Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Lawmakers see eye to eye on gambling bill, fail to notice iceberg

By

Yesterday, members of the House and Senate conference committee reached an agreement on a gambling bill for 3 casinos and slots at 2 of the State’s race tracks.

In other news, Wonderland and Suffolk Downs have decided to combine operations and bid for a single casino licence – ironically leaving only Plainridge and Raynham to “bid” for the remaining 2 “competetive” racino licences.

Governor Patrick, meanwhile, insists he can’t sign the bill as it is now, preferring to reserve executive outrage for additional 750 slot machines, rather than the crime, addiction, corruption, tribal casinos, growth in government, reduction in the lottery, social harm and other collateral damage that any expanded gambling bill would cause.

Bill as it stands would result in a total of seven gambling establishments – three commercial casinos, two commercial slot parlors, and at minimum, 2 tribal casinos – to be controlled “through regulation” – two of which will be exempt from local and state law, in a State ranked seventh smallest in the U.S.

As the session comes to a close the remainder of the State legislature appears anxious to head off on their 5-month paid vacation, with a majority professing complete confidence in number of lifeboats.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. This may surprise you given my previous comments on the issue.  I am still theoretically OK with the concept of casinos and I still don’t like it when people turn this discussion into an all out round of Governor-bashing.  However, given all that has gone on to get to this point, especially the apparent lack of interest in adding some regulatory caveats I’ve suggested and the leadership’s holding other business hostage I believe now would be a perfect time for the Governor, who himself will soon go into full campaign mode, to stand up to the General Court and insist that this is being handled the wrong way.

    • There are NO regulatory controls that can be added that will remain permanent.

      <

      p>Senator Tucker testified to that effect on the Senate Floor. What is passed now, will change next year.

      <

      p>Before the ink is dry, the Industry already knows how, when and where they will expand.

      <

      p>Anyone who examines the history of SLOTS anywhere can see -first Riverboats floating down the river, then they’re docked, then racinos, then racing is eliminated to make more profits, then more sites.

      <

      p>For $600 million, you get a SLOT BARN – not a casino and surely not that elegant DESTINATION RESORT CASINO that’s promoted.

      <

      p>I had the very sad privilege of attending the first week of the Senate Hearings, surrounded by lobbyists whose suits cost more than my entire wardrobe.

      <

      p>In their arrogance, they were on their cell phones instructing what they would accept and what they wouldn’t accept. This wasn’t democracy in action, but rather the GAMBLING INDUSTRY dictating their terms.

      <

      p>Your voice was NEVER heard because they simply don’t care.

      <

      p>Harrah’s determined that 90% of their profits come from 10% of their patrons. They then targeted, marketed, pursued, promoted and did what they had to in order to create loyalty and compel those patrons to “PLAY TO EXTINCTION” – until their last dime was gone.
      (“Winner Takes All” by Christina Binkley)

      <

      p>Harrah’s tracked customers and knew their visiting pattern.

      <

      p>If you went weekly and didn’t appear, a friendly voice called to solicit your attendance – ‘we miss you.’

      <

      p>Harrah’s tracks customers in ‘real time’ as they play.

      <

      p>You start to lose and get depressed?

      <

      p>A trained employee soothes your mood with a free drink, free meal to keep you feeding the reverse ATM machine.

      <

      p>The Industry ONLY exists because it creates ADDICTION.

      <

      p>Why would support government sponsored ADDICTION ?  

        • duplicating that of Beacon Hill – secret closed door meetings, lack of transparency, details hastily tossed together creating a “Slap Dash” package few have time to review (come on! Friday night release and vote on it Saturday?), no public hearings and much else, it might just arouse the suspicions of a few folks that all is not right.

          <

          p>In Middleboro, voters were gaveled to silence by our very own “Gavel Queen” – noted by the media. We were not allowed to ask questions. No INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS was EVER conducted.

          <

          p>The Agreement was crammed through. Little debate.

          <

          p>Hot summer day! Open field, and so on. Agreement handed to voters are they entered.

          <

          p>That’s how the Industry operates. Because they have to.

          <

          p>Too much transparency, too much time allows voters to consider that this is a loser.

          <

          p>Some of us have moved on to consider the impacts of SLOT BARNS around the country.

          <

          p>It’s pretty ugly!

          <

          p>That’s why the legislature opposed an INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. You might suddenly realize, as a taxpayer, you’re going to subsidize wealthy investors.

          <

          p>A federal study determined that for every $1 in revenue provided by gambling, the cost to taxpayers is $3.

          <

          p>It is reasonable to assume that the same Gambling Vultures circling the Commonwealth that have businesses elsewhere will not suddenly become benevolent.

          <

          p>They won’t stop the drunks they have plied with free alcohol before they get on the road – remember, this is a 24/7/365 business that serves alcohol 24/7/365 – well, except Beacon Hill is pretending to stop serving briefly is permanent. It’s not. Drunk Drivers

          <

          p>We recently had 5 State Troopers injured by drunken drivers, one tragically killed.

