Unfortunately, for people who really, really want casinos in Massachusetts (mainly developers), it seems like the longer this issue lingers, the more people who become against it. Why? Behind all the terse details, what becomes clear is that casinos in Massachusetts makes for bad social policy, bad economic policy and a bad future for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
All of that became very clear tonight with the first presenter out of the bunch, a very nice woman who just happens to be a veteran of this issue, having served on the planning committee and in various other roles in the very town Foxwoods currently resides. She saw her town go from a safe, sleepy town of 15,000 people “where no one locked their doors,” to a place with the 5th highest crime rate in all of Connecticut. Time after time again, trusted, valued citizens of the town started to embezzle hundreds of thousands as the allure of beeping and flashing slot machines began to take over. Connecticut went from having one state-funded gambling addiction treatment center to 17. She became so frustrated losing her home town that she wanted to flee the whole casino issue, moving to Massachusetts. Now she’s fighting it all over again.
The next presenter was me – and I’ll assume a lot of BMG’s readers know my schtik. I stuck mainly to the economic reasons of why casinos don’t jive with a high society (how they’re mainly redistributing income from one sector of the economy to the next, how they destroy local business, etc.), but I also hit why this issue is so important to me. Beyond jobs and numbers and revenue debates, there’s my family trip I took to California and Nevada about a year ago. I drove through half of Nevada and saw it all: the beautiful, extravagent, glittering Las Vegas, as well as the depressing ghost towns with nothing but empty casinos. Talk about diminishing returns.
I also spent time rebuking Clyde Barrow’s number crunching, illustrating just why counting license plates – I mean “patron origin analysis” – isn’t exactly an inspiring method for coming up with economic numbers. Most importantly, I laid down the unnacceptable fact that Massachusetts has yet to commission a detailed, non-partisan study on all of a proposed casino’s effects onthe Bay State, or the fact that no outside sources – such as our state’s leading members of the 4th Estate – have investigated and written hard-hitting pieces examining the numbers on either side.
After I was finished, I was followed by a very well-spoken reverend from New Bedford who wanted to discuss the moral issues. The Reverand had quite a way with his words and made many valid points, but chief among them was this: many people start their support for casinos by saying how they don’t want to talk about the moral implications of casinos. Well, shouldn’t they? Don’t we want a better and safer society? He also questioned the wisdom of planners who think it a good idea to placate the masses by saying we’ll have addiction services at every casino, just in case. Not only is it too late by then, but ‘isn’t that like having an AA meeting at the local bar?’ Why, my good Reverand, I think you could be onto something there.
The last speaker was the very eloquent spokeswoman of Casino Free Massachusetts, telling people exactly how they can help save Massachusetts. Are you interested? Well, here’s just some of her advice.
1. Tell your friends about the issue and start the dialogue. The more people who have a better understanding of it, the more likely the casino side will lose.
2. Donate to the cause. We’re going to be outspent by people who want casinos, but that’s no reason to give up. We need to give allies the resources to get our message out, keep up a great web presence and lobbying effort and, sadly, that takes more than just time and energy.
3. Call your legislators. If we’re going to stop casinos in this state, we’re going to need your state Representative and State Senator to vote it down. That means they need to hear from you, their constituent.
When you live within 50 miles of a casino, the crime rate goes through the roof and gambling addiction literally doubles. Sadly, this is what the map of Massachusetts is about to become:
We have to work hard to stop casinos from becoming a reality. If we don’t, the Bay State will be changed forever – and, unfortunately, it won’t be in a good way.
For Further Reading: Why casinos are like Easy Bake Ovens for Politicians.
I have to admit that initially, I was not adamantly opposed to casinos. I believed that the Gov would do the right thing and really get to the bottom of the fantasy figures presented by the pro-casino groups. The more I read about the study process, the history of casinos in other places and the pressure being applied by casino groups, the more I started believing they are a very bad idea that may do far more harm than good. The moral issue is not what concerns me the most. There are already sufficient numbers of gambling options nearby to meet any addiction needs. I worry most about the long-term ramifications of infrastructure costs, effects on small town living, environment, etc. What happens in ten years if the revenues disappear but the infrastructure needs remain the same? MA already has serious issues with town overrides and funding basic services. Is a casino or multiple casinos really worth the risk?
