2. House Speaker Sal DiMasi disses Patrick big-time in today’s Globe, telling reporter Matt Viser that he’s endorsing Hillary Clinton for president because Barack Obama is too inexperienced – just like Patrick.
“I think Massachusetts will look at it to find out what they can see in Obama with respect to what they did with their vote for Governor Patrick,” DiMasi is quoted as saying. “To be perfectly honest, I really don’t want my president to be in there in a learning process for the first six months to a year. It’s too important.”
I’ve heard the Obama-Patrick comparison many times, and I find it borderline offensive. What do they have in common other than a political consultant (David Axelrod) and, oh yes, the fact that they are both African-American? But I’m in tea leaf-reading mode today. And the leaves tell me that DiMasi has decided to take the gloves off after a period of relative calm. Since DiMasi has already made it clear that he opposes Patrick’s casino plan, his outspokenness suggests that he won’t mind killing it once and for all.
3. The Globe’s Frank Phillips informs us that Patrick “has set up a novel political fund-raising system that allows him to skirt the state’s campaign finance law by channeling big contributions through the state Democratic Party, which, in turn, has paid off hundreds of thousands of dollars of the governor’s political expenses.”
If this were a big deal, I’d expect that Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, would be upset. Instead, Phillips writes that Wilmot “found nothing about Patrick’s strategy that prompted alarm.” Still, it places Patrick on the defense once again, hampering his ability to move his agenda forward. When it comes to casinos, that’s a good thing.
4. Finally, it turns out that the proposed site of the Middleborough casino may be the home of a rare species of turtle called the northern red-bellied cooter. Gladys Kravitz explains why it matters – although Alicia Elwell, writing in the Brockton Enterprise, reports that maybe the turtle doesn’t live there after all.
Much wrangling ahead, you can be sure.
Detroit is stuck with those casinos. They’re not going anywhere. They’ll continue to lose small businesses and make less gains in casino profits. They’ll continue to be reliant on a very shaky means of taxation – from a revenue source about as stable as the Atlantic Ocean. Meanwhile, all of this is on the backs of their own population who are being preyed upon in the same way that kids were preyed upon by the cigerette companies, before the US government got in the way.
<
p>We need to slow the process up, know what we’re getting ourselves into… and people need to come to the realization that the revenue and job promises are dangerous illusions that will never come to be.
If the casino process as it exists now is considered fast-tracked or expedited I would really hate to see what the legislature considers “slow.”
There’s been lots of effort to push this thing before it’s been properly vetted – from the casino lobby, to dog-track reps to the Governor. From what I understand, Bosley will be having his hearing sooner rather than later. This is a question we should be looking at for at least another year (enough time for a serious commission) before we even think of having a vote. This process hasn’t been slow at all, especially considering this is Beacon Hill we’re talking about.
Well, the turtle may or may not live in Middleborough but it is clear that the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe didn’t.
Detroit? DETROIT? The number of levels upon which that analogy or comparison fails is pretty staggering.
<
p>First, let’s talk simple geography. They crammed three casinos into a much smaller area then we are talking about in Massachusetts. I am still not convinced the state can or should absorb three casinos, I think I can fairly say that we stand a better chance of handling the competition over the geographical area of a state rather than a city.
<
p>Second, as you mention, Massachusetts and Detroit are very different in terms of affluence and disposable income.
<
p>Third: I have to ask, could you be more selective? Perhaps two weeks ago I read about a very successful dog track in Rhode Island that had instituted faux-gambling. Why not mention that there is the possibility of good coming out of casinos. Don’t you teach journalism? I know you are very good at what you do that is why I am surprised at the amazing selectivity of picking one failing or struggling example and holding it out as if it definitively proves your point.
<
p>Lastly, I have to ask about the non sequitur of Patrick’s fund raising. I miss how that factors in to the success or failure of the casinos.
<
p>My bottom line on casinos remains this: both sides are losing perspective in their opposition or support of the idea. The opposition has raised legitimate, albeit rebuttable, concerns. Neither side has put forward very reliable numbers.
which is precisely why this needs to be vetted more.
<
p>The leg should appoint a nonpartisan commission to study the project over a lengthy period, then come back with their findings for a public report(s).
if “the numbers don’t exist” then how can the anti-casino folks claim that the revenue projections are bogus? Isn’t it implied in claiming a set of numbers to be bogus that first a set of numbers exists? And if the numbers exist then on what basis do you claim they do not? If numbers don’t exist how can casino opponents make claims that gambling addiction will “double” as you have said in earlier posts. Again, doesn’t your claim presuppose a number? A projection of some sort?
<
p>I contend that numbers exist on both sides of the argument however they are not sufficient because the pro-casino opponents are putting forward numbers skewed in their favor and vice versa.
There are numbers that exist for both sides, but not enough on either end. That’s the point I was trying to make. But have fun with the political gotchas…
<
p>The pro-casino peeps have plenty of numbers, but they’re flawed by their bias. I could go into that on a number of accounts, but I’ve done that over and over and over again. See previous casino threads for more on why their numbers are flawed.
