At a heavily attended morning press conference, Speaker Robert DeLeo detailed his plan to increase crime in Massachusetts.
In addition to authorizing two resort casinos and up to 750 slot machines at the state’s four race tracks, DeLeo’s plan proposes dramatic increases in both money laundering and enterprise crime.
The plan also requires taxpayers to fund two new crime fighting agencies – a new Division of Gaming Enforcement in the attorney general’s office, and a gaming enforcement unit within the State Police.
In anticipation of gross negative impacts to host communities, DeLeo’s plan authorizes a special Community Mitigation Fund, which would be funded by a one-time payment of $15 million from licensing fees, and 2 percent of the tax on gross gaming revenue. At least until the State needs more money, or the first dip in gambling revenues. Or both.
The plan also provides for a series of other special funds to pay for gambling addiction management services, capital projects, manufacturing, community colleges, tourism, economic stabilization, education, the arts, open space, animal husbandry, charity bingo, mosquito spraying, greyhound adoption, toys for tots, urban renewal, cold fusion, necromancy, economic stimulus, elective plastic surgery, clam bakes, medical experiments and various regional tractor pulls, with room to include any other special interests that would help the speaker attain the votes he needs.
These special funds would also be financed by a portion of one-time licensing fees and a minuscule, unspecified percentage of future gambling revenues. The Speaker anticipates that these accounts will be fully funded until the State needs more money.
Immediately following the press conference, House Minority Leader Brad Jones called it a “good starting point.” He said in a statement, “Because, not only does Beacon Hill have some of the best minds you could find anywhere, but I’m also confident that we can work together in a bipartisan manner to make Massachusetts the first place in America, or the world for that matter, to actually do gambling legislation ‘right’.”
“It doesn’t sound like enough slots, from what I heard,” stated Sen. Michael Morrissey, “From everything I’ve heard, the more slots – the more money we legislators get to spend, so why not go for it.” When Morrissey was asked how many slots he’d like to see, he suggested, “somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty to thirty million. Yeah. That’d be good. No. Forty Million. No wait. Fifty. Fifty… Fifty-Five million slot machines.”
Plainridge Racecourse chief operating office Gary Piontkowski told the News Service he believed 2010 was finally the year he’d realize his long-held dream of lowering the State’s expectations to his own. Asked if 750 slot machines were sufficient since previous proposals had recommended 2,000 per track. Piotkowski said, “I always thought a good number was around 1,500. But It is what is is. No complaints here. As long as the industry gets a toehold, we’ll see those numbers go up soon enough.”
This anti-gaming hysteria is the mirror image of the religious right’s hysteria following Goodrich.
<
p>Those guys were screaming that society would come to an end because the state allowed consenting adults of the same sex to marry, if they chose to do so. Now we have a proposal that allows consenting adults to spend their free time and money in a casino or slot parlor, if they choose to do so, and the wails of an impending societal collapse are coming from the left. The world didn’t end after Goodrich and the world won’t end after legalized gambling.
By pointing out a few of the costs in a humorous way, it can be poignant. A la John Stewart.
<
p>No, we’re not all going to die, but I don’t think whether or not we’ll all die should be the measure of whether or not we allow slot machines in Massachusetts. Do you?
<
p>Shouldn’t such a policy only be allowed if it would be good for the state? We need a full and independent cost-benefits analysis. If you think slots are such a great idea, in the words of great gambling cliches, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and actually support a comprehensive cost-benefits analysis? If it is such a good idea, as you claim, surely you have nothing to lose.
Slot and casino revenue is not a responsible way to build a government budget. My support for gaming is because I believe that consenting adults can decide for themselves what to do with their free time and money. If they want to go to art shows or the theater, great. If they want to hang around in a casino and waste money, I have no problem with that. As for their impact on society, pretty much everything causes traffic and crime. Bars, IKEA, Fenway Park, you name it. The revenues generated probably aren’t going to be a financial panacea, but will certainly be enough to mitigate the impact of expanded gaming.
Personally, I don’t care for casinos. They bore me. (Horse racing is another matter.) But I’m not going to begrudge another person his or her right to visit one.
You’re not even intellectually curious about the pros and cons of an industry that’s a state-sanctioned monopoly, that puts moms and pops out of business and that sells a product which literally doubles the rate of gambling addiction to a full 5% of the population within 50 miles of the casino, representing 20-30% of the people on a casino floor at any given time, according to Professor Natasha Schull of MIT.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>No one’s trying to deny people from crossing the border any time they’d like, buying a scratch ticket or gamble in any number of other ways in this state, which are 100% legal and easily accessible. The only thing that’s the question is if we should allow an industry in that has severe competitive advantages over local and small businesses and would put them under, and which sells a product that literally (according to federal statistics) doubles the addiction rate within 50 miles. The casinos don’t make much money from day or weekend trippers traveling from Massachusetts to Connecticut; they make the bulk of their profits off the backs of a few players within a short area around the casino. That’s why they want to build here.
<
p>I get the libertarian argument of not preventing people from doing what they want to do, but this decision is not being made in a vacuum, so stop pretending. There’s plenty of options people already have on the table, so we have to look at this particular proposal on the merits of whether or not it makes good policy. In that regard, it probably fails, but I’m willing to see a full and complete, independent cost-benefits analysis.
<
p>
<
p>”Probably aren’t going to be a financial panacea?” So, you think there’s a chance they could be? Wow. I’m sorry, but you’ve drunk the kool-aid. Let me ask you this question: What two things do NY, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all have in common? They all have slots and they all have higher taxes than Massachusetts. Casinos have long been billed as a way out for many states, but not a single one of those states have solved their budget problems with casinos, despite their promises to the contrary.
<
p>As for covering the mitigating expenses — if you were willing to do the research on this, you’d find out that you’re probably wrong. People who have really studied this issue, such as Professors Kindt or Goodman, would say that the revenue they generate won’t even come close to covering the expenses of mitigating the problem, but then again, you don’t seem to want to let the facts get in the way. Some studies have actually shown that for every dollar of revenue raised, there’s $3 dollars in costs. Yet, you don’t even want the state to study the issue.
<
p>What happened to you? You used to be a much more thoughtful poster and person.
This certainly wasn’t me…
Hence the “mirror image” phrase.
Maybe we just happen to care about our communities. Maybe we’ve done our homework. Maybe we’d just like to educate our legislators to the potential dangers of this industry before they convene behind closed doors to do whatever they want.
<
p>And, as far as casinos being the same as an IKEA or Fenway… I don’t believe either of those places require it’s own separate State regulatory agency to battle crime. The New Jersey Attorney General’s office requires it’s own Division of Gaming Enforcement, and the New Jersey State Police maintains a separate “Special Investigation Section” which includes a separate unit for Casino Investigations, Special Investigations, Financial Crimes Investigation, and Casino Services. Obviously, if there were no increase in crimes due to casino gambling, there would be no need for these agencies.
<
p>In February, before a casino even opened in Cleveland, the FBI showed up to warn of potential dangers.
<
p>
<
p>In a letter to the mayor of Fort Wayne, an Indiana State Prosecutor revealed what she had learned from prosecutors in gambling communities.
<
p>And it goes on, and on and on.
<
p>There is a reason this is a hotly debated, controversial industry, and it’s certainly not because it’s harmless.