Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

DeLeo ups the ante on racinos

By

HT to MassLib for the link to a State House News story showing just how dug in Speaker DeLeo appears to be on getting slots at the tracks included in an expanded gambling bill, despite the opposition of both the Senate President and the Governor.

“I just can’t be persuaded,” DeLeo said. “As the governor and others may have trouble being persuaded about having the slots, I can’t be persuaded that we shouldn’t have the slots. The casinos are going to have slot machines, so I really, really can’t understand the difficulty with it.”

And what’s really worrisome is the strong suggestion from DeLeo that if he doesn’t get his way on racinos, he will bottle up the rest of the bills still pending in this year’s rapidly waning legislative session (all formal business is supposed to be concluded by the end of July).

Asked whether he planned to block other legislation as a way of leveraging racinos into the bill, DeLeo replied, “Through the last weeks of session, there’s going to be a whole host of issues and pieces of legislation that sort of become intertwined in conference.”

“It’s inevitable that a lot of the legislation becomes intertwined, especially as you’re getting down to the final days of the session,” DeLeo said. “And, again, I just want to reiterate, as I did yesterday, jobs and local aid are very, very important to me, and I presume they’re important also to the governor and Senate president.”

“Intertwined.”  Of course, there’s actually no reason why racinos should be “intertwined” with, say, criminal justice bills, or health care bills, or anything else that’s not related to gambling.  They are intertwined only because DeLeo wants them to be intertwined.

DeLeo’s position is starting to look pretty simple.  You give me racinos, and I’ll give you your crime bills and all the other stuff you want.  No racinos, no deal.

Nice.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Really. Fantastic from the spectator’s point of view.

    <

    p>Two possibilities;

    <

    p>1. Nobody gets anything, and

    <

    p>2. A casino(s) with some $$$ from slots going to tracks.

    <

    p>Depending on where Deleo wants to end up after his speakership, I see either one happening.

    <

    p>DeLeo Rules!

  2. Given the checkered history of the office the Speaker holds, one might reasonably ask exactly what the legislator stands to gain in return for delivering slot machines to the racetrack. Nostalgia is presumably not all there is to tell in this story.  

    • Even with nothing shady going on what he gets at least in theory is the ability to say he delivered.  Yet another demonstration of how one Representative elected by just 1/160th of the MA population wields way too much power just because he also wields a gavel.  I know there are a lot of people here who don’t like the Governor’s casino stance much better, but he can burnish his outsider image from his first campaign if he publicly scolds DeLeo for holding up the people’s business.

      •  The chance that he won’t get re-elected is slim to none, so I don’t think that argument carries enough weight, although I’ll grant you some PR value.

        <

        p>If he had a few fierce challengers in the wings, or was coming off a brutal primary fight, your point would make more sense.

        <

        p>Grandstanding at this level carries a price, something has to be making it worth his while. Ernie, typically, understands: this is the key line in his comment “Depending on where Deleo wants to end up after his speakership.”

        • $10,000s in political donations to he and his PACs. That’s not nothing, but it’s not illegal, either. After having 3 indicted Speakers in a row, you’re right not to be naive, but I’d like to hope the Speaker is smart enough not to be this obvious, were he to be crossing the legal line, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt on this matter — that he’s pushing this for his friends and allies in the district, who’ve done a lot to put him in the seat of power he finds himself now, not because of DiMasi-like reasons.

  3. As his re-election race heats up heading into the fall, this will be that last legislative activity in peoples memory.  IMHO, he should call Deleo’s bluff and risk gridlock.  Capitulating to the Speaker’s ardent desire to give his friends and neighbors the gift of a no-bid license to print money would be a political disaster of the highest order- especially after Patrick’s tough talk on the issue in recent days.  People will tolerate a lot of things in an Executive, but being a wimp who gets pushed around & steamrolled when challenged is not one of them.    

  4. Thursday —

    The decision to close the casino talks, approved by a unanimous vote, drew sharp criticism from lawmakers opposed to expanded gambling, six of who attended the State House meeting only to be asked to leave.

    “The Senate, actually, was quite proud of its days and days of open debate and transparency,” said Sen. Susan Tucker (D-Andover). “And that makes this particularly sad that in the final hours they’re closing off the public and other legislators.”

    Tucker said she had served on two conference committees during her career and said she didn’t remember taking a vote to close them.