Last night, I had a conversation with a good friend who is on the other side of the casino issue. I have a better understanding of the Gov’s decision now and although I’m skeptical, I’m willing to listen.
<
p>
The Greater Springfield area needs economic help. A casino might offer more jobs and a boost to the local economy. That said, there would have to be up front agreements to protect the area from the largest concern, which is the cost to local towns and cities. The site of a casino is a critical factor. Placing one in a sleepy little town against the will of residents and surrounding towns seems like a horrible idea. Building one in a community that has already voted for it is a better alternative. In an area where kids leave as soon as they’re out of school because there are no local jobs, I can understand the desire to try to create a new industry. If a casino is willing to sign an agreement not to outsource labor (is that possible?), there is an allure for residents. Is there a way to negotiate some benefit out of this? I still don’t know, but I believe those who are pro casino have the best of intentions, especially the Gov.
Do you really think the people in Longmeadow who just voted to support and override for education are hoping their kids are going to stay local and get jobs at a Palmer casino?
<
p>
No, I didn’t think so.
<
p>
Most of us who stumped for the Gov. didn’t hear casino when he was describing building good jobs for Massachusetts.
<
p>
The casino economy is a false economy that depends on the local feeder markets (go back to the map) to divert discretionary and non-discretionary income to the casino. The slots are wired to rip players-off and shuffle the money up the pipeline to the wealthy investors. It’s a scam all packaged up to look like an actual industry. Well, okay…yes it is an industry, thanks to the outrageous unintended consequences of IGRA that has morphed pure and simple into corporate greed.
<
p>
There is nothing that speaks to a true economy, social justice or advancement in casinos. Nothing socially progressive, educational, environmentally, medically, technologically or spiritually centered in the enterprise.
<
p>
For a good time, sure. But at a non-refundable price to the region/state, culture, citizens, environment and yes, the future choices of our children for careers.
<
p>
Warning: Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid.
I’m not accepting kool aid from either side, but I do understand the perspective of those who live in extremely depressed cities and towns. We’ll see what happens.
What GOOD jobs would you like the governor to deliver?
Wake the hell up. There are 50 states with 50 governors making the exact same campaign promises.
There are no good jons coming and the good jobs that were here you applauded to see offshored in the name of Frree trade. So have your cake now, enjoy!
If you see any jobs, take them because it wont be long before the only jobs are the ones selling Tee shirts and ash trays to the annoyed tourists.
at least fuel consumption for trips to and from the casinos will be reduced. You know, patron local businesses?
<
p>
I kid, I kid.
Ryan, could you drop a link in the comments to show where it shows that “gambling addiction literally doubles.” I vaguely recall reading something in the Globe that stated those within a certain proximity were 4.8% more likely to be addicted to gambling (as opposed to 2% likely to become addicted in non-casino areas). So while I do see how you could say “doubling” I think maybe that is a bit of a “fun with numbers” game that is being played. However, I could VERY easily stand corrected.
<
p>
As for this whole casino gambling thing I just don’t understand the strong opposition. I am very fascinated by the whole debate and very open minded. I am not currently opposed but I am more then willing to be persuaded. So far I think the anti-casino crowd has raised the weakest arguments. As best I can tell the entire argument is centered around the two-headed boogey man of “higher crime” and “everyone becomes slaves to the slots.” I like Governor Patrick’s stance that the best way to look at gambling as not the be-all-end-all solution. I think that is the right frame of mind. Betting the farm on gambling, which Patrick has not done, would be foolish. The unfortunate reality is that gambling is a funding source. People can scream all they want about how it isn’t the greatest funding source, which I agree it is not, but if it was really the horror and nightmare opponents make it out to be one would have to ask why state after state is implementing gambling. If it is a long term drag why haven’t states that implemented gambling 10 years ago abolished it now? If the cost is greater then what is taken in for revenue why would any state allow it?
Hello Andy,
<
p>
That 50-mile number is from the National Gambling Impact Study, created and funded by Congress. In Chapter 4, where they discuss problem and pathological gambling, they wrote:
The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Final Report, 4-4
EE did a fine job touching on the fact that casinos double gambling rates. I wasn’t having ‘fun with numbers,’ we’re talking about over a hundred thousand extra addicted citizens if we bring casinos in.
