An interesting development.
Patrick told the Herald he would reject a compromise that would allow slots at racetracks up until the first resort-style casino is built in the Bay State.
“I don’t think we will ever get the destination resort casinos if we have slots at racetracks,” he said. “The slots are a cash cow for the developers, and a destination resort casino can be very prosperous too, but they have to commit to a significant investment to do that.” … “I am not trying to be a jerk,” he said. “I am crazy about the speaker. We have a great working relationship. But I haven’t seen anything to persuade me to change a position I’ve held since I settled on this subject a couple of years ago.”
Here’s one way this could play out. The legislature is not going to move a bill without racinos, IMHO; Speaker DeLeo has made that clear enough. So a bill with a destination resort or two, plus slots at the tracks, makes it through the House — but quite possibly not with a veto-proof majority — and easily clears the Senate. Patrick then vetoes it, on the ground that racinos run the risk of too many social costs without the countervailing economic benefits. Then, if the House can’t override, it dies.
If you hate casinos, and if your enthusiasm for Governor Patrick suffered as a result of his casino position, how would you take his veto of a racino bill? If you wrote him off as a result of the casino thing, could you be persuaded to reconsider?
Though it is probably the biggest issue I have with him. However, I am gratified to know that he is sticking with his conclusions on what racinos really mean and how they are not good for the state.
<
p>Would that he was able to ask the hard questions of the numbers projected regarding resort casinos as well, but if it kills the bill, I’ll be grateful none the less, for however it is killed.
Let’s see how this one plays out. The gas tax imbroglio leads me to avoid investing too much in the governor’s first-glance reaction to any policy initiative.
<
p>He is on the side of the angels at the moment on this one, though…
I’d just note that the Gov has long been very skeptical of racinos. From late 2007:
<
p>
Racinos add little or nothing to the state’s finances and do not provide a comparable alternative to resort casinos. Massachusetts gamblers will still head down the highway to CT, taking our tax revenues with them, to access casinos no matter how many racinos we have.
<
p>The main thing racinos are good for is paying off powerful constituents who will profit from them and, in turn, support the legislators who permit them. They don’t create many jobs, and won’t attract tourists.
<
p>I continue to think there is a good argument for a resort casino in Massachusetts, especially since a majority of voters favor it and casinos are already easy to access for anyone who wants to go to them. Not to mention that we already unequivocally support gambling in Massachusetts through the lottery. Those have the potential to create jobs and attract tourists, just as the ones in CT already do. So this position by Patrick represents my thinking too.
<
p>I suppose it depends on what you call “easy”. Lots of folks in MA don’t have an automobile, either because they are too poor or because they live and work in the Boston metro area and have decided the cost isn’t worth the value.
<
p>For those folks, getting to CT’s casinos aren’t quite so easy. Sure, renting a car is an option, as is convincing a friend to make the trip, in his or her car no less.
<
p>There’s also the distance/time factor. Not everybody lives on the Pike — for some folks, the trip to Foxwoods et al is three hours or more each way. That’s not an easy day trip to be sure.
<
p>
<
p>Again, neither barrier is 100′ tall and a mile wide — but both are barriers which would in fact be smaller if MA gets a resort casino, particularly one on the commuter rail or T.
The biggest myth about addicts of any sort is that if society only didn’t put “bad” things in front of them, they wouldn’t seek them out. Having lived with addicts of a couple sorts, I know that’s not at all the case.
<
p>If resort casinos are legalized in MA, at least we’ll be able to pull some money from their enterprise to actually address addiction (which the state budget didn’t provide for in the best of times, not to mention now). I honestly think the availability argument against casinos is negligible in the face of the money we could get to actually put towards the central addiction problem.
Lots of people are quietly addicted, not raging addicts. Some folks might now be able to get in during the week instead of just on weekends. Some folks might discover their addiction because the casino is now closer, and therefore make their first visit, something they might not have done otherwise.
<
p>Every 12 step program involves staying as far away from the substance as possible. Don’t put yourself in the situation. Wherever this casino ends up, there will be a whole lot of MA citizens who are now closer to a casino than they were previously. They’ll pass it on the highway, be exposed to even more advertising than they get now from CT/AC/LV, and so forth.
<
p>
<
p>The argument that we need casinos to fund anti-gambling-addiction programs is pure insanity. Let’s legalize (and tax) cocaine to fund anti-cocaine-addiction programs. Let’s legalize (and tax) underage drinking to fund anti-teen-drinking-programs. Let’s deregulate (and tax) Ritalin and Prozac and assorted other prescription drugs to fund anti-prescription-drug-addiction programs.
<
p>No sir. If funding anti-gambling-addiction programs is important, let’s find some other way to fund it. May I suggest… using more lottery revenues?
