traffic situations. There are alternatives for relics of long past industrial ages that might be better nd more appropriate than casinos.
I get confused sometimes, sorry 🙂
I dont know .. I’m not telling you to vote for it if its in your town, I’m just trying to say …. hear it out. Are there realy alternatives? Real ones? Life is nine parts imagination and one part reality. Sooner or later you have to grab what is real and now if it adds up to a net plus.
and understand. However, this area has been sold a bill of goods in the past with poor to disastrous results. I guess everything in politics is local and to understand an area, one must really live there. This is especially true for the parts of MA that are outside of Boston area. If there is a benefit, it needs to be a true benefit and agreed upon by the public. That is not a lot to ask for.
A few casino’s hypothetically may do well. Several may do so-so. Multiple casino’s may cause the many to do poorly.
<
p>
Casino’s depend on the overall amount of disposable income or gambling addicts who spend the grocery money and resort to theft. Anyone postulate what happens to casino’s when the economy goes into recession? Just a thought. How was Vegas impacted when USA has gone into recession? Anyone go out of business?
<
p>
You must not have been watching very closely.
Gov. Patrick has made clear that his proposal is real, is coming and will comprise non-urban resort casinos in three regions of the state. Developers have already designated possible sites and towns and site owners are already inking deals. In my area, a developer has made a deal with Mohegan Sun fot a possible site in Palmer if the leg passes a casino proposal.
<
p>
Those of us with fair concerns about the historic disaster that casino gambling represents are undeterred by calls for taking a wait and see attitude. We have already seen enough. Developers and the casino industry are already well advanced in their planning and spending big bucks to buy their way into public policy and to dominate the entire business community in vulnerable areas of the state. Each casino is likely to be a half billion dollar investment or more.
<
p>
Thre is no reason for the citizens not to get organized and get heard. Gov. Patrick encourages vigorous public debate and citizen participation. He would never tell people to shut up — and in any case, we have no intention of doing so. Naturally we will be most interested to see more of the details. Gov. Patrick has reversed himself from the campaign when he was opposed to casino gambling for all the right reasons. This is not a new issue and the burden is on him to change our minds. Best of luck to him.
<
p>
And I thought the governor worked for us. You mean to tell me that the governor is going to do this deal in spite of what the voters think?
<
p>
I think this man had better stqrt looking for productive employment in three years——then again perhaps he already has.
If Billary gets elected ( God help us)then there’s no chance that Deval might give us a break and resign for a post in the Clinton administration. Oh well,in 3 years he’ll be gone anyway.
There is no, I repeat, no libertarian issue involved in the casino question. Anyone in Massachusetts is free to gamble. What is at stake here is whether the state should grant monopolies to out-of-state entrepreneurs to bring in machines that are now equipped with microchips and programmed to intensify their compelling (“addictive”) rhythm of reward. Natasha Schull at MIT is studying this topic. http://www.sarweb.or…
<
p>
The consistent libertarian position would not be to support monopoly casinos. It would be that there could be slot machines in any corner store (right next to the Lottery machine), including the corner store in your backyard.
<
p>
There is also no serious economic case to be made for casinos. Please show me a place outside Las Vegas (a very special situation) where the regional economy has benefited from casinos, or a state that has resolved its fiscal difficulties with revenues from these tax farms.
You state:
“The consistent libertarian position would not be to support monopoly casinos.”
<
p>
I differ To me, the consistant libertarian view is one of non interference in the free decision of developers to gamble on a development. Whether they win or lose on that gamble is not an issue to me. I am not the investor.
The issue is whether government should interfere.
want to have nothing to do with the casino proposal. Personally I can’t think of anything more counter productive. On top of that the numbers we are being given stem from “fuzzy math”. No thank you to casino’s.
with the Devil over money man always looses.
Thanks for raising the bar, Fred. I respectfully disagree (now that I have worked through my anger at the bad process, bad plan and bad bill) with the Governor and do not want to trash the Administration's other work, so I would very much appreciate it if they would pull the bill. Exit strategies. I think it's time to discuss exit strategies like stopping the bill from proceeding.
And requiring exit strategies if the Lege is already bought/sold on approving casinos.
What provisos are needed to not only protect the residents/town/city/region from the negative impacts…the 2.5% formula is bogus and not based on independent impact studies, and what provisos will be developed for exit strategies when casino revenue downturn creates higher costs than revenues? The Mass Taxpayers Foundation [http://www.masstaxpa…]report sheds light on the slim odds that casinos will be revenue positive.
I was there and I thought the outcome was unfortunate. You can read my take on the whole thing. The point the motion and press-release disregard is that this was really about privileged white people taking a moral stand against sin. Although Leo’s motion tries to “stay above it all”, that’s what the people who voted for the motion were actually talking about in expressing their reasons for supporting it. That’s why I crafted the amendment I did (so that the motion would actually represent what people were saying).
<
p>
From what I can tell, the whole thing is overblown. We’re probably going to have Indian casinos regardless of what the legislature does. The research I found indicates that casinos don’t have big impacts on towns — there are some pros and cons, but the overall impacts are small. They do boost employment a little — that’s probably what Deval’s hoping for. And Massachusetts residents currently spend more than $800 billion in Connecticut annually — it might be nice if some of that stayed in the state.
<
p>
I agree with Leo that using governor’s soap box to talk about casino gambling, rather than fair taxation, was a missed opportunity. But I think, on the merits, casino gambling wasn’t the place to draw a line in the sand.
<
p>
Only if these casinos are nothing more than glorified slot palaces — the state has to legalize the Class III games that make a resort, things like poker and blackjack. Regardless, there is plenty the state government can do to make life miserable for Native American casinos if so inclined. This “inevitability myth” is as persistent as it is wrong.
I was wondering when you would chime in!
After the indian tribes receive official recognition for “certain land parcels” as being the reservation (so-called) thaey are no longer subject to state law and many federal laws. ( aforementioned immunity being restricted to the recognized bounds of the “reservation”)
Sorry — $800 million. Here’s the ref: http://www.umassd.edu/cfpa/docs/gaming_update_2007.pdf
Deval Patrick campaigned against casino gambling for all the right reasons.
<
p>
If we wanted casino gambling as the centerpiece of the state economic program we would have voted for Reilly or even Gabrielli.
<
p>
One of the main problems with gambling is that it is for many, a highly addictive behavior. Indeed, that is the undrelying premise — indeed the business model of the entire casino biz. Casinos require a corps of compulsive gamblers, a minority of their customer to provide the bulk of the revenues. Most casion patrons do not in fact, destroy their lives and that of those around them with gambling. But that fact is used to obscure the serious and all but inevitable consequences of casinos.
<
p>
Shall the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sponsor the creation of a whole new class of gambling addicts to finance other projects for the state? Shall this be a principal legacy of the Patrick administration?
<
p>
I hope not.
<
p>
One part of the governor’s proposal would earmark some of the state’s share fo the take, (good word, “take”) to finance ameliorative programs for the inevitable disasters that will come to a great many people as a direct result of the routine addiction generating activity of the casinos.
<
p>
But let’s say that some time after casinos are well established — the Commonwealth faces another budget crisis: the money for ameliorative programs will be likely be diverted to the general fund or someone’s pet project — just as funds from the tobacco settlement have been diverted from antitobacco programs.
<
p>
In other words, the promise of ameliorative programs is a false promise or at least one that the governor and the legislators of today are in no position to guarantee.
<
p>
Ford saw Mrs Clinton being on the ticket some years ago. Interesting.