<
p>
However, moral issues isn’t even half the reason why I’m against casinos. I’m against them because a) they don’t make economic sense and b) there hasn’t been serious research into the implications of casinos in this state. It’s not a coincidence that every step of the way, pro-casino forces have wanted a quick and expedient process to their fortune: the more people learn about casinos, the less they tend to like them. We haven’t had a major state-issued, non-partisan study commissioned; we haven’t had serious attempts by the 4th Estate to examine the numbers and what casinos would mean to the state.
<
p>
Furthermore, one of the only academics to seriously look at casinos in this state – who’s proposal was the basis for Governor Patrick’s plan – was completely flawed, not to mention the fact that he’s worked for the casino industry in the past. This is the guy we’re trusting our state to? Once we build a single legal slot machine in Massachusetts, because of the way federal law works, it’s over – so shouldn’t we at least do our homework beforehand?
<
p>
I say all that because, as I’ve already mentioned, I don’t think casinos make economic sense. Representative Bosley continually references an academic study on casinos that shows up to 75% of all casino revenue isn’t new revenue at all. It’s revenue that’s redistributed from other sectors of the economy. So, we’re going to take money out of the hands of small business owners and put it into international developers. Who’s going to want to go to the local restaurant or pub, when they can get a prime rib for 6.95, with free booze out in the casino? I want a strong economy; that doesn’t happen when local economies are weak.
<
p>
Furthermore, Governor Patrick’s plan calls to spend 50% of all this casino tax revenue toward property taxes. Now, I know we need property tax relief, but we have to remember two things: this money isn’t new money, it’s largely redistributed. So those tens of millions that were sent into the general fund now get sent into the casino fund, which won’t go to cities and towns. Furthermore, the state lottery system will see a significant hit – and that money DOES go directly to cities and towns. So, I don’t see how casinos helps balance the budget, help our economy or make any kind of fiscal sense whatsoever. Obviously, the people behind casinos realize that too – as they try to rush these things through so fast that no one knows what hit them. And, in the meantime, crime, accidents and poverty DOES go up, wether we think that a valid reason to place restrictions or not. All in all, casinos are to Massachusetts as they are to their patrons: complete losing propositions for everyone involved, except the handful of people who run it.
where oh where are the edit buttons, soapblox?
<
p>
I meant to start that off by saying that they double gambling addictions, not rates. A very different thing, necessitating this correction. EE still gave a good source on it, but also there was a congressional report done in DC not too long ago that showed rates going from around 2.5% to around 5%, which is “literally double.”
<
p>
It’s true that in some cases, casinos are a substitute good for lottery. However, I wonder if they’re not also complementary goods: if more people go to the casino, will they be bit by the gambling bug and start playing lottery? Will people play keno locally as a substitute for getting over to the slots this week?
<
p>
I don’t know that lottery revenues will decrease, or increase for that matter, if casinos spring up in Massachusetts. Do you have any evidence? If not, I recommend you clarify your statement as hypothesis: you’re building a strong case against casinos in Massachusetts, and there’s no sense in undermining it with a single shaky claim.
Cahill says it’ll take a hit (and he supports casinos!) and Governor Patrick’s plan, in part, comes with the expectation that it will, albiet he doesn’t envision how the redistribution of income and how the taxes they’d gain would be changed could alter state money (casino taxes would be funnelled differently than others – and wouldn’t go to cities and towns). I’ve heard the number 5% ‘initially’ bandied about the State Treasurer’s office. Initially, that could criple cities and towns.
so I’ll buy that. I don’t see how a 5% decrease in receipts from the state lottery is going to “cripple” towns, but it will certainly have an impact, and surely more in some towns than others.
Ryan, could you drop a link in the comments to show where it shows that “gambling addiction literally doubles.” I vaguely recall reading something in the Globe that stated those within a certain proximity were 4.8% more likely to be addicted to gambling (as opposed to 2% likely to become addicted in non-casino areas). So while I do see how you could say “doubling” I think maybe that is a bit of a “fun with numbers” game that is being played. However, I could VERY easily stand corrected.