    “I don’t know of any instance in which a closed-door conference committee was allowed to share with a member of the Legislature or the public what happened behind closed doors,” added Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Medford), who joined Tucker and Reps. Steve D’Amico (D-Seekonk), Matthew Patrick (D-Falmouth), Denise Provost (D-Somerville) and William Brownsberger (D-Belmont) for the 30-second-long public portion of negotiations.

    Added D’Amico, “I think government and taxpayers would be better served if all conference committees were open.”

    Senator Rosenberg, who would like to pretend this process has been transparent, when it hasn’t, and has included the public, which it hasn’t, SHNS reports —

    At the conference meeting, Rosenberg made the motion to close the meeting and said he hoped negotiators could “get to yes as quickly as possible.”

    Earlier in the week, SHNS announced –

    The House on Monday appointed its negotiators: Economic Development Committee chair Brian Dempsey, division leader KathiAnne Reinstein, whose district abuts DeLeo’s, and GOP Rep. Paul Frost, who represents a central Massachusetts district. The Senate named Senate President Pro Tempore Stanley Rosenberg, the chamber’s point man on gambling policy, Senate budget chair Steven Panagiotakos, and Sen. Richard Ross, who represents the district that includes Plainridge Racecourse.

    Of the six conferees, four – Dempsey, Reinstein, Frost and Ross – support racinos, eyed as a key bargaining point between the House and Senate as a variety of other bills near the finish line.

    <

    p>Friday —

    Opponents of expanded gambling say the disagreement about whether the final gambling proposal should be an “appropriations bill” underscores their concerns about the closed-door nature of the Legislature’s negotiations.

    “The lack of clarity about whether this is an appropriations bill or not, the lack of clarity about what this will really cost the citizens and the fact that it’s happening behind closed doors in conference committee are all signs that this is going to be a bad deal for the citizens of Massachusetts,” said Laura Everett, associate director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches.

    Kathleen Conley Norbut, president of United to Stop Slots Massachusetts, said the discrepancy is about “the politics, not about public policy.”

    “Where is the trust to the public of the understanding of what these folks are doing behind closed doors?” she said. “This is a major, major public policy change. What we’re seeing again and again is political machinations in this alleged era of ethics and transparency. The real options are behind closed doors.”

    <

    p>This is consistent with the process that has been conducted behind closed doors and legislation that has been crafted with the input of the Gambling Industry.

    <

    p>The bill caters to vested interests, at the expense of taxpayers.

    <

    p>No public hearings were conducted by the House.

    <

    p>The Hearings conducted by the Senate were a Sham on Democracy! Casino Proponents were permited to speak endlessly, while opponents were gaveled at the conclusion of their 3 minutes.

    <

    p>Not one person is able to provide the costs of the BLOATED REGULATORY BUREAUCRACY that will be created by this legislation. After the recent Probation Department scandal, this is just another bureaucracy that will be filled with hacks and relatives.

    <

    p>Money spent locally has a ‘multiplier effect’ – you go to a local restaurant, the waitress goes to a local hairdresser, who goes to a local mechanic, you get the point.

    <

    p>Not so with Slot Parlors (casinos) that suck discretionary spending out of the local economy.

    <

    p>The costs for a new gambling regulatory commission in comparable states (there is no exact apples:apples) are between $20 million and $50 million per year. The Speaker’s Special Interest Gambling Bill provides $5 Million.

    <

    p>The costs for expansion of the AG’s department for surveillance, oversight, prosecution, equipment and personnel for an entirely new category of enterprise and organized crime statutes is – not included or considered in the bill.

    <

    p>The costs for expansion of the MA state police for a new department, equipment, personnel is -not included or considered in the bill.

    <

    p>The costs for expansion of the local/regional impacted law enforcement departments for equipment, personnel is – not included or considered in the bill.

    <

    p>The costs for district courts, DA departments, Sheriffs, Corrections – not included or considered in the bill.

    <

    p>The mitigation for directly impacted muncipalities is $15 Million in the Speaker’s Special Interest Gambling Bill. The WMCAT that has studied these proposals extensively (ad nauseum) has identified a MINIMUM of $50 million needed PER impacted casino region.

    <

    p>The costs for gambling treatment articulated by the Mass Council on Compulsive Gambling was over $30 Million per year. The Speaker’s Special Interest Gambling Bill provides $5 Million.

    <

    p>This is a net loser for the Commonwealth that will cost more than the overinflated revenues that have been presented.

