It’s time. Forget the politically-correct blather that threatens to narrow the governor’s base and give the governor the wiggle room to allow for three casinos and slots at the two SEMass tracks. Get off the moral high horse and end this virulent anti-gambling rhetoric that is driving progressive and moderate Dems and Independents away from the governor. He cannot be re-elected with his existing base. Any real politically savvy student understands that as the election day gets closer, upwards of 30% of either Baker or Cahill’s voters will likely switch to the candidate they believe can beat the governor. So if you continue to do all these crazy initiatives like rail against gambling and try and marginalize the governor into an anti-gambling moral scold, he’s done. His only chance at re-election is a three-way race that allows him to pull progressive and moderate Dems into his column. Your “we know what’s best for the masses” mantra is guaranteeing the governor won;t be able to pull those disaffected Dems and Independents back into the fold.
Hey, whaddya know — The UMass Dartmouth polls that consistently show 55-56-57% of Bay State residents support and want casinos and racinos… how come the Boston Globe polls done by UNH and the Suffolk Univ polls also show 57% of Massachusetts residents support casinos and racinos?
What’s going on here? Could it be that the politcally-correct moonbat wing of my Dem party and its ineffectiveness in convincing fellow libs, progressives and moderate Dems and Independents to follow suit, is emblematic of what you are going to accomplish this November? Do you really want to frog-march the governor down this road so that he loses a three-way race for re-election?
As election day looms, the race will see a significant change as the majority will decide which candidate can best beat Patrick. And, it will become a two-way race the final weekend, which the governor, today, thanks to all of you politically-correct, moral scolds, just can’t win!!
Check this out:
CASINOS & RACINOS
Yes-No-Undecided
Apr 2008 57-30-13 UMassD-CFPA
May 2008 61-32-7 CLT
Aug 2008 59-29-12 Suffolk U/Ch. 7
Dec 2008 57-40-3 UNH/Boston Globe
Feb 2009 57-38-5 SH News Service
Mar 2009 61-34-5 Suffolk U/Ch. 7
Apr 2009 57-31-12 UMassD-CFPA
Jul 2009 57-36-7 UNH/Boston Globe
Oct 2009 56-34-9 West New Eng Coll
Nov 2009 57-37-7 Suffolk U/Ch. 7
Feb 2010 57-34-9 Suffolk U/Ch. 7
Gee, polls by UMassDartmouth, Suffolk University, the University of New Hampshire, Western New England College, even the right-wing moralists at Citizens for Limited Taxation, all show an overwhelming majority of Massachusetts voters WANT Massachusetts casinos and racinos.
Yeah, you politically-correct moralists and anti-gambling zealots are leading my state Democratic party to its own Waterloo in 2010. Thanks. Thanks a lot!!!
and brothels too. Why not take a poll of 12 year olds to set the length of the school year?
This is more “just shut up” and give the Governor what he wants instead of holding him accountable for the “no more business as usual” platform he ran on. If he ran on the gambling interests platform, do you really think he would have defeated the other Democratic candidates? I don’t think so. It’s called “dancing with those that brung ya.”
<
p>And the rest of us have read the white papers and studies that indicate casinos do not create revenue, they merely transfer it from other entertainment segments. It’s not a panacea for our budget woes and can create far more trouble in the long run, most notably on the host cities and towns in the form of police, fire, EMS etc. Who is going to pay for that?
<
p>You better be careful what you wish for, Proud Lib. Sowing “dragon’s teeth” is no guarantee of getting just the golden fleece. You may get more than what you’re bargaining for.
If I’m not mistaken, the AFL-CIO has been pretty sturdy in its support of casinos. On the other, as Justice4All points out, their economic impact is not so great. As others point out, their social impact can be problematic.
<
p>Politically, this feels like a classic difference between suburban progressives and labor.
I oppose casino gambling because:
<
p>The public health, public safety, and infrastructure costs are greater than the revenue derived for state and local government.
<
p>In general (not always) casinos have “big box” effects on small businesses, which adversely affect both the economic and civic backbones of communities.
<
p>The “Atlantic City Dynamic” comes into play, wherein you have the casinos, behind them the pawnshops and buckets of blood; behind that urban (or small town) wastelands.
<
p>Thanks to the Lottery and the increased sales tax, the fiscal structure of the Commonwealth is based enough on regressive revenue sources; why add grandma’s Social Security check to the mix?
<
p>Finally, given existing casinos elsewhere in New England, the customer base is saturated. Unless, as in the case of the Lottery, the Commonwealth actively recruits and enables new cohorts of gambling addicts, casinos make no business sense.
<
p>As a personal matter, I consider the whole thing about casinos in Massachusetts to be a quick fix fantasy that will create far more (predictable) problems than it solves.
<
p>Oh, and spare me the Las Vegas example: the casinos were sited in the middle of a desert, and the city grew around the existing gambling business. That doesn’t apply in Massachusetts.
not Pavlovian response and got one! Thank you.
You are partially correct about Las Vegas, but since the economy was and is casinos and the government is mostly casino oriented, statistics that improve the quality of life are lacking. Consider the following:
<
p>
<
p>Of Nevada:
It would seem that the supposed “family-friendly” civic culture of Las Vegas (outside the Strip) is not as advertised by the City Fathers.