These two sentences –
<
p>
<
p> – don’t make sense unless I’m misinterpreting something. If someone has only been doing something on weekends that doesn’t sound like much of an addiction to me. Also do you mean make their first visit ever to a casino? You don’t just wake up one morning and discover you’re addicted to something you’ve never engaged in before. You have to start doing it first. For something like gambling where plenty of people do not have a problem, we shouldn’t treat it like hard drugs that are addictive on the first hit.
who work very, very hard at hiding their addiction — and, at least for a while, can do so reasonably well. Some of those people, for a while, may be able to limit their addiction to massive binges over weekends.
<
p>
<
p>Just like it depends on the drug, it depends on the person, too. Some people who smoke even just a few cigarettes become addicted, while others may smoke “socially” while drinking for months without becoming addicted. Some people may be able to go to a casino for years without developing an addiction to slots, others may do it over the first year, starting with going just a few times over a few months with friends, ending with going to the casino 3-4 times a week, alone, to get into “the zone.”
<
p>BTW slots are by far the fastest, most addictive form of gambling. If you don’t believe me, here’s Natasha Schull from MIT, who mentions it during her speech, as well as explains just why slots can be so addictive, so fast, for many:
<
p>
<
p>And, of course, there is no difference able to be viewed from the brain in brain scans when comparing people who have an addiction to gambling versus people who have an addiction to cocaine.
You must be misinterpreting something.
<
p>There are plenty of addicts who aren’t raging lunatic about it. They let other parts of their life suffer because of their addiction, they feel guilty/depressed by their addiction, yet they keep coming back. It’s a brain chemical dependency. Because they’re not “full-blown” they manage to cope most of the time, balancing their family, work, and their addiction. By moving their fix physically closer, you’re making it more available than it used to be.
<
p>
<
p>As for first visit, yip. You’ve got to gamble a first time to become a gambling addict. The closer the casino is, the more likely a person is to visit for the very first time — and some percent of those people will become addicts, even though were the casino farther away, they’d have never tried it in the first place, and therefore not be addicts. It’s true that this country isn’t like it was decades ago where Vegas and AC had all the action and most people were never within 500 miles of either. That gambling is more ubiquitous now does mean that fewer people will find the MassCasino to be their first opportunity — but that doesn’t change the reality for those who do become addicts thanks to the MassCasino.
<
p>It’s fine to be concerned about gambling addicts like you would be concerned about any other addict – it shows an admirable attitude toward your fellow man, in fact. I’m in total agreement that addicts should have help and support, no matter the addiction.
<
p>But you seem to be drawing a different line than I would about what an “addict” is. The statement above includes occasional (“just on weekends” etc.) gamblers in the ranks of the addicted we should be protecting, as well as people who have never gambled before but might become addicts in the future.
<
p>I’m not about to judge someone else – if they call themselves a gambling addict, I’m in no position to ask them how much they gamble in an effort to validate that claim. But by the same token, including people who have never gambled at all seems like you’re trying to protect the population at large from the “ills of gambling” . . . which is another conversation entirely.
<
p>Fighting addiction is one thing. Opposing casinos because you don’t like gaming is another. I just think we need to be careful to separate the two.
<
p>On the issue of revenue –
<
p>I’m not arguing that addiction programs are a reason to legalize casinos. I’m saying that your argument against legalizing casinos, namely that you think there will be more addiction because the casinos will be a couple hours drive closer to MA, is partly addressed by revenues we would get for such programs.
<
p>And I like your idea of funding addiction programs through existing lottery funds . . . think the legislature will go for that? (Neither do I.) We’ve got to be realistic – new revenue streams are necessary if we’re going to get any of a number of things done.
Somebody who gambles “just on weekends” is not an occasional gambler in my book. I have no idea what the national numbers are, but I’d bet that the vast majority of people within a 150 mile radius visit casinos fewer than three times per year. I think it’s fair to include “just on weekend” gamblers in the set of gamblers who are addicted. Note I’m not claiming that every “just on weekend” gambler is an addict; rather that there are plenty of “just on weekend” gamblers who are addicts.
<
p>
<
p>As far as not an addict yet: look, if there was this easy to administer foolproof test that would tell a person if they’re an addict or not, having never partaken, then I’d say let’s just require that people (who show up at the casino) take the test, and then do what they want. At least they’d be informed. The fact is, we don’t have this magic device and, as a result, we know that by putting a casino closer to people that more people will go gamble for the first time, including those who will become addicts. I don’t give a hoot about the majority of gamblers who do it responsibly. I care deeply about the minority who are addicted, and bring pain and suffering to themselves, their families, and the community surrounding the casino.
<
p>So while I agree about the need to separate addiction vs. dislike, I disagree about the ramifications of that need.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know what to write — I’ve re-read what you wrote a few times, and I keep coming to that same conclusion. Arguing that we can use some of the revenue from allowing a destructive situation to partially remedy the destruction just seems fit for Alice and Wonderland.
<
p>
<
p>1. I don’t buy into this faux limit on what the legislature will go for.
2. There are many other ways to bring in new revenue which don’t also bring up costs. I don’t see why we shouldn’t do those first.