    <

    p>Let’s start a conversation about how these proposals benefit a select few and the taxpayers subsidize the long-term impacts and costs. Not one state with legalized slots and casinos is in better fiscal shape than the Commonwealth.

    <

    p>Let’s talk about the conduct we’re willing to accept on Beacon Hill.  

  5. That’s what Middleboro Review is referring to… and MR’s right. Connecticut’s budget is ugly. They’re facing a shortfall amounting to 29.5% of their entire state budget.

    <

    p>Only seven states in the country face a budget deficit that’s a higher percentage of their overall budget — and six out of those seven have slots (Arizona 35.3%, Illinois 31.6%, Maine 32.1%, North Carolina 30.5%, New Jersey 37.4% and Nevada 56%).  

    <

    p>Massachusetts, on the other hand, is facing a budget deficit that’s only 8.5% of its budget — which may sound like a lot, but only 6 states in the entire country, as well as the District of Columbia, are doing any better. I don’t think the budget shortfalls have everything to do with legalizing slots, but when the three states with the most slots also have three of the highest deficits in the country as a percentage of their budget, I think that’s kind of telling. This is not good policy.

  6. A recent article in the Wall Street detailed how Foxwoods is unable to repay their 2B debt.  Especially if the Foxwoods debt goes bad, there is no way the  Massachusetts Casinos will get private financing. So the state will step in and finance them, more crony capitalism.

    <

    p>All the deliberations on this bill are going on behind closed doors – while the people who run the cities and towns (and mostly volunteers) got hit this July with more open meeting regulations.

    <

    p>

    • Remember Ed Markey as a rep bucking the then-Speaker?  The Speaker stripped him of his committee assignments, stripped him of his staff, and all he had left was his vote and a desk in the hallway…

      <

      p>Today that Speaker is a forgotten ugly blotch on our State history – while Markey went on to become a powerful Congressman. (No, I don’t give old blotches publicity by putting their names on the net).

      <

      p>Markey famously used “He can tell me where to sit, he cannot tell me how to vote” and a video of that lonely desk in the hallway in his campaign.

      <

      p>Just saying…where are the “brass balls” in this legislature?  Like citizens, really, all legislators have is their VOTE.

      • Giving no-bid racino licenses to two venues in DeLeo’s district gives voters one more reason to be angry at House members in the fall. Maybe that has something to do with Murray and Patrick’s decision to not support DeLeo’s plan. Promising casino revenues will be used to offset cuts to local aid is a joke given the track record of the Legislature for keeping promises. Sitting in traffic as I migrate thru traffic as a group of degenerate gamblers leaves Suffolk Downs and Wonderland sounds like a ton of fun.

        <

        p>Just wondering who benefits from racinos? Is it the little guy who lost his job when dog racing ended at Wonderland or is it the owners of these venues?

        <

        p>I say no thanks to racinos at Suffolk Downs and Wonderland. There are no promises that can be made to satisfy the above concerns.

        • I was talking to a Beacon Hill powerbroker last night.

          <

          p>The Senate, he said, gets it. The House has yet to grasp the idea that racinos is a no-bid option.

          <

          p>Suffolk Downs doesn’t see slots as complementary to horse racing. I don’t think they’d turn them down, but they’d rather compete for a real casino.  

  7. …well unless you use phony numbers.

    <

    p>Senator Tucker’s simple math is here:
    http://middlebororemembers.blo…

    <

    p>From Senator Tucker:

    “People have a vision of a resort with hotels and golf courses, but $600 million will get you slots in a box,”

    <

    p>http://middlebororemembers.blo…

    <

    p>The Speaker had Spectrum Gaming update the report they prepared for the Governor (initial cost: $189,000. Cost of update: unknown)  

    <

    p>That update is predicated on a 2 hour drive time.
    Evidence proves otherwise.

    <

    p>

    · 95 percent of patrons at the Bangor, Maine casino live within 35-50 miles. 97 percent live in Maine. (Maine Public Broadcasting Network, Interview with Mike Peters, April 13, 2007).