<
p>Why am I not surprised?
I’m in agreement. RI and CT aren’t making money hand over fist anymore. I know! Let’s add another multi-million dollar jackpot lottery game! Sunday, Monday, and Thursday are free. I expect Megabucks to be dead by June. I like to gamble myself, but I just can’t afford to.
would probably have different opinions. I suspect that most people think casinos have effects similar to outlet malls or cinema complexes, only more so. More jobs! More tax revenue! More wealthy Native Americans! Never mind those losers with addictive personalities.
<
p>I confess, any post that starts off with complaints about political correctness and moves on to calling progressives moonbats gets my hackles up. You’re proud of being a lib, good for you. I don’t want to be that, whatever it is.
<
p>If Patrick can only win by promoting institutionalized gambling (which I do not for one moment believe), we’re better off without him, just like we’re better off without casinos.
Well, it’s clear that the political ideologues on the far right have their kinship on the far left. Somehow, I think if we were talking about another form of economic development — say high tech or traditional manufacturing — you’d be cheerleaders for thousands of new construction jobs, thousands of permanent jobs, millions in new tax revenues. But because it might entail gambling and entertainment, it is not allowable because of your moral stance? Too bad. But when Baker or Cahill in Jan 2011 take the oath of office for governor, I’m sure that BMG adherents will continue to have a strong role in charting the new Republican or Independent governor’s public policy initiatives. I haven’t seen a group of die-hards so bent on delivering their Dem governor to electoral defeat since Phil Johnston and Barbara Ackerman brought us Ed King in 1978.
… that distinguishing between the quality of jobs born from a casino push and a high tech push was a fallacy. Please explain to me why making the distinction is illegitimate.
I think you have to answer the arguments against casinos if you’re going to start a debate and certainly if you’re going to accuse the denizens here of ignoring “facts”.
<
p>Asserting lots of things with no backing and making taunts about the 1978 election convinces precisely no one.
Oh, support the vote for casinos because if you don’t, the other candidate will win. Bologna. Whatsamattah, proudlib, ya got some stake in with the casinos? What’s in it for you? I’m always suspicious when a so called proudlib plays the fear card.
with regard to creating services for addicted individuals leaves out the notion that we already have the addicted individuals who live in Massachusetts but gamble in CT. Here we are spending our tax dollars and paying the price for those who travel to CT to gamble, yet earn no benefit from the revenue and jobs created by a resort casino.
<
p>I support one or two resort casinos in Massachusetts. To be clear, I could care less if there is a gambling section in each of them; I would be just as happy with one or two non-casino resorts. I’m sure there would be negative impacts with a non-resort casino as well. There would be negative impacts with manufacturing coming to the state.
There is a negative impact having health insurers in the state, as I have seen reports where regular people who work for these companies feel great amounts of stress by being forced to deny claims that in their own heart they would never do. Cape Wind will have negative impacts to our waters off the coast and the surrounding community. Six flags creates negative impacts in traffic, crime, disease spread, terrorist target and injuries on rides.
<
p>I am no friend to corporations. I’m not saying that I blindly trust Mohegan Sun. I know they are a corporation, and with that their duty is to earn money in both legal and illegal ways. That is the status quo among all corporations. So if we are going to fight against a resort casino, then we should also fight against any corporate entity trying to infiltrate Massachusetts. Until that status quo changes (I wish it would), there is no point in blocking corporate America from Massachusetts (we can regulate them though, that would be awesome.)
We should fight against the state lottery system, because that creates more addictive behavior harm than any one or two resort casinos could possibly do.
<
p>I am against stand alone slot parlors. I am for resort entertainment complexes that will bring some life back to the state. We can continue the way it works now, where people travel an hour or so to CT, some for fun, some to feed a habit, and then use taxpayer dollars not supplemented by a resort here in the state to offset the cost. Or we can bring all of those people back to Massachusetts, create the jobs, earn the revenue, while directing a portion of it toward helping those who unfortunately will lose control and become addicted.
What I’m saying is that refusing one or two resort casinos in Massachusetts is not going to end the trauma of addicted individuals in our state. They will just find other ways to feed their habit.
<
p>So to me the choice is:
<
p>Let CT earn the jobs/revenue, while we pay for Massachsuetts residents who succumb to addiction while gambling in CT. OR
let Massachusetts earn the jobs/revenue, and then direct a portion of the revenue to pay for our residents who succumb to addiction.
<
p>I am not minimizing the effects of gambling addiction on people and their families. What I am saying is that if they are going to get addicted to gambling, they already have plenty of opportunities to do so, both in MA and CT. Except that we pay for it without any of the benefits of increased revenue.
<
p>I still find that the “90% of casino profits come from 10% of gamblers” talking point, where the speaker of that so-called fact is trying to imply that those 10% are addicted individuals, a little hard to grasp and believe. I think it seems more rational to believe that the 10% are wealthy players who have tons of disposable income in which to entertain themselves in a casino. Those big money droppers get huge perks and paybacks. You don’t hear of too many middle/ working class people, or poor people getting the executive suite for the night for all of the money they spend. I think it’s those big players that are the 10% providing the 90% of profits.
most people who would regularly play slots were willing to travel nearly any distance to play them (or at least from here to Connecticut). Turns out, that’s not the case. Casinos and racinos make the vast majority of their profits from players who live within 50 miles of the casino — meaning, they depend on new, local players as the very basis of their business. Not only do casinos depend on locals, but a very narrow set of them: problem gamblers or those who are at risk of becoming so.