<
p>
As for this whole casino gambling thing I just don’t understand the strong opposition. I am very fascinated by the whole debate and very open minded. I am not currently opposed but I am more then willing to be persuaded. So far I think the anti-casino crowd has raised the weakest arguments. As best I can tell the entire argument is centered around the two-headed boogey man of “higher crime” and “everyone becomes slaves to the slots.” I like Governor Patrick’s stance that the best way to look at gambling as not the be-all-end-all solution. I think that is the right frame of mind. Betting the farm on gambling, which Patrick has not done, would be foolish. The unfortunate reality is that gambling is a funding source. People can scream all they want about how it isn’t the greatest funding source, which I agree it is not, but if it was really the horror and nightmare opponents make it out to be one would have to ask why state after state is implementing gambling. If it is a long term drag why haven’t states that implemented gambling 10 years ago abolished it now? If the cost is greater then what is taken in for revenue why would any state allow it?
I especially like the map, and am glad I don’t live in the ‘sweet spot’ (sic) at the intersection of all three radii… That’s an exquisite graphic and one that, IMHO, may be well used to concretize and co-opt the as-yet free-floating NIMBY sentiments: if you don’t want’ casinos in your back yard… well guess what? It’s all back yard!!
<
p>
Also, there is one other moral argument that I’ve not (yet) heard articulated: that is the shaky moral grounds of gambling itself. What message do we send when we promote chance above work? Why should intemperance be a valid form of revenue? Why not just rob a bank? Or, put another way, when would Jesus double down? To date, the (quite valid) moral arguments have to do with attendant suffering that occurs in the wake of casinos. Little in the way of moral analysis, however, has been placed (again, IMHO) on the casinos themselves as simply moral hazards in situ . That is to say, in addition to the arguments against the damage that they do, let us also highlight the damage that they are. (and, yes, for all you consistency pimps out there, these are the same arguments I’ve been making against the lottery for decades… so shut it.)
<
p>
I addition, I’d like to open discussion on a possible additional line of attack (something for the lawyerly and/or legislative phalanx, perhaps) and that is a concerted effort to deny casinos license to sell beer, wine and liquor on the same premise with which we deny citizens the license to use beer, wine and/or liquor while driving. This would place casino proponents in an awkward position, forcing them to either pony up with real support for ‘responsible gaming’ (sic) or reveal themselves as pro-casino hacks (In which case, should we actually succeed in denying liquor licenses, methinks they’ll be less interested in actually implementing casinos. Casinos – alcohol = less profit)
If we really care about mitigating damage done by casinos, we should not allow the combination of gambling and alcohol. It is, after all, for this very reason, we do not allow the combination of drinking and driving. At the very least, such a strategy (denying liquor licenses to casinos) highlights the moral hazards of gambling. I put it out there for discussion. Now discuss…
The map is an effective eye-opener.
As someone who is still on the fence with regards to casinos, I enjoy reading (and listening to) the debates on the issue.
<
p>
The more I listen though, the more my opposition to casinos grows. Once you tally up all the costs associated with casinos, I just don’t feel that it’s worth it. Also, I strongly believe that social costs ultimately translate into economic ones, and that is so hard to measure with an issue like this. I would rather see money and energy go into new businesses such as biotech and renewable energy…in my mind that is where there is the most bang for the buck.
<
p>
That being said, I think it will take a lot of effort to stop casinos from rolling in here. There are plenty of good, underfunded causes that can be lured to support casinos with the promise of a dedicated revenue stream. And as much as I like and appreciate those causes I’m pretty sure that they are immune to the big picture.
The Speaker has publicly stated he’s against them, and seems to be against everything Deval brings out. So, it’s far from hopeless. Furthermore, the onus is still on the gambling industry to force the state to legalize Class 3 gambling, not the other way around. I’ve maintained all along that my side has the actual advantage (and at this point, maybe even the momentum), even if we don’t have the same financial resources. Even if Sal DiMasi just forces the state to sit on casinos in a year, never mind he commission a big study, it will give us enough time to reach out the public and show just why casinos are devestating to the economy and the people who gamble. On the economic side, my favorite factiod has always been how things went in Altanta: they went from having over 300 local bars, restaurants, clubs and establishments of the like, to having less than 60 after casinos were legalized. If people think that sort of thing helps an economy grow, they’ve been listening to casino lobbyists for too long.
