Former Mass. Attorney General Scott Harshbarger has harshly criticized the prospect of bringing slot machines to the state’s racetracks. In a statement released to Blue Mass. Group, Harshbarger said:
I personally view [racinos] as a more serious immediate threat than casinos, and as a “gateway drug,” if you will, that lays the foundation and case for escalation — and strengthens the Native American claim as well.
Harshbarger emphasized the particular harm that slots at the racetracks, as opposed to a destination casino, will almost certainly cause:
[I]t is particularly negative because it draws only on local discretionary income — thereby hurting local businesses and other discretionary options — as opposed to attracting any “destination resort” income from outside the state.
Harshbarger added that once slot machines are up and running in Massachusetts, it is only a matter of time before expanded gambling takes hold.
It allows the casino/slots armada to gear up again, mobilize (and pay the lobbyists) to run roughshod through the legislature — and we better hope the ethics bills pass, or we will be awash in another corruption/lobbying scandal fiasco! … [T]here is no possible “exit” or “sunset” strategy once we begin.
Harshbarger expressed his deep disappointment with Governor Patrick, whom he had strongly supported in the 2006 Governor’s race:
In this context, the comments attributed to the Governor today are, for me, very disappointing. While I clearly disagree about the economic value of expanded gambling, particularly resort casinos and slot machines/racinos, today’s comments, including “let the games begin,” seem to me to be particularly jarring and, sadly, quite cynical! After their first meeting, in the midst of a depression, with a major state fiscal crisis on our hands, trying to preserve the safety net, and hoping for the public to support a federal stimulus package to rescue us, the governor and the new speaker are featured, in their first partnership, not announcing support for the ethics reform package, not criticizing Wall Street CEO bonus excesses, and not ensuring we will have effective oversight of any stimulus dollars that do come to Massachusetts — but rather joining together to mobilize the casino and slot machine Armada as our financial rescue angel!
Is it really a major priority for our state leadership, in this crisis, to bail out race tracks and casino owners, and divert discretionary income of MA residents away from legitimate businesses, particularly small businesses, or to drain potential savings, into casinos and slot machines?
So, just to recap (this is now me talking, not Harshbarger):
- Slot machines at racetracks are essentially a bailout for failing businesses, funded in the most unfair possible manner.
- There is no guarantee that the bailout will actually work — to the contrary, casinos around the country are suffering from the recession, just like every other business. But it is pretty much guaranteed that locals who haven’t got much disposable income will pour some of it into the slots.
- As a result of locals spending disposable income on slots, other local businesses will suffer, thereby probably increasing joblessness in the area.
- Racinos would introduce Class III gaming to Massachusetts, thereby opening the door to the Wampanoags (or other tribes) to build a gigantic destination casino from which the state benefits not at all.
Great. And this is the solution to our problems because …?
Easy there Scotty …. No one gambles in Massachusetts, so once we open ourselves to the evils of gambling we have open the doors to the inner bowels of hell! That’s a bit much.
<
p>The point about tribes opening casinos without paying the state is not going to happen no matter the circumstance. The state will get a cut or a flat amount similar to universities. Will it be enough is a good question though. Let’s see what Deval has in mind.
<
p>Slot machines will bring in additional revenue to the state, it’s an hour less bus ride for the slot machine folks who head down to CT. But it will not create jobs, those who say that are full of it. Barrow estimates 500 million in additional revenue, so lets say it’s 250 million instead. That’s nothing to sneeze at. My problem is that we still don’t have the details from Patrick on where he has based his information. I think I would be a bit more comfortable if more information were to be provided.
<
p>Slots are not the answer to our problems but it’s foolhardy to say that it will not bring in additional revenue including the additional expenses that would incur.
The Governor for “cynically” mentioning casinos;
<
p>The Goodridges for daring to get divorced after all they put us through for gay marriage (who do they think they are, heterosexuals?) – via Kris Mineau in today’s Globe
<
p>And Michael Phelps, for using a bong …
<
p>Happy 1649, fellow Pilgrims, and off with their heads!
<
p>Ease up people!
File under:Battles never stay won– or lost.
<
p>In an State House News article printed in the Belmont Citizen
I think it is a fair question that when you consider the loss of Lottery proceeds plus the cost associated with the increased social problems that would happen with metro Boston slots that you may have a net loss to the government.
<
p>The folks who are buying tens or hundreds of dollars in lottery tickets will think twice about the lottery when slots are only a short drive or T ride away.
<
p>If the slots are nearby people will drop in after work or after having an argument with their spouse and feed their addiction when they should be feeding their family.