<
p>You’re simply wrong about your “talking point” characterization. It was Harrah’s that admitted 90% of their profits come from 10% of the players — that’s not some made up number or tricksy talking point, that’s what Harrah’s, one of the world’s largest casino companies, said itself.
<
p>It’s one (huge) casino chain that is particularly dubious in its business practices for finding that narrow set of local people and catering almost exclusively to them (they in many ways revolutionized the ‘best practices’ to get people hooked), but all casinos depend on a small set of frequent locals to get hooked on slots for their business models — and it only gets worse for racinos and slot parlors. So whether we’re talking about 90% of the profits coming from 10% of the players, or 80% of the profits from 20% of the players, the fact of the matter is casinos depend on local problem gamblers to stay out of the red. That’s how they’ve proliferated. That’s why nearly everything in the casino is about trying to get people playing longer, faster and coming back more often.
<
p>A lot of other businesses use these tactics, too, but very few of them are big enough to hurt so many other sectors or use ‘products’ suited to get people addicted; not many of them suck up so much money and resources from local regions and authorities that they become an economic and social drain on just about everyone but the casino. The local restaurant may have daily specials and the bakery down the street will give me a free sample, but they’re neither big enough nor sell products addictive enough to become a major problem to the entire region or state, socially or economically.
<
p>Right now, it’s Connecticut, its citizens and local businesses paying the costs of having their slots (and addicts), because very few people in Massachusetts live close enough to be within that 50-mile danger zone. For the most part, we don’t suffer Connecticut’s consequences. There are a few, but not nearly as many as there would be with one or more casino in Massachusetts (or worse yet, racinos). That’s not to say some people in Massachusetts don’t play in Connecticut, but they tend to be more casual players who aren’t anywhere close to the bulk of Foxwood’s business model. There’s no way to bring casinos into Massachusetts to ‘capture’ that casual market without bringing with them the model that prays on creating a small pool of addicts for the bulk of a casino’s profits — nor is that what the state’s political leaders are even trying to do. They want the whole kit and caboodle, otherwise they wouldn’t be ballyhooing their outdated, sickeningly rosy numbers. DeLeo’s even worse, focusing on the business model that’s most dependent on local addicts (slot parlors and racinos).
<
p>Casinos are a no-win scenario for Massachusetts — and we don’t have Captain Kirk to find a way around it. We don’t even need to find a way around it. Massachusetts has done fine without casinos; adding them won’t solve a single, solitary problem, while causing a few of them we certainly don’t need. Instead of wasting year after year fighting incessantly over this problem, we ought to be working on coming up with real, grown-up decisions about how to create revenue and jobs without adding more addicts and social costs.
in any case, it doesn’t matter. Casinos in Masschusetts are not going to improve the economy much. It may help the state budget, and give jobs to a portion of the unemployed. It’s not going to lower the cost of electicity, lower food prices, or cut healthcare costs.
I am for the casino because I think we need more recreational options in our state. Not just gambling (which I rarely do anyway, I’ve been to Foxwoods twice in my entire life, did enjoy the visit, it was fun), but the concerts, dance clubs, comedy shows, restaurants, spa’s and other various things you can do there.
At this point, it would be likely that two casinos in Massachusetts would not do well because the working/middle class has no money to enjoy themselves anyway. The hope would be that by the time they were completed, the economy would have turned around and there would be discretionary dollars in pockets to spend.
<
p>I think that is highly unlikely to happen now. The philosopy of our government (yes the one we elected for change) still believes in trickle down economics, that bailing out and supporting the big guys will save the rest of us. That principle continues to fail. The “change” is not happening, and most likely won’t. New jobs have been created through government stimulus only. Once those funds end, our double dip will occur. Those casinos could very well sit there with no customers gracing their doors in large enough numbers to allow them to continue to run.
<
p>As soon as someone shows me a breakdown of who the 10% is that provides 90% of the profits, including a breakdown of how much money comes from each group, I will give merit to that statistic.
<
p>
of Christina Binkley’s book, “Winner Takes All” states:
<
p>
<
p>There are additional excerpts posted here:
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>There are an assortment of articles posted regarding Harrah’s here, one even explains Harrah’s $20 billion debt and potential bankruptcy:
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>You have indicated:
<
p>It may help the state budget
The hope would be
I think that is highly unlikely to happen now
I am for the casino because I think we need more recreational options
<
p>Wishful thinking should not determine an informed opinion.
<
p>A review of the experiences of others indicates all of the negatives reported in this forum.
<
p>It might seem, instead of expecting that others provide statistics for you, that you avail yourself of the reports linked in this thread or posted here:
http://uss-mass.org/
<
p>Among a host of reports is the CT DOR Report, prepared by Spectrum Gaming, an industry organization, that includes a great deal of detail to answer your questions. It also includes information about hotbedding, crime, the cost of prosecution, DUIs, embezzlements.
<
p>This also details crime and other issues —
Socioeconomic Impact of Gambling on Iowans
<
p>http://www.1800betsoff.org/com…
with regard to casino gambling on the internet; it appears to me there is no such thing. Even if there were, they are so back paged by anti-casino fanatic studies and articles that it’s even hard to find a study presented by the casino industry. I am certainly not going to take the word of 1800betsoff or United to Stop Slots.