Slots within 50 miles doubles the rate of people with an addiction to gambling — from 2.5% to 5% of the total population. There’s an even greater inflation to those who the government places as “at risk” of becoming problem gamblers. We certainly do have people with gambling problems in Massachusetts now, but doubling the problem in the hopes of getting more revenue to deal with it is an ass-backwards way of dealing with the problem. It would be like increasing the pool of drivers by legalizing driving for anyone tall enough to see over the steering wheel to fund programs for bad drivers.
Check it out:
<
p>
Because that $15 KENO means you’re coming home with none of that. You do get $15 in food though.
what essentially amounts to $30 in advertising expenses (though it doesn’t cost them $30 — just cost) to come bring them a bus load of customers. Dollars to donuts that $30 can probably be a tax write-off, too.
Bus to Mohegan Sun, including a meal and two free bets, $10-20:
http://www.mohegansun.com/gett…
http://www.mohegansun.com/gett…
<
p>If somebody wants to get to a casino, it IS easy. Building new ones closer will make it easier. I do not see that as a good thing.
It may be “easy” for some people to go visit Foxwoods 1 or 2 times a year. It would be “easy” for them to go to the Massachusetts casino 1 or 2 times a week, which is the part of the business model for casinos which make them profitable.
<
p>We already have plenty of gambling options for people to partake in today, which have far more limited effects on local businesses and communities. At the very, very least, we need to have a comprehensive, independent analysis on all the costs and benefits before we allow this destructive industry in.
<
p>Check out this article, Bob, and tell me how you think casinos will be a ‘big winner’ for communities surrounding the casino.
Everyday something new to make one appalled at how the legislature in this state works. Set aside how one feels about the substance of the legislation. Two years ago (almost to the day), a casino bill gets anniliated 108 to 46. Now we’re talking about how a largely similar bill is going to pass with a veto-proof majority. Sal got what he wanted; now Bobby D will get what he wants. The rest of the room-temperature-IQ lemmies will fall in line behind whatever the leadership wants.
<
p>The “progressive caucus” types voted unanimously to kill the bill the last time around. I wonder how many will oppose it this time?
I don’t think the Speaker has the votes for the bill yet, even in his own house.
But experience has shown, as the saying goes, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Mass state legislators….
I heard DeLeo on the news pleading for this on behalf of the jobs it will presumably create. Really, Bob? How many? Enough to make up for the laid-off and furloughed state workers?
<
p>The “jobs” excuse has become the new “Buy this product or I’ll kill this dog”.
<
p>If anyone was sincere about saving or creating jobs, he or she would be proposing a better education system, not a cheaper one; or investment in world-class public transportation instead of wasting our money keeping a shabby, broken-down system on life support.
<
p>The “jobs” meme is a time-honored ruse of the “trickle-down” Supply-Siders, and when Democrats are disingenuous about this, they indirectly give aid and comfort to the enemy, for whom this kind of cynicism is their stock in trade.
the idea that we spend $1.7 billion a year on ‘tax credits’ that are supposed to be for job creation, without even doing the numbers and research on that $1.7 billion to even make sure that this money is being efficiently and intelligently spent, speaks to the fact that Speaker DeLeo is not really very serious about job creation.
<
p>I find it hard to imagine that this $1.7 billion/year wouldn’t be better spent, both for the people of this state AND job creation, by investing half of it in public transportation (solving the T’s debt problems) and our public university system, which is funded at 49th out of 50th per capita out of all states in this country. Public transportation and public higher education are two of the most important facets of job creation a state can invest in, because that’s precisely what attracts new businesses and start-ups to the state, and more than 80% of people who graduate from public schools stay in state — whereas a great deal less than half of people who attend our private schools end up staying here after graduating.
<
p>Heck, we could give $10,000 in need-based academic scholarships to 40,000 students in the public higher ed system and that would be less than a quarter of that $1.7 billion… who wants to make a bet on whether or not that would do a lot more to attract qualified, excellent students into our public higher ed system, many of whom wouldn’t otherwise attend college or would attend private schools, quite possibly in other states?
<
p>40,000 students, btw, would actually be more students in the system than graduate or earn certificates in a year (at least in 2006)… many of whom don’t finish in time because they can’t afford to, especially in this economy. If ever there was a way to turn the UMASS system into something that rivals the University of California system, this is it.
<
p>This is to speak nothing about the possibilities of adding $850 million to public transportation. Imagine what we could do with that?! Train to New Bedford? Green line and blue line extensions? How about this… reliable service, while reducing fees for once (after knocking off some of that long-term Big-Dig debt the MBTA never wanted and didn’t ask for).
and few so strongly support this governor.
<
p>So long as he continues to do a good job as governor and promises not to support racinos and slot parlors, I highly doubt this will change. I know United to Stop Slots-Mass was very happy the Governor continued to strongly oppose racinos and slot parlors, and were even more happy with his decision to support their call for a full, comprehensive, independent cost/benefits analysis, using updated numbers and figures for this economy. He’s the only one of the state’s “Big Three” to do so thus far.