The Globe reports that the House and Senate have tentatively reached a deal:
The deal would authorize three resort casinos and would allow the state’s four racetracks to compete for two slot parlor licenses. The deal does not meet Governor Deval Patrick’s demands. He said Thursday he would accept creation of one slot parlor as part of the expanded gambling bill, if legislators agreed to break a legislative logjam on Beacon Hill.
The governor reiterated today that