The inevitability theme has been used repeatedly, and, indeed, was a big reason that the Middleborough town meeting last year voted to approve a deal the selectmen had negotiated with the tribe, then voted against an advisory question asking whether folks wanted a casino in the first place.
In fact, though, there is a whole host of reasons why a Middleborough casino is not inevitable. Here is the great Gladys Kravitz’s list of the top 10 reasons why a casino will not be built. To my mind, the most compelling reasons are that the Middleborough casino would be farther from the Mashpee’s tribal lands than the feds generally allow, and that there are enough questions about the process used to ram the deal through at town meeting that opponents could keep this tied up in the courts for years.
Finally, consider that the governor’s office paid $189,000 to Spectrum knowing ahead of time that the outcome would be pro-casino. Take a look at Spectrum’s Web site and see how it makes its money. “Services for Casino Operators, Developers and Owners.” “Services for Suppliers to the Gaming Industry.” “Professional Services for Indian Nations.” (Would that include telling Gov. Patrick that a Middleborough casino is inevitable?)
This doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Before making a judgment, it would be interesting to know how Spectrum had done compared to actual numbers. How do they compare with other groups as related to actuals. This has been my biggest grip with the process, do we trust the numbers. I don’t see how this posts helps, I read it as you don’t like the numbers so you are attacking the source. But what we don’t know is Spectrum’s track record with their previous analysis and how that rates with other organizations. For all you know they could be the best in the business and the one we ‘should’ use to get the best picture.
Casino gambling is a social ill. Besides, once you know that the study was essentially produced by the gambling industry, you really don’t need to know anything else.
Is that you are attacking Spectrum without knowing if they are in fact the best source in getting projections.
<
p>Knowing these projections, then the case can be made pro and con, with all this bickering about numbers. What revenue will the state gain, what is the impact, etc. Then a better decision can be made. I think that’s what most people wanted when this was first introduced.
<
p>With this post we’re just attacking the company that was selected by the administration. It could be that the administration did their due diligence and selected the proper company. Then again maybe not. If you want to say that it didn’t pass the laugh test then some additional information that shows that their numbers are always skewed toward the Casio. They have done studies in multiple states so there is a track record out that and there are likely other studies to contrast. That’s the information needed.
Spectrum is a casino-gambling company that was brought in to tell us whether casino gambling would be a good thing or not. That’s all you need to know.
<
p>The case against casino gambling has nothing to do with economic numbers. It’s traffic, it’s crime, it’s increases in gambling addition, the divorce rate, even – according to some studies – the suicide rate. This is all out there, and has been exhaustively documented.
<
p>Here’s a good place to start.
<
p>Sounds just like Sox baseball prior to ’04
<
p>Resistance to casinos ABSOLUTELY has to do with economics: they hurt local restaurants, bars, clubs, places for entertainment and even the tourist industry. Who wants to go buy a $6 beer or two at the local pub to watch the big game, when they could go to a casino and get free drinks, all you can eat and bet on the game at the same time. It absolutely wreaks havoc on the local economy, which is the part of the economy that’s most important for growth… and the part that actually includes citizens who actually live in a community. When local businesses go under, it hurts entire towns, schools, ect.
If you were wrong about the effect on the local economy, the social argument against casino gambling would still be overwhelming. When you play the economics game, you’re playing on the industry’s turf.
I really think the industry’s major turf is essentially equating slots to a civil right, or that banning class 3 gambling is akin to being a nanny state. It’s an absurd argument, but without some of these other facts – including damages to the local economy – it can be an effective one.
this is kind of like the Feds asking Exxon to do a cost/benefit analysis on ANWAR drilling
is the most accurate source.
If you received a highly accurate study that was produced in the context of a conflict of interest, as a layman you’d still want an independent study to verify it’s accuracy. Doing any less is asking to get burned one day.
<
p>This happens in construction all the time. When company X get’s hired (or before) and presents a cost estimate, it’s not uncommon for the hiring agency to go to another firm and give them the submitted design and come up with an independent cost estimate. Sometimes you find out that the first guy was highly accurate.
<
p>So absent an independent study, the accuracy of the conflicted one is useless.
And as the most accurate source on the reach and impact of my writing, I say that a government investment of $2 million in the composition and publication of my opinions would reap enormous return benefits in adding clarity and beneficial citizen-society interactions.
<
p>Gimme gimme gimme.
is like trusting exxonmobile on global warming, George Bush on Iraq or China when they say they’ll allow the media free access to the internet at the Olympics.
<
p>And, yes, what they had to say was out of whack, and I didn’t even have to read the whole report to realize it.
What do you base that on, and what exactly do you mean by it? Are you saying that every casino is bad under all circumstances, or perhaps that everyone who goes to a casino is sick? Or something else. And why specifically casino gambling?
(1) Because it’s what we’re talking about and (2) because it’s not here now, so we have a chance to stop it.
considering the fact that a casino’s bread and butter are problem gamblers, yes, I do think Dan has a point. It’s an industry that preys on certain people in the population. Not everyone who gambles has a gambling-related problem, but when you do the numbers, you realize that that’s where a huge chunk of a casino’s profits come from.
From the Herald piece, it is not clear whether Spectrum considered alternatives to building casinos in its report. To be valid and useful, shouldn’t any report on a possible economic development proposal also consider other possible economic development alternatives? By simply focusing on casinos as the only way to create employment, doesn’t that guarantee the findings (casinos create employment)? In other words, there must be alternative ways to increase employment and revenue that the Governor can focus on rather than focusing on casinos with all their social problems. Why should a group of wealthy casino promoters be the only ones who economic development proposal gets a special study?
it is one of the few uses that requires all kinds of specific legislation in order to be permitted.
<
p>Other businesses don’t need all that, and could exist, now.
So what if a report says casinos will bring in 10,000 jobs. That information alone does not provide enough information to answer the question as to whether allowing casinos into Massachusetts is good public policy or even good job creation policy, particularly given the expected social costs. A Harvard study found that allowing casinos in actually was a wash for a number of factors. As the executive summary of the report states,
On such factor should be what allowing casinos into Massachusetts will do to the quality of life for the people living here.
<
p>Proposals for casino gambling have been proposed by every governor since Michael Dukakis left office. Thankfully, they have all failed. It would show a complete lack of imagination by Governor Patrick if he keeps pushing this as his big job creation proposal and economic development proposal and it would be the death knell for Massachusetts as a place where people might want to move to, if he succeeds.
More gambling, more criminal element, more crimes, more money leaving the pockets of the poor, more money leaving the pockets of people with gambling problems, more drinking and driving… but the upside is more tax revenues.
<
p>Hopefully we make enough to pay for all the problems casinos will cause.