The economic impacts – the thousands of people a casino figures to employ directly and indirectly, as well as the employment it displaces (and the associated sales), will come not from the city or town in which the casino is located, but from the region.
Similarly, costs like roads, public safety, social services will be incurred by multiple municipalities. Patrick’s legislation offsets some of these costs with the community mitigation, public health, and transportation infrastructure funds.
So the only reason I can figure for any individual municipality wanting a casino sited in its borders is the commercial property tax revenue. Well what if the legislation were to exempt casinos from local property taxes?
Instead, the state could assess and collect a PILOT from the casino properties, and allot the revenues to cities and towns in the region of each casino. This would take away an incentive for municipalities to fight each other for the actual casino property, and would instead encourage, if not outright force, municipalities to form regional approaches to handling the impacts of these massive developments.
(Of course, this might also lead to a situation where no city or town wants a casino in its borders. Which would actually be fine by me.)
It’s late, and rather than puzzle through the full set of implications of such a policy, I thought I would throw it out there and see what the smart mob had to say about it.
heartlanddem says
Interesting concept to explore. There are currently two regional task forces working on the issues of impact to the regions surrounding proposed class III casinos. One in Southeastern MA and one in the Western MA region. As the numbers and concerns begin to percolate upward reflecting the true costs of mitigation the 2.5% formula will be flushed. When the costs are tabulated to prepare all surrounding law enforcement, highway, EMS, fire, social services, housing, education and district court increases there is nothing left in the pot. The economics of casinos do not work for the benefit of the Commonwealth. A small group of citizens will benefit, mainly the Unionized construction workers (who performed their role of human billboards well today at the statehouse circus/hearing).
If the local property tax is removed….no one will host a casino.
Good idea.
shirleykressel says
Very interesting, and would screech to a halt the municipal race to the bottom for the sake of a few property tax dollars, regardless of impacts.
<
p>Now, about the union construction labor. These will be private casinos, simply licensed by the state like other businesses. Would they be required to use union labor?