<
p>So you have a problem with this:
<
p>
<
p>You say: Wishful thinking should not determine an informed opinion.
<
p>It seems you are more informed than I. The problem is that the information you more informed with is biased information. The words may, hope, think, etc are a clue to you that indeed I am very well aware I and no-one really knows the impact of allowing casino resorts in Massachusetts.
<
p>You just pretend you know, by presenting links to biased and incomplete facts.
<
p>
<
p>This does not answer my question. It’s such a generalization that it’s of no value. I want to know who that 10% is and how much money is received from them. I’ve looked for this information before and cannot find a break down. What income levels are in that percentage, what percentage from each income level. Actual quantities of people. Is it 1,000,000 people, with 40% coming from high income groups, 20% from business meetings, 30% from the middle class and 10% poor, or what?
<
p>So right back at you:
Biased thinking should not determine an informed opinion.
<
p>Please, show me a SINGLE one of those “anti-casino fanatic studies.” Please, show me. Just one.
<
p>It doesn’t exist.
<
p>There are literally dozens of pro-casino studies funded by the industry, unions or people who have been paid by them (ie the ones Barrow has done at UMASS Dartmouth and the one that was funded at UMASS Boston by their labor group), but there are comparatively few studies that are unbiased — and those are the ones which have proven to be the far more enlightening ones in regards to the impacts.
<
p>Some of them have been government studies, or studies related to the government, such as the one where it was found that slots double the rate of “problem gamblers” within a 50 mile radius, or the other study that indicated up to 75% of a casino’s revenue is just revenue that’s redistributed in the local economy (ie that revenue already existed, but is now being siphoned from local businesses with local owners, to national or international corporations, where the profits go into the void, never to be seen in Massachusetts again), but I’ve yet to see a major study funded by anti-casino groups, because anti-casino “fanatic” groups tend to be small, community organizers who don’t have tons of dough to fund those studies to begin with.
<
p>All those “hopes” and everything you “think” should be backed up by hard, unbiased and non-industry-financed comprehensive studies before we allow the industry in Massachusetts, because there are those of us who aren’t willing to rely and your hopes and dreams. Can’t you and I agree on at least that?
and I appreciate the fact that you haven’t called me a name yet. Really I do appreciate it; kudos to you for self control.
<
p>I have browsed through the provided links, while perhaps not tonight but in past posts on this topic. I found that the analysis are too general and sometime overhyped.
<
p>Such as with this generalization:
<
p>
<
p>could very well mean that there were 5 problem gamblers; now there are 10.
<
p>I could go and look through those stats again and pull the contradictions and actual numbers, but it’s not on my list of “important things to do” right now.
<
p>”hopes” and “thinks” are a part of everyone’s opinion. Even opinions based on consistently similar statistics leave room for the possibility that an outcome could be different. Just look at the election for Ted Kennedy’s seat.
According to the same government study, roughly 2.5% of the population are pathological gamblers. However, the rate doubles to 5% when within 50 miles of a casino or slot parlor. So, the number isn’t general at all, I just didn’t include it in there this one time. Five wouldn’t become ten; 162,000 would become 325,000.
<
p>
<
p>Right, but we try to back up our “hopes” and “thinks” with facts when we want to convince others, as I’ve done so repeatedly here. This is why I suggest we need a comprehensive study that looks at the issue through a magnified lens we haven’t seen done yet in Massachusetts. Let’s see what the impact will be on local businesses, communities, infrastructure, schools, addictions, state and community services, how many new state employees would have to be hired to oversee the industry — and match that up with current, honest projections on what the industry would “create” in terms of new jobs and new revenue, not just a redistribution of jobs and money spent already in the region today. If we do that comprehensive study and everything comes out Even Steven or better, then full steam ahead, but I just don’t think that’s what will happen — and the DeLeo’s of the world probably know it, which is why they’ve thus far refused to start a comprehensive study on it.
I agree a comprehensive study is a very good idea, based on conditions in our state and conditions in the current economy.
Would you consider signing the petition for that cost/benefit analysis, then?
<
p>http://www.ipetitions.com/peti…
<
p>It is strictly to get the state to fund the study.
The CT DOR Report, should you choose to wade through the 390 pages of it, which incidentally, I have, provides answers to ALL of your questions.
<
p>It’s available on the USS Mass website that I guess you somehow have determined contains only reports by fanatics and zealots. Sorry, but that in itself tells me you haven’t even looked.
<
p>Since the CT DOR Report was prepared by Spectrum Gaming, how can you criticize it, except that you expect the instant gratification of having others spoonfeed responses to you?
<
p>There are numerous other reports available on the site as well.
<
p>And OMG! A report from Iowa! From a University! How can that be any less unbiased than our own Clyde Barrow? [sarcasm intended]
<
p>Christina Binkley’s book was actually a pretty interesting commentary of the industry and personalities involved. Wasn’t it on the bestseller list? It is clear that you haven’t read it because it isn’t what you think. I’m sure your local library has a copy and it’s a pretty quick read.
<
p>However, regardless of the demographics, the point you have missed is that the business model depends on addiction.