    · A survey of Illinois riverboat gamblers conducted in 1995 found that 85 percent lived within 50 miles of the floating casino at which they were gambling.1

    · A study by Iowa State University reported that 94 percent of gamblers at the Prairie Meadows Race Track and Casino in Des Moines came from within the state; nearly two-thirds came from the county in which the racetrack is located.2

    · A survey of gamblers inside a Kansas City, Missouri, casino found that 88 percent lived within 45 minutes of the casino.3 Another survey of Kansas City casinos, which are located on or near the Missouri River across from the Kansas border, found that 94 percent of cars in the casino parking lots bore either Missouri or Kansas license plates.4

    · Eighty percent of Wisconsin casino revenues come from Wisconsin residents, according to a study released in 1995.5

    · The 1995 United States Survey of Gaming and Gambling gives further evidence that casinos are primarily a local draw. The survey found that among respondents with a casino in or near their community, 40 percent gambled in the past year, compared to only 17 percent of those who lived at least 100 miles from a casino. Further, among casino gamblers, 42 percent of those with a casino in or near their community gambled at least every three months, compared with only 17 percent of casino gamblers living 100 miles away from a casino.6

    · At the short-lived New Orleans land-based casino, local residents made up 60 percent of the clientele.7

    · According to gambling researcher William Thompson, a professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, “(Casinos) have a negative impact on the community unless 50 percent of the gamblers come from out of state.”8

    http://middlebororemembers.blo…

    <

    p>“Destination Resort Casinos” are a thing of the past. Most traffic is local, like Parx —

    <

    p>The McDonald’s of Gambling:
    http://middlebororemembers.blo…

    <

    p>

    Parx president Dave Jonas says his revenue comes almost exclusively from local low rollers.

    “We underestimated significantly how many trips our customers were going to make,” Jonas said at last month’s Pennsylvania Gaming Congress in Valley Forge.

    “When I was in Atlantic City, to have 12 to 15 trips out of customers, they were VIPs,” Jonas said. At Parx, “it’s not uncommon for us to have 150 to 200 trips.”

    Moderator Michael Pollock, a well-regarded casino analyst, paused to digest the statistic.

    “You said 150 to 200 times a year,” he repeated. “That’s three to four times a week, essentially.”

    “Yes,” Jonas confirmed, most of his players fit that profile. In fact, because Parx players tend to live within 20 miles of Street Road, many go even more frequently.

    “We have customers,” Jonas boasted, “who give us $25, $30 five times a week.”

    <

    p>The most recent hastily prepared report for Senator Rosenberg cost $80,000 and mirrors his comments. Coincidence?  

    <

    p>Beacon Hill has spent + $300,000 on reports prepared by and for the Gambling Industry, but has yet to commission an Independent Cost/Benefit Analysis.

    <

    p>When you conduct the people’s business behind closed doors, you have something to hide.  

  8. posters are capable of a higher level of comprehension, IMO.

    <

    p>The Gambling Industry has spent buckets on polling – it’s not Gambling, it’s Gaming. It’s not a Slot Parlor, it’s a Destination Resort. At one point, there was another euphemistic name that must have polled well – something like “Regional Entertainment Center” that just happened to have slots.

    <

    p>If Slots are so wonderful what happened to Atlantic City?
    http://middlebororemembers.blo…

    <

    p>Or Las Vegas?
    http://middlebororemembers.blo…

    <

    p>This is a Predatory Industry based on Addiction.

    <

    p>90% of the profits come from 10% of the players.

    <

    p>Using the Industry’s own estimates of 6% of the population becoming Addicted, that’s 308,000 Massachusetts residents and families.

    <

    p>Toyota recalled 8 million vehicles because 89 people died.
    Why would we willingly support an Industry that we know, by their estimates, will harm 308,000 families?

    <

    p>There’s some pretty impressive information available here:
    http://www.uss-mass.org/

    <

    p>

  10. … finally wake up enough of his fellow Reps to vote him out of Speaker? Is his iron fist so strong that his one trick pony will avoid any real challenges to his leadership?

    <

    p>It is my opinion that he needs to be demoted by his colleagues.

    • The Speaker promoted bobble heads to committee chairmenships with larger offices, more staff and a better view to go along with increased $$$.

      <

      p>Why rock the boat?

      <

      p>Just for the public? Just to protest the imposition of tyranny? closed door meetings with Industry? lack of public input?

      <

      p>There are a few who possess the integrity to stand up and speak out, but far too few. Maybe we elected the others for the wrong reasons.

  11. No matter who wields the gavel its the same tune: “iron fist” “bobbleheads” “undemocratic” “monarchy” “lemmings” “special interests”…………………

    <

    p>Did we describe Pelosi in these terms during federal health care reform voting – or the Governor and Legislative leadership during gay marriage? OR when Deleo delivered the votes on taxes for the budget?

    <

    p>Just wondering.

Archives