<
p>The anti-casino numbers aren’t as plentiful as I’d like, but that’s because there’s no big, powerful anti-casino lobby to pay for these reports. Hence the need for a nonpartisan commission. The few numbers that do exist often come from those types of government commissions, such as the one the feds did that have shown gambling addiction doubles within 50 miles of a casino, to 5% of the population.
<
p>I could further the analysis to say that there’s plenty of numbers to show the social ills, but I’m interested to find out more about the local economy angle. I do know the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found that up to 70% of a casino’s revenue is stolen from other sectors of the economy – but what does that mean in real terms?
<
p>I could also tell you what’s happened in specific cities: in Atlantic City, they went from having 225+ restaurants/bars/etc to having under 60 after casinos. In Detroit, they lost 20% of their small businesses in a few short years after casinos – and continue to lose more as we speak. However, there’s nothing aggreggate and nothing geared toward Massachusetts. After all, we don’t have any casinos.
<
p>To some that may mean, “oh, let’s build a casino!!!” But to sane, rational and intelligent people, that’s an indication that we need to wait until we have all the facts…. and avoid the typical Bill O response, gotcha responses that forced me to write this lengthy reply.
Ryan I met you once and found you to be a delightful and intelligent person. Not sure why you need to resort to bitterness online and the ridiculous “Bill O” scare tactics.
<
p>I called you on making a bogus statement. If that is Bill O’Reilly like then fine, I accept the label. (Though I don’t think it is “Bill O” like as Mr. O’Reilly rarely makes an intelligent point, but I digress.) You erroneously claimed that there were no numbers. I mean I could go and quote you, but you know you said. I took the time to point out that there were numbers.
<
p>What is particularly interesting is that you direct your poorly-veiled sarcasm and, in the end, contemptable comments toward someone who is probably in agreement with you on about 70% of the issue. As I have commented, repeatedly, there are enough open questions on this issue that a serious and thoughtful debate needs to happen. Casinos are not something to be taken lightly.
<
p>The 30% where we disagree takes place on two levels. First, I think both sides are guilty of knee jerk logic. Neither side has definitively disproved the other yet both believe they clearly have. Do you know who loses when that happens? EVERYONE. The boys in the lege are going to prevent any meaningful debate because they are convinced of their rightness of the wrongness of casinos. Supporters of Patrick, and to some extent himself, are going to play their own set of games. So while both sides agree the issue should be studied further this won’t happen.
<
p>Secondly, I haven’t come to an ultimate conclusion on “yes” or “no.” So you see Ryan we agree on quite a bit substantively. No need for your attitude. I wasn’t playing “gotcha,” I wasn’t attacking you personally.
<
p>Lastly, let me end with one small, direct comment personally. Drop the attitude. I appreciate your knowledge and your passion, you clearly care and know a lot. But all of your comments take on a “I am smarter than you approach.” Believe it or not “sane, rational, and intelligent” people can disagree without one-side being knuckle-dragging apes.
I was initially opposed to casinos in Mass, principally because of visits I’ve made to Atlantic City, East St. Louis, some of the Western States Indian Casinos…so I suppose my objection was NIMBY based, and still is. I don’t wish one within, say, 10 miles (there is a pretty cool location I think in Palmer that doesn’t bother me so much). Now, I tend to believe those places were pits to begin with, and casinos made them no worse.
<
p>The take charge Governor’s decisions to omipotently (with no interference with the Invisible Hand) decide that there are 3 good places for a casino is just wacky. Come on, the guy’s an English major and a government lawyer! What qualifies him to guess on good real estate and business demographics. Park one of those buildings in the wrong place and name it ‘White Elephant Gaming’. Leave developing to developers, not politicians.
<
p>Then there’s the blue hairs. All those AARP folks sitting in front of slot machines, cig in one hand credit card in the other. Let ’em. It’s their money and time. Here’s the best untold secret: let ’em run up their debt, give away their estates to their children, then tell the credit card companies “I got no money!” Hah! Credit card companies just walk away. Really. Win-Win-Win-Win. Granny has fun; state gets its tax dollars; kids get granny’s cash which, of course they can spend better than granny.
<
p>Casinos will hurt the lottery. Good. If the State’s lottery can’t compete with a Casino it should disappear.
<
p>So bring out all the numbers, both sides, and extinct turtles and lizards. The gaming laws date back to 1884 and were enacted for reasons of morality were too much then are and are now also too much:
<
p>
Then, Chapter 277 was enacted. Yep, my great-great-grandfather wrote that in 1884. Raymond. What a pushy guy he was. Can you imagine if a Southern Baptist tried to get a law passed in Massachusetts outlawing pornography because it was immortal and led to obsessive behaviour and didn’t benefit the state revenue coffers…? He’d be laughed out of the state. But substitute casinos for porn in the analysis, and the moonbats are in full flock.
<
p>Gee, did you hear last night that the Foxwoods MGM was seeking 3,000 employees for its opening.
<
p>2.
<
p>Well, that’s all fine and well, but what about the revenue cities and towns have come to depend on from the state lottery? The currently proposed plan would send almost no money to cities and towns, while the state lottery’s money largely goes to municipalities. Something’s gotta give.
<
p>3.