          <

          p>That’s just for starters.

          <

          p>How about Children?

          <

          p>Or Low Wage Jobs?

          <

          p>How about Atlantic City

          <

          p>How about Las Vegas ?

          <

          p>This is what I wrote —

          Anyone who examines the history of SLOTS anywhere can see -first Riverboats floating down the river, then they’re docked, then racinos, then racing is eliminated to make more profits, then more sites.

          <

          p>There is no crystal ball, Christopher.

          <

          p>This will not end where you think it will, but continue to GROW – Senator Rosenberg has publicly acknowleged that there is NO way to limit the numbers. ABSOLUTELY NO WAY except by Constitutional Amendment which they have no interest in doing.

          • …that at least I am acting in good faith.  I also believe the Governor is acting in good faith, though I’m not as sure about some legislators.  It should go without saying that I in no way endorse the methods you describe at the beginning of this comment.  In fact that is largely why I’ve soured on this particular round, but that’s different from supporting or opposing the concept.  Not sure why it has to end a certain way or require a constitutional amendment.  The legislature can and should know when and where to draw the line and should have absolute authority to issue or not issue licenses.  Maybe we need to re-examine tribal privileges altogether if that’s what you’re refering to.

        • when you examine the history of casinos and slots in other states. Look at Twin River in RI. It follows the pattern that MR describes. The RI legislature accepts the promises of the gambling lobbyists and approves the slot parlor. Now, five years later, the parlor is bankrupt, the promises of thousands of jobs are unkept, and the gambling lobbyists are threatening that their contribution to the state’s revenues will be drastically reduced if MA gets casinos, so Twin River should become a casino.  

          • There is nothing written in the stars that says that MA MUST necessarily follow the route of RI.  One thing that’s always annoyed me a bit about this line of argument is that it is a lot of slippery-slopism, which we were taught in our classes on philosophy an argument constitutes one of the most egregious examples of logical fallacy.  I prefer to argue one thing at a time.  If the industry comes back and says we need looser standards THEN is the time to say “this far and no more!”

            • the slot barns will already be built, the regulatory bureaucracy will be hired, the state will be basing its budget on the projected tax revenue, the addict population will be growing, and it will be too goddamn late to make any of it work to our advantage.

              <

              p>There are real-life situations that get suddenly, irreversibly worse once a threshold is crossed, and this is one of them. Please, just look at the history of casinos and slots. You appear to have not done that, and basing your argument on what you learned about logical fallacies in your philosophy class is not serving you well here.

            • operations.

              <

              p>Guess what the bankruptcy court allowed?

              <

              p>I seem to recall that alcohol service will cease for a short period each day – much like the initial Beacon Hill Follies. Is it 20 minutes? (Sorry! I’m not even inclined to look it up any more because they eventually get what they want.)

              <

              p>And they finally got rid of the dogs.

              <

              p>Local control is gone.

              <

              p>You have this naive notion that somehow ‘we can get it right.’

              <

              p>Find a state that has and let me know. Please! I’ve been looking for 3 years and haven’t found one yet.

              <

              p>A federal report determined that for every $1 in gambling revenue, the cost to taxpayers is $3. Not my words.

              <

              p>This is a Predatory Business that depends on creating GAMBLING ADDICTION for its profits.

              <

              p>Without creating ADDICTION, there is no business.

              <

              p>It depends on convincing patrons to “Play to extinction” -their words, not mine.

              <

              p>It sucks every last dollar out of the local economy, increases crime and pretends it’s benevolent.

              <

              p>Because the job and revenue figures that are tossed about so easily are grossly flawed, allow me to present the future.

              <

              p>Those revenues used for the state budget will fail to materialize (because they were bogus to begin with) and the INDUSTRY will return begging for expansion – more slot barns, more slots, more of everything, less restrictions, lower taxes because they can’t make money.

              <

              p>Christopher, Let’s at least be honest about who we’re dealing with.  

              • …but we’ve also managed to keep alcohol under control and rein in Big Tobacco.  Because so much of this is missing I now oppose this particular legislation, but gambling PER SE is harmless entertainment for MANY people.  You say no local control; I insist on a local veto.  You say alcohol is served round the clock; I’ve proposed banning alcohol.  I don’t need to find another state that’s done it; I’m more conscious of the notion that there’s a first time for everything.  If what you say is true about costs, then what state in their right mind would willingly sacrifice $3 for every $1 made?  We already absorb some of the costs and I’ve never bought the idea that we’re going to create a bunch of addicts any more than opening another bar in town increases the alcoholism rate in that town.  I don’t doubt for a minute that the industry will come begging for expansion, relaxing of regulations, etc, but I’m willing to tell the industry, “Look, play by our rules or by all means take your business elsewhere!”

                • You’re wiling to impose all those restrictions on the gambling industry, but the legislature isn’t going to. Will you vote against an incumbent Democrat because he or she did not insist on your restrictions, when the alternative is a Republican?