<
p>The words may, hope, think, etc are a clue to you that indeed I am very well aware I and no-one really knows the impact of allowing casino resorts in Massachusetts.
<
p>There is no way I can be kind about posting that this is probably one of the most uninformed comments you have yet offered.
<
p>Slot parlors, by any name whether they are racinos, casinos, or employ the euphemistic label of “Destination Resort” to disguise their purpose, bring increased crime, increased family abuse, increased bankruptcies, economic devastation to local businesses, and succeed in enriching the already wealthy in every community in which they exist.
<
p>You will find that those who oppose expanded gambling have researched and footnoted their sources to defend against precisely the accusation you made.
<
p>Sorry! But there is not a single community that has prospered, grown, improved and one that we would determine to emulate. Look around the country or the world.
<
p>Gambling requires continued expansion because the local addicts are quickly destroyed financially and the escalating taxpayer costs of addressing those issues quickly escalates.
<
p>Also posted on the web site is a lengthy report from Australia that explains why gambling addiction cost them $4 billion per year.
<
p>I know that you don’t want to be kind to me because I am pro-casino, not because I am aware that no-one really knows what the impact is going to be if we allow casino gambling in Massachusetts. We can think we know, but we really don’t.
<
p>I live in a town near the proposed site of one of the casinos. When you say things like this:
<
p>
<
p>it’s pretty damn insulting because I know many people here and the way you talk you might think we were all sickly little alchoholics and drug addicts just waiting for an opportunity to jump on the gambling addict train. You are not giving any credit to the hardworking and sensible people who live in Massachusetts. Geez, should we even drive cars, I mean do we have enough sense to do so. You better close up the bars in the area, and hell yeah, get rid of that strip joint. Pad us in and take away the keys.
show the same results, they can’t be believed because they are all fanatics?
Isn’t that how tobacco industry characterized the smoking studies that showed adverse affects?
We know that the studies by the industry which has a financial interest in the outcome are suspect and that the results claimed by the gambling industry have never materialized in places which have invited in the casinos. On what evidence to you support your claim that anti casino activists are anything other than people who have studied the available data to the obvious conclusion that casinos are good for casinos at the expense of the surrounding communities?
<
p>United to Stop Slots in Mass is not opposed to sports betting, poker or entertainment…it slots. Slots that are purposely programed to addict and empty the wallets of unsuspecting players. Slots are where casinos make their profits. Entertainment charges are kept artificially low to entice customers in to the slot machines.
<
p>You were there? Were wealthy clients sitting around dumping their money into the slot machines?
The fact that casinos earn most of their profits off the backs of a small group of slot players? That’s a fact.
<
p>That most of what a casino is about is geared toward getting players inside, so they can play those slots, and then geared to getting them to play faster and longer? That’s just a common sense business plan — even if the business and product themselves aren’t at all common, nor the impact they have on customers and regions.
<
p>There’s a reason for the free booze (to stay longer), the slot lever being replaced by buttons (to play faster) and all the “cool” things at the casino (to get people in the door), as well as the rewards cards that have come to dominate marketing to players (to get people coming back).
<
p>I really don’t understand what you “disagree” with — or is it that these facts are just disconcerting and you’d rather focus on the glitz? If that’s the case, part of me doesn’t blame you, because the facts surrounding casinos are uncomfortable. That’s why we need to know all the facts before we have a vote on it.
It is foolish to advocate for anything every with only 43% support.
I’m still waiting for the first post of yours that isn’t about casinos, racinos or slots.
<
p>I’d settle for you to finally disclose your connection to the industry.
<
p>Your long-standing corporate whoring of the racino/casino/slot issue has long been old. If you’re not going to be a real member of the community, it’s way past time for you to put up or shut up and disclose.
Proudlib’s call to forgo opposition to legalizing slot machine and casino gambling in the interest of unifying supporters of Governor Patrick’s re-election campaign is sadly reminiscent of the ill-fated efforts to smooth the sharp edges of Al Gore’s and John Kerry’s platforms in the interest of “broadening” their appeal.
<
p>Voters of all stripes prefer politicians who stand for something, even if they don’t agree with all their candidate stands for. Governor Patrick needs an energized progressive base, and that base will not be energized by a candidate whose policy positions remind them of oatmeal.
<
p>Personally, I want a Governor who stands by his commitment to support an independent, comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of the various proposals to expand legalized gambling. I want a Governor who understands that costs and benefits may not be equitably distributed, and that decisions about legalizing and siting Class III gambling establishments must be based on consideration of both statewide and local impacts.
<
p>I want a Governor who isn’t afraid to distinguish between a person’s right to gamble and the government’s decision to enter into a public/private partnership to promote the use of predatory slot machines designed to encourage and profit from out-of-control gambling.
<
p>I want a Governor who doesn’t give up on unpopular, but more strategic and reliable revenue streams like the gas tax — which could create and sustain many more construction jobs — in favor of relying on revenues from predatory slot machine gambling, which act like a regressive tax on low income and working class families.
<
p>I want a Governor that sees through the fool’s gold of industry promises of reinvigorated race tracks and wildly successful destination casinos, of expanded employment and increased State revenues: someone who understands that if Massachusetts residents spend their money on casino gambling and slot machines, that money is being siphoned away from the Lottery and from local retail and entertainment businesses.