<
p>
<
p>It very well could. Once class 3 gambling is legalized in a state, in any way, shape or form, then tribes can use a federal process to get casinos that can’t be taxed by states. It’s a longer process, one that other tribes have decided not to take if they thought they could get a good deal with the states, but it’s a process available to them nonetheless. Moreover, the Wampanoags in Massachusetts made moves in particular that indicated they were very willing to wait that extra time period to get a tax-free casino when Governor Patrick made his move to pass the 3 casino bill, because the Wampanoags didn’t appear willing to compete with other bidders and thus pay a stiff up front licensing fee.
<
p>Not really. Slot machines, especially in smaller ‘slot parlors’ or racino environments, are largely just a redistribution of the local economy. The vast majority of what a casino earns comes from patrons within 50 miles of that casino. Those are people who are taking the money they used to spend in the local economy and putting that into the casino. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, up to 75% of the money a casino earns was merely a redistribution of the local economy – only 25% of it ‘new spending.’ While that means there is some new spending, that 75% is a hefty cost to pay for our local entreprenuers who will go out of business, especially those in the restaurant, bar or entertainment industries.
<
p>
<
p>Barrow is an industry tool who’s made a career of pushing for casinos. He’s a hack who should be immediately thrown out of the UMASS Dartmouth system, if not tar-and-feathered.
<
p>It is when $187.5 million of that hypothetical number you used formerly was going into the local economy, local businesses that are the backbone of our communities. That’s a lot of local sub shops and pubs going under.
I heard it all before and all the “scary stuff”, I had enough of the BS from both sides. I just want actual facts.
yet ignore the facts I give you from the Congressional Budget Office and Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Almost everything I included were facts. You, sir, have absolutely no interest in facts.
You should check your own credibility on the topic instead of worrying about tar and feathering someone else whom you haven’t proven wrong in any of his estimates.
<
p>I think you were talking about The NE Public Policy Center which is funded by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, one problem they discussed “Resort” Casino impact in West Warwick. That’s a tad different.
<
p>You have given me jack shit, well except a hissy fit and a 3. Good job, you got me defending casinos and Barrow while all I wanted to to get some better information from Patrick. There is a reason why he’s pushing it and I think he owes it to the residents to give us all the facts and why he made his determination. Instead I get this, that’s just f’n great.
Really? The CBO and Federal Reserve Bank of America are smoking it? Really?
<
p>”His estimates?”
<
p>What estimates? Slicing someone else’s number in half doth not equal a bonafide estimate. You may as well have allowed the numbers to pop out of a bingo machine. There’s simply no study or thought involved in such methodology, if you can call it that. But, then again, you seem to value Barrow’s “numbers,” and – given his methodology (counting license plates LOL)- all of this is starting to make sense.
<
p>Moreover, you ignore the indisputable fact I gave you about how, by legalizing slots, there is a process for tribes to take that would allow them to avoid paying any state taxes.
<
p>I’m sorry, but you’re not looking for the facts, but for truthiness and mythical middles and conventional wisdom and basically everything that’s been wrong with the past 8 years. You don’t want to think, you want group think. Call that a hissy fit or whatever you like, but you’re really not interested in studying the issue at all, at least not with any depth. The only reason why I respond at all is to make sure others know that the numbers team Barrows Patrick throw out have been crap all along and are utterly crap now, in the midst of an economic free fall that is seeing the near-bankruptcy of the entire casino industry.
since that all this is, since I never noted the study you reference was wrong. Just another reason why you are part of the problem in the debate. This doesn’t help anyone, instead it makes the position you stand with look foolish.
<
p>This counting license plates attack always made me wonder, it is wrong? Is the methodology disproven? You can make the same kind of attack to any study or poll.
<
p>You mean they just ask random people who they voted for at polling places? That’s stupid!?!?!
<
p>You’re telling me that they just call people and ask a question? That’s stupid!?!?!?
<
p>Here is something that’s real. Twin River is going bankrupt. Well that sure as hell tell us something, doesn’t it? Now I would want to know more about that and the background. I know they sunk a lot on money in that place recently.
Simply put, there’s no real way to verify it and there’s so many unknown variables that it can’t take into account. If it barely qualifies as the scientific method, it’s not a very good study.
<
p>As for your main complaint:
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>I’ve only brought up studies. Either you think those studies are “wrong” or you may want to reconsider what you’ve said.
Less development and long-term revenue than a resort casino might be expected to bring and no real competition for CT and other places with casinos, but all the problems that go with slots.
<
p>The racetracks should stand on their own feet just like any other business and should have no direct role to play in the casino decision.
<
p>I also agree with the broadest point: gambling should not be the focus of the administration or the legislature’s time right now — there are more important issues that they should focus on.
<
p>And if they don’t have a role in casinos, then what?
<
p>No racinos means that the downward trend in horse racing will likely continue. Dog racing’s been nuked. Condo’s and residential are out of favor for the near to mid term. What to put into his multi acre parking lot, commercially zoned, property tax paying venture.