<
p>
<
p>Have you ever considered the fact that though your great great grandfather may have had faulty logic, that his plan actually had merit? After all, when I was a very, very young child I was told that a car was one of the safest places to be during a lightning storm – because of the rubber tires. A few years later, I learned it has nothing to do with the tires – and everything to do with the actual shape of the structure. Does that mean we should suddenly tell people that cars aren’t safe in a lightning storm, all because the original reason we had for it was flawed? No. Your grandfather may have been against gambling for moral issues, but I’m against casinos (not gambling) because they just don’t make economic or community sense.
But, if it’s so obvious that “we don’t need mega resort casinos”, shouldn’t it also be true that Connecticut, as we speak, is expressing buyers’ remorse at allowing its two resorts? Beyond the Slots:
Article from the NYTimes paints a pretty rosie picture.
<
p>You think the Mass lottery will suffer? It didn’t in Connecticut. 79 million was redistributed to Cities and Towns. in 2007.
<
p>Admittedly, I haven’t looked at the numbers, projections…. But just as a ‘kick the tires’ sorta first question: Is CT, in general, happy with its two casinos? I haven’t heard too much grousing, particularly about the time of year that the State gets its hundreds of million dollar check.
You haven’t talked to someone from Ledyard.
Have you? Here’s a local Ledyard discussion board that’s been up for a few years. Not one mention about the casino.
<
p>CT has initiated a gambling impact study, 15 years after Foxwoods opened. Tells me they don’t perceive gambling as a major problem, waiting so long to study its impact and all.
<
p>Here’s an article, critical of the effect on Ledyard, which basically paints a picture that the State screwed Ledyard by not giving back enough of the revenues to take care of the traffic, etc…issues the Town faces. Advice to Mass from those interviewed, including the Mayor: (1) don’t build a casino in a Town that doesn’t want it (2) the Town has to be at the table early on.
<
p>You didn’t, by the way, rebut my point on the Lottery (i.e. it succeeded in CT despite the Casino. I expect similar outcome in Mass). Absent a rebuttal, I assume you must concede that point.
<
p>Why, in fact, yes. I have. Working closely with the folks at CasinoFreeMass, I’ve had the chance to meet many interesting and concerned people, including several from Ledyard (one of whom moved to Massachusetts specifically to get away from the casinos).
<
p>On the state lottery point, Michael Widmer says that the state lottery will be cannabilized far more than the 5% Cahill’s office is projecting. I see no reason why Widmer would be wrong on that point. I didn’t address it, because among the many things I did address, I must have forgotten about the state lottery.
Bill O was unfair, but you took a tiny word I said and blew it waaaaay out of proportion, without considering the fact that I was exaggerating. My statement wasn’t bogus, because my point has merit. We haven’t studied the impacts these would have on Massachusetts nearly enough – and before we commit to the project, we ought to have an independent commission to study the thing on the merits. I don’t see how that’s “bogus,” or warranted your initial reply.
<
p>
<
p>But the thing is, that’s just not the case. Every anti-casino person I can think of wants to know more information. Sure, we’re against it, but that doesn’t mean we’re opposed to an independent commission. It could be that further studies show that casinos would do far more good than not, but we just have little to no data on how casinos would impact Massachusetts specifically, especially when it comes to the local economy.
<
p>I’ve pointed you to numbers we do have from academic/nonpartisan studies that exist, but they largely address either social concerns or are more anecdotal in how they address the economy. Personally, I feel that a lot of that data – the losses in local businesses – is more than anecdotal (because they’re systemic) and would translate to a big hit in Massachusetts, but the fact of the matter is we haven’t had any kind of a thorough, nonpartisan, unbiased study on the matter. So while it’s fair to say that casinos will eat a good chunk of revenue already going to local businesses, it’s impossible to know just how large that chunk will be without studying the issue in detail.
<
p>I’m sorry if I’ve been passionate – and I’m sorry if you view my casino posts as having an attitude, but I really hate having to say this – my Bill O analogy had merit. People like Bill O will attack the language or rhetoric, rather than the greater points… that’s what they’ve always done to cast doubt on solid points. Ask any number of people they’ve slimed, from Dan Rather to John Kerry. I may have had poor word usage in the post that initiated your reply, but I had a greater point that was completely ignored and taken out of context, while you slammed me for one word which didn’t come across well in this two-dimensional world we partake in.
<
p>Does that mean I think you’re like Bill O? Of course not. I enjoyed our meeting after that Deval event too – and I know you’re not anything remotely like O’Reilly. However, we all have those moments where we get into rhetorical twists instead of talking about the greater points. I was just letting you know you had one of them. I wouldn’t take too much offense in it.
then we have a problem. Somebody is going to end up being sold on something based upon fallacy. Ryan’s right. We need a non-partisan commission with representatives from Deval’s “communities” to investigate the numbers and present reports back to their “communities” that will provide answers and a basis for voting for or against casinos. That would be a good process. The loss of perspective is based upon the lack of facts. There are strong similarities between Detroit and Springfield. That should be enough to prompt a study.
A 15-year study.
A person in front of a slot machine is less likely to hold Deval’s scamming feet to the fire.