                  <

                  p>Also, whatever limp limits are initially put in, the gambling lobbyists will be camped on Beacon Hill until the end of time, pressuring for those limits to be eased or eliminated. They will use the lever of the tax revenues their gambling dens produce, promises of more, or threats of less.  

                • I don’t get to impose the rules, which is why I now come down against this bill, especially since some of my ideas WERE floated only to be deliberately shot down.  I’m not a single-issue voter, so no I’m not going to commit to voting against someone who votes against my preference.

                • …some of my ideas WERE floated only to be deliberately shot down.

                  Is that like a “dream sequence” or something? You didn’t actually believe what you were saying, but said it just so people would refute it?

                  <

                  p>Please don’t do that. It wastes our time, and it doesn’t make you look too bright.

                • I certainly didn’t want them shot down.  I sincerely believed what I proposed.  I thought I had heard that there were votes taken in the legislature in the form of amendments that could have addressed some of my concerns, but those amendments were denied.

  3. (Christopher, the comments are getting too narrow for a reply, so here goes.)

    <

    p>You’re muddying the issue by comparing it to other things.

    <

    p>You wrote:

    You say no local control; I insist on a local veto.

    <

    p>What I would offer is the farce in the Senate that limited the vote.

    <

    p>SLOT BARNS will impact REGIONS with traffic, public safety issues, crime and other costs estimated to be about $50 million (offered here: uss-mass.org/). The mitigation funds are inadequate, but setting that costly matter aside, the Senate limited the urban vote to the impacted precinct. One might argue that it’s less costly for the investors to be assured of support in a smaller voter base. The Senate also refused to consider a Regional Vote.  

    <

    p>You wrote:

    You say alcohol is served round the clock; I’ve proposed banning alcohol.

    <

    p>In fairness, you surely realize that would NEVER happen.

    <

    p>Of alcohol, consider this from Les Bernal:

    <

    p>

    How is it different than alcohol?

    –          Robert Mondavi  drank the wine he made. Jim Koch (of Sam Adams Beer) drinks his own beer. Casino owners don’t use their own “product.” Nor do most of those who promote casinos like Cahill, Rosenberg, etc.

    –          The buzz or high you get is different than alcohol. It’s a cocaine-like high. No beer, wine or whiskey I’ve ever tasted has given me a high like I’m on cocaine.

    –          Drinking a beer or sipping a glass of wine does not offer the false promise of life-changing riches or the lure of giving me money for doing nothing

    –          If predatory gambling and drinking a beer are the same thing, then why is it that casinos are owned by millionaires (and billionaires) and the local tavern owner is usually just a regular guy?

    –          Plain and simple: anyone who compares drinking alcohol to using a predatory gambling product is not an experienced gambler.  They did not call our country’s economic crisis “Napa Valley capitalism.” They called it “casino capitalism” – using predatory practices, financial gimmicks and something-for-nothing schemes to promote an illusion of free money, all at the expense of unsuspecting Americans.

    <

    p>I would add that the state is not promoting alcohol consumption and alcoholism as revenue.

    <

    p>Beacon Hill had enough difficulty with the smoking issue, never mind alcohol.

    <

    p>And did you notice that in addition to serving free alcohol, SLOT BARNS can also write loans? And then do their own collections?

    <

    p>The logic surely is “Everybody else does it.”

    <

    p>“Well, the public opinion polls aren’t with you on this…”:

    <

    p>

    –          People don’t support casinos. They support jobs. This is evidenced by a State House News poll that showed almost 50% thought casinos were bad for society- only 20% thought they were good.

    –          Recent Globe poll showed 38% oppose casinos and we’ve hardly spent a nickel

    –          The casino interests have spent millions in public affairs outreach and lobbying to create a sense of support for predatory gambling and after all that, they are only at 52% – and it is support so soft it’s the polling equivalent of a dandelion puff.

    –          In 2009, casino interests spent $40 million in Ohio to pass a casino referendum and they only won by six points. Six points. If the people really wanted it, why spend $40 million and why would it only win by six points!

    <

    p>This is the most sensible thing you have written:

    If what you say is true about costs, then what state in their right mind would willingly sacrifice $3 for every $1 made?

    <

    p>Could it be the back room deals? the secrecy? hidden promises? Campaign contributions? You tell me because it certainly isn’t the phony jobs numbers they’re promoting.

    <

    p>You wrote —

    I’ve never bought the idea that we’re going to create a bunch of addicts any more than opening another bar in town increases the alcoholism rate in that town.

    <

    p>The same federal study determined that gambling addiction increases with proximity. Addiction doubles within a 50 mile radius.

    <

    p>You wrote:

    <

    p>

    I don’t doubt for a minute that the industry will come begging for expansion, relaxing of regulations, etc, but I’m willing to tell the industry, “Look, play by our rules or by all means take your business elsewhere!”

    <

    p>Maybe you need to run for public office.

    • …a lot of this is correct about what DID happen hence my current reluctance.  Though just for the record I’m pretty sure I never cited public opinion so you must have gotten your comments confused when you quoted that part above.

Archives