<
p>The evidence is clear that the gambling industry cannibalizes local businesses and destroys jobs; I want a Governor who has the integrity to base the decision about legalizing gambling on an analysis of the net impact on revenues and jobs, and not just on the rosy predictions of industry supporters.
<
p>I want a Governor that understands that luring Massachusetts residents who gamble in Connecticut or Rhode Island back to local venues is only a small part of the cost/benefit equation. I want someone who understands that there are concomitant costly increases in crime, drunk driving, bankruptcies and defaults; that introduction of Class III gambling requires costly development and operation of a regulatory infrastructure; that increased gambling will be accompanied by increases in public safety and corrections-related costs, as well as increased public health costs associated with higher rates of addiction, domestic violence, and family break-ups … all of which will be borne by taxpayers.
<
p>I want a Governor that understands that unlike defective cars which can be recalled for repair, once we unleash the gambling industry and legalize predatory slot machines, there is no turning back. Like an invasive species, once the gambling industry gains a foothold in new territory, once its lobbyists and corporate contributions become marbled in the culture of the State House, we can’t wipe the slate clean and start afresh.
<
p>I want a Governor who is willing to learn from the experience of elected officials across the country who supported the introduction and expansion of slot machine and casino gambling because they were convinced that they could hold the industry accountable for its costs and could control its impacts on the local economy, but who found out the hard way that the gambling industry is too powerful to contain; that once inside the State House, the industry has the money and the lobbying power to get what it wants to keep local gambling establishments “competitive” — taxpayer-funded infrastructure improvements, loosened betting and liquor sales restraints, expanded hours, and lower taxes on winnings.
<
p>Unlike proudlib, I think we CAN re-elect a Governor who isn’t afraid to make politics secondary to principled consideration of independently derived facts and figures about the costs and benefits of legalizing slots and casino gambling. And I’m ready to work for that candidate’s re-election.
oh, wait – you already did that. Anyway, not everyone has such a positive view of casinos. There’s an overview of the issue, with a ton of citations, here. Summarizing one of the cited studies (which you have to subscribe to the publisher to see all of), it says:
That’s placed in the context of “Indian Nation Casinos.”
<
p>How about non-Indian casinos? The article quotes some other studies:
There’s a lot more there.
The link is appreciated since there is solid evidence contained within to oppose casinos.
<
p>Casino supporters, including this shill, offer no justifiable reason to support slots. Jobs and revenue are conspicuously overstated. Impacts are ignored.
<
p>The more I have read about gambling, the less cents it makes.
<
p>Affordable housing, low wage jobs and foreign workers, taken from the CT DOR Report prepared by Spectrum Gaming, an industry mouthpiece:
<
p>The statewide affordabilty issue has been very much felt in New London County, where the price of a home is unreachable for more than 80 percent of casino employees who earn less than the required amount to qualify for a mortgage,
<
p>The only group of casino employees who meet or exceed the threshold are senior management and directors.
<
p>The affordability problem has hampered the ability of casinos to fill positions. They sometimes recruit workers from overseas – students from Eastern Europe in the summer and from South American in the winter who often rent rooms in homes near the casinos.
<
p>Sharing of beds in shifts known as – hotbedding is a common practice among casino workers who earn low wages.
<
p>Taken from the CT DOR Report available here and worth reading in its entirety for those still convinced this makes sense in Massachusetts:
http://uss-mass.org/resources….
<
p>I would offer a quote that I found striking:
<
p>” Blindfolded public officials practice job creation guided by wolves posing as Seeing Eye dogs.”
This poster has been sufficiently defined and revealed by others for what he is, but allow me to point out that the casino shills are now defining the argument as “MORAL.”
<
p>Speaking solely for myself, I have enough difficulty with my own personal life without dictating the moral or ethical behavior of others.
<
p>Frankly, I don’t give a damn if your life is so devoid of interests that you can’t volunteer time to mentor a child or volunteer at your local Council on Aging, visit a museum, read a book, maybe even volunteer at your local library to fill needs created by budget cuts or find something worthwhile and productive other than feeding slot machines at Mohegan Sun.
<
p>Slot machines have been described as the “Crack Cocaine of Gambling.”
<
p>For me, the issue is economic and the community degradation caused by slots and casinos.
<
p>Anyone who has made an honest effort to inform themselves of the costs, quickly recognizes that state-sponsored slot machines cost more than they provide in revenue.
<
p>There are reports available here: http://uss-mass.org/ at the United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts web site.
<
p>There are numerous other resources as well.
<
p>Christina Binkley’s book, “Winner Takes All,” explained how Harrah’s determined that 90% of their profits originated with 10% of their players, a statistic not denied by the industry. (Incidentally, Harrah’s is on the verge of bankruptcy.)
<
p>Harrah’s then targeted, promoted, encouraged and campaigned to get those gamblers to visit regularly and remain loyal to Harrah’s. They created focus groups. They offered ‘comp’ promotions of meals and other freebies.
<
p>Slot machines are the same everywhere. They degrade communities, increase crime and enrich the wealthy.
<
p>We need sustainable jobs we can be proud of, that provide an opportunity for advancement, that allow us to improve our skills and are transferable.
<
p>Let’s look for some sensible solutions.