Seriously is the “poll” a joke? How about I like the idea of casinos or I don’t gamble, no one I know gambles so I’m ambililent at best. It’s not like we don’t already have gambling with the lottery. Have you tried to get a simple cup of coffee at a convenience store recently? I always seem to get stuck behind “I’ll have 2 #13’s, 1 #9, 3 #26 oh no make that 3 #18. On second thought I’d prefer they hop in the car and drive to Foxwoods.
But I wanted to give people the chance to say they supported casinos. Call it a friendly poke.
<
p>
In any case, none of these polls are scientific or anything, they’re just for fun.
Kinda like You love me You adore me You worship me You’re stupid
<
p>
I get it. I still stand by my convenience store story. Thank God you can’t smoke there otherwise the Keno Crowd would do me in. As usual I’m close enough to the middle to annoy either side. Casinos are neither a panacea or the start or the collapse of civilization. At best they are a gamble. Sorry I couldn’t resist.
It’s “will casinos improve Massachusetts?”
<
p>
I believe the answer is no, given myriad economic and social reasons. Given the fact that there’s been no independent, exhaustive review of how casinos will impact Massachusetts, we can only go by what we do know that’s untainted by industry sources. I’ve called for those exhaustive reviews and have yet to see them.
<
p>
According to a non-partisan congressional report posted on BMG at various times and in the Globe before, the national average of people who are addicted to gambling is about 2.5%. That doubles, to 5%, with a casino in range of 50 miles. I’ve read that in Massachusetts, where we enjoy one of the most successful state lottery system per capita in the country, the rate is already at 4% (and would only go higher within that 50-mile radius). But even 5% of the Bay State’s population comes out to over 300,000 people. That’s a lot, don’t you think?
<
p>
Is it a collapse of civilization? No. But then again, there are politicians who are telling us that casinos will significantly reduce our property taxes and save the state’s infrastructure. Meanwhile, they can’t even build half a rail line to New Bedford, never mind pay for our roads and bridges in need of repair.
<
p>
Finally, once you factor in the fact that casinos are more likely to rob money from cities and towns than anything else, I think they’re a terrible idea. Again, not a collapse, but we’re heading in that direction anyway and too busy taking up gimmicky issues like this than solving the real issues, like skyrocketing health care rates.
<
p>
Casinos DO lead to huge hits in the local economy; just look at Atlanta, a city that went from having over 300 clubs, bars, restaurants, pubs, etc. to having less than 60 after casinos came. Those are jobs lost and businesses closed that paid taxes. They represented people who actually lived in the community – cared about the schools, because their kids went there. Now, Governor Patrick proposes to put local economies at risk when his plan doesn’t even give the casino tax revenue to cities and towns – which, according to Representative Dan Bosley, will come from income that up to 75% of the time is redistributed from other sectors of the economy, which not only goes to cities and towns, but represents successful economic growth where it’s most important: locally.
<
p>
So, Key Facts:
<
p>
-There’s been no exhaustive, nonpartisan, unbiased research on casinos in Massachusetts.
-There are plenty of indications that show casinos will hurt the economy in ways that the gambling industry would love to mask (hence why they want to expediate the process and ignore all those commissioned reports).
-The social costs abound, but are far from the only reason to be against casinos locally.
Within his casino legislation he makes it a crime to play poker online punishable by up to 2 years in prison. Clearly this is not due to opposition to casinos or gambling in general. It is included only as corporate protection to the new casinos he hopes to create.
<
p>
If a Republican governor has proposed the exact same bill everyone here would be correctly pointing out how he is in the pocket of special interests and favoring corporations over individual rights.
<
p>
Deval Patrick promised to “leave the special interests at teh door.” It’s time to call him out for the hypocritical corporate pawn he is.
a cesspool like Vegas? I’ll move first.
Yeah, great analogy. I’ve read Barrow’s findings and nowhere does it state that casinos are an “easy bake oven” for Massachusetts. Have you even read the casino reports? By the way, his methodologies are perfectly acceptable and are used in other industries as well. Do you think you were the first person to raise this issue? Do us all a favor and quit rehashing the “moral issues” portion of this debate. And while you’re at it, stop quoting others and start doing some digging of your own.