<
p>Owners seek the most profitable tenant they can think of: racinos, and ask the State permission. Nope, that’ll offend our sensibilities.
<
p>”Guess again,” say legislators “and maybe you’ll come up with something to which we – the royal we – will opine.”
<
p>Meanwhile, government hopes they’ll just keep paying the property tax.
<
p>But, the other shoe. Watch the outcry when the racetrack’s go in for yet another tax valuation adjustment downward because the commercial property is worth less each year and the tax short-fall is pushed, once again on the residential property tax base.
Let’s look at Wonderland, for example.
<
p>Hundreds of millions of dollars are slated to be pumped into lots just across the street from the acres and acres that is Wonderland Race Track. There’s a very important T-stop also across the street, one that will be seeing major improvements and expansions. There’s the nation’s first public beach – again – across the street. There’s things to do nearby and hundreds people living within a few minute’s walk. Park space is slated to be added, as well as more commercial property, across the street.
<
p>I am not an architect or a local entrepreneur – and I understand the present economic situation isn’t great – but I find it hard to fathom that someone won’t come up with some great idea to use that space for. The possibilities are endless. This is a place of opportunity and quite likely an incoming hot spot with the development on the way. There’s obviously a process to it, one that may take a few years, but let’s not pretend that this is going to be a vacant lot. Meanwhile, Wonderland didn’t pay their property taxes for over a year, something most of us probably would have had our home seized for, so let’s not pretend as if Revere’s losing any great thing here.
On producing green energy from locally grown organic produce.
Maybe just take it by imminent domain and built a windmill farm or mall.
seriously, if you keep riding the wahmbulence, I may just take that as a legitimate suggestion.
2. casinos are not recession proof, and I saw somewhere a stat that 80% of people who go to casinos can’t afford to. so that is where the moral dilemna is.
3. As local spending, these folks would be spending on lottery tickets locally anyways.
4. What does CT get from Foxwoods and Mohegan? Would Mass. get the same?
<
p>Personally I go to a casino maybe twice a year. I enjoy it! The libertarian streak in me says why not! People that should not be gambling already are. Lottery, poker machines in private clubs, sports betting, but Scott brings up an interesting question, why are the Governor’s priorities so messed up?
What does CT lose as a result of Foxwoods & Monhegan? What’s the net benefit?
<
p>Funny how no one monetizes those costs. But whatever they are, they aren’t zero.
it’s not like we are the first state with this issue. What is the net impact to the surrounding towns and state?
<
p>Deval needs to help us out here with what he based his judgment on. It didn’t happen the first go round and I don’t see anything being offered up here either.
<
p>Not at all. Slot machines double the rate of gambling addiction within 50 miles, so you can’t say that the people who have problems with lottery tickets are the same people who have problems with slots. The fact of the matter is that slot machines have their own unique form of addiction that is different
<
p>That’s just not true. I mean, maybe they do gamble, but certainly not to the extent that they would if there was a casino nearby. It’s just common sense, but also borne out by Congressional Budget Office studies. The fact is that the vast majority of casino revenue comes from people who live within 50 miles of a casino, and even then you can slice it down to the slot users who are ‘problem gamblers’ making up the biggest chunk of any casino’s revenue. Having a casino nearby would make multitudes more gamble ‘who should not be.’
<
p>Moreover, the ‘libertarian streak in you’ needs to realize that we don’t ban gambling whatsoever. You can go gamble at your friend’s house. You can play the games at a convenient store, restaurant or on Lynn’s Horizon’s Edge if you want more traditional games. We just regulate as a state the worst forms of gambling, like we do the worst forms of drugs.
<
p>I’m glad, knowing your opinions on the matter, that you still know enough to think the Governor’s priorities are messed up. They are! But the fact of the matter is slot machines are infinitely worse than any kind of gambling we have in Massachusetts and would tremendously hurt the lives of many people living in this state who are currently managing to get by. We just don’t need that kind of thing here – it won’t help our economy, putting small businesses out of business and really destroying many communities (both business and private lives), as we’ve seen casinos do countless places, from Atlantic City, which went from 225 restaurants, bars and clubs to less than 60, to Detroit, where more than 20% of their small businesses have gone belly up since casinos went into town.
what comes to Massachusetts in the form of organized gaming. My prediction and local coffee shop talk says next week DeLeo makes Ronald Mariano the Majority Leader and Jim Vallee as Ways & Meeans Chair. I believe both voted with DiMasi last session against casino bill. Lots of inexperienced people wil be looking to become major public policy makers (murphy, peter koutoujkian, barry Feinstein, Garrett Bradley)….all I believe voted against Casinos….but what if those people are on DeLeo’s leadership squad….will they change & vote for slots at racetracks? This issue is decided in the House of Representatives not anywhere else & with DeLeo in charge, chaaaa cha ching!