<
p>Slots promoters proclaim hugely misleading claims about casino jobs suggesting they would pay well, maybe $10 to $20 per hour, plus benefits.
<
p>The New Hampshire Public Policy Research Center recently released its analysis of ‘likely casino wages. Using 2008 data, weighted average casino wages would be $9.60 per hour plus any tips. You can’t include tips as wages.
<
p>Their report is available here:
http://www.nh.gov/gsc/calendar…
<
p>Three years after casinos were legalized in the small town of Deadwood, S.D., felony crimes had increased by 40 percent, child abuse had increased by 42 percent, and domestic violence assaults had risen 80 percent.
<
p>In Indiana, a review of the state’s gaming commission records revealed that 72 children were found abandoned on casino premises during a 14-month period.
<
p>SMR Research Corp. has called gambling “the single fastest-growing driver of bankruptcy.” Gambling-related bankruptcies in metro Detroit increased by as much as 40-fold within 18 months of the opening of Casino Windsor, just across the Detroit River.
<
p>We have the evidence in front of us around the country.
Casinos destroy small locally owned businesses that are the economic engine of job creation.
<
p>It’s time to support an independent cost benefit analysis.
Sign the petition and insist that we have a public discussion and consideration of the costs before any vote here: http://uss-mass.org/
When this issue arose several years ago, most of us knew little about gambling. If you don’t gamble, why would you?
<
p>Most people don’t gamble.
<
p>The logical place to look is elsewhere – maybe Atlantic City or Las Vegas, the poster children for all that’s wrong with the “Casino Culture” with failed schools, high dropout rates, poor reading scores, low college graduation rates, high suicide rate, high crime rates, offering nothing you’d emulate.
<
p>Roll of the dice: http://www.niagara-gazette.com…
contained this striking comment:
<
p>“(Niagara Falls) could have looked at Atlantic City, they could have looked at Detroit,” Simon said. “(Casinos) basically destroyed local business in Atlantic City.”
<
p>While city and state leaders painted a picture in 2002 of restaurants and retail outlets flooding into the South End to cater to crowds of casinogoers, the reality has been starkly different.
<
p>Bryant Simon grew up in southern New Jersey and wrote a book about the history of Atlantic City, entitled Boardwalk of Dreams that’s worth reading.
<
p>The pattern is repeated over and over and over and over again in community after community after community.
<
p>But, then most in this forum are pretty savvy and already know that, except for the shill who raises the classic arguments in favor.
…beginning with the diary itself.
<
p>How about not going after each other’s motives so much, to wit:
<
p>Proudlib, it’s brave of you to post contrary to the orthodoxy of this site, but if you would like to make the pro-casino case, let’s lose the insults.
<
p>Others, some of you seem to think that because Proudlib disagrees with you he(?) must have a stake in this. I agree if there is such a stake it should be disclosed, but I can also vouch that there are plenty of people, including many Democrats in my part of the state, who are anywhere from OK with to gung-ho supporters of casinos.
Casinos are the only thing proudlib has written diaries about. It’s the source of the skepticism.
I’m agreeing with you AND Ryan now. Now if I was a gambler, I’d be busy enjoying my weekend gaming, not posting on BMG. Be happy folks, I have a couple of new hobbies. I’m not paying attention as much. But the Governor’s abusing our weakest demographic, the DD people, needs to be ended.
Yes proudlib: we want to know your interest in the matter?
Whenever politics and policy get conflated, we end up with taunting. The lack of wisdom of the Iraq war was obscured, not revealed, by its early popularity. Any discussion of the state budget is easily thrown off the tracks once politics gets mixed in. Why? What the public opinion demands is contradictory.
<
p>I prefer us to stick to the framework:
<
p>Instead, the taunters among us refuse to engage the policy with any seriousness, but are very happy to hop up and down and say, “It’s unpopular! It’s unpopular! You guys will lose an election!” Proudlib does that here.
<
p>What results is a sloppy discussion of both policy and politics.
<
p>So too here: both aspects got obscured. We’ve tried to engage the policy issue above. Not very successfully.
<
p>The politics are also significant as labor has, for the most part, lined up behind casinos. In my book, that’s is a big political problem and it deserves more careful thought.
you were handing out 4s like tic-tacs…so I handed out 6s like Chiclets. 😉
<
p>And let’s be fair – this diary was just obnoxious. It is grossly unfair and inappropriate to frame opposition to casinos as some scheme to prevent Deval Patrick’s reelection. One has nothing to do with the other. If Proudlib intended to have a fact-based dialogue and convince people of the rightness of his position, he chose the wrong poison to start his diary with. Poorly done, self-interested and specious framing only pisses people off.
Under this theory, progressives must support the PATRIOT Act, the war in Afghanistan, bank bail outs, charter schools, and give up on all progressive ideals so that the Democrat candidates succeed.
a ginormous vacuum hose that will suck dollars out of the state as efficiently as possible.
<
p>Not.
and I can’t find it. I’ve looked on USS-MA. website, on the CT DOR website, google search and the various sites that search brought up. Can anyone give me a direct link to that report? I don’t want an analysis to the report. I want to look at the actual report. Thanks.
You will find a multitude of reports here:
http://uss-mass.org/resources….
<
p>Including these:
National Gambling Impact Study Commission Final Report
Gambling in the United States, Lotteries, Convenince Gambling and Stand-Alone Electronic Gambling Devices, Gambling Regulation, Problem and Pathological Gambling, Internet Gambling, Native American Tribal Gambling, Gambling’s Impacts on People and Places.
Gambling Impact Study Commission, 1999.
Gambling: Australian Government Productivity Commission Draft Report
Productivity Commission 2009, Gambling, Draft Report, Canberra, October.
For the First Time, a Smaller Jackpot – Trends in State Revenues from Gambling
Rockefeller Institute of Government
September 21, 2009
<
p>This is the CT Report:
GAMBLING IN CONNECTICUT: Analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts
Spectrum Gaming Final Report for the State of Connecticut
June 2009
<
p>There are also some great books available that are highly recommended, including:
The Luck Business by Professor Robert Goodman
Winner Takes All by Christina Binkley
Gambling in America, Costs and Benefits by Professor Earl L. Grinols
The Money and the Power, by Roger Morris, Sally Denton
Legalized Gambling, by John Eidsmoe
Gambling , by Norman L. Geisler, Thomas A. Howe
Bad Bet on the Bayou, by Tyler Bridges
The Great American Jobs Scam, by Greg LeRoy
Bad Bet, The Inside Story of the Glamour, Glitz and Danger of America’s Gambling Industry by Timothy L. O’Brien
Boardwalk of Dreams, Atlantic City and the Fate of Urban America, by Bryant Simon
National Gambling Impact Study: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu…
I used the whole title in google and found it here
<
p>I will look through it, although it is an analysis, but does seem to have supporting stats.
that if you actually went to the web site and periodically re-checked, that you might find reports that haven’t been mentioned.
<
p>Like most volunteers, the Superlative Web Mistress has a life and obligations, unlike paid casino lobbyists, so the information is periodically updated.
<
p>Because most people don’t gamble, most people either have no opinion or an uninformed opinion because they don’t understand the devastation that has been caused by this corporate hoax.
<
p>I truly hope you’ll read some of the other reports available on the site. The more you read, the less inclined you’ll be to endorse this major transfer of wealth to gazillionaires disguised as tax policy.
<
p>
for bringing up this topic again and provoking discussion.
<
p>Couldn’t have done it better myself!
<
p>Now, tell us who you work for. DeLeo? A casino? As a registered lobbyist?
<
p>That you are posting such silliness in this forum where gambling has been not only beaten like the proverbial dead horse, but stomped on, picked over by vultures, run over by tanks and successfully trashed is an indication that the votes are NOT there.
<
p>BTW, has everyone forgotten the Democratic Convention?
<
p>United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts distributed the letter below reminding Democratic Legislators of the Resolution passed at the Democratic Party Convention opposing predatory gambling —
<
p>We are writing to bring your attention to the Resolution to oppose predatory gambling that passed that the Democratic State Convention June 2009, cited below. A majority of delegates stood and approved a resolution to oppose legalization of slot machines and any similar efforts to promote addictive and predatory gambling as a means to raise state revenues. As a Democrat, we hope that you will honor and respect the wishes of the Party’s active and involved members that work hard to elect Democrat candidates to represent us by opposing the legalization of slot machines and any similar efforts to promote addictive and predatory gambling.
<
p>Proponents of corporate casinos, antiquated racetracks and predatory gambling have spent millions of dollars from out-of-state interests lobbying legislators. We are average citizens and taxpayers of the Commonwealth. We call on you as a Democrat to reject the gimmick of slot revenues for short-term revenues and long-term problems with increased crime, addiction, education, environmental and infrastructure impact.
<
p>Democrats proudly stand for long-term sustainable economic growth based upon sensible tax policy and equal citizenship, even, and especially during difficult economic times. The vast majority of revenues from corporate casinos and predatory gambling come from addicted players. We call on you to reject exploiting the weakness of one class of citizens for the alleged benefit of the majority.
<
p>RESOLUTION
<
p>Whereas the Democratic Party has a long and proud tradition of advocating for social justice, working for policies that promote the public health, and fighting to protect citizens from exploitative and predatory business practices;
And whereas modern slot machines use neuroscience-informed technology to mesmerize and entrap gamblers and to keep them playing until they have exhausted their resources (“playing to extinction”);
And whereas medical research has documented the highly addictive nature of the brain’s chemical reactions to slot machine stimulation;
And whereas licensing and promoting such addictive, predatory gambling technology for the purpose of raising State revenues goes against the aforementioned values and principles for which the Democratic Party has long stood, and is at odds with the ideals that underlie our Party’s honorable and consistent struggle to end the deceptive and predatory lending, marketing, and pricing practices that have pushed so many families to the brink;
And whereas legalizing slot machines would erode participation in the Lottery and siphon away from local small businesses the discretionary spending on goods and services that they depend on;
And whereas the development of slot machine parlors would neither create significant new jobs, nor increase tourism in Massachusetts;
And whereas evidence from other states indicates that the long-term costs of gambling addiction — increased substance abuse, increased crime, increased family discord and dysfunction — outweigh the short term benefits of licenses and gambling revenues;
<
p>Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Massachusetts Democratic Party, as a matter of both principle and policy, opposes the legalization of slot machines and any similar efforts to promote addictive and predatory gambling as a means of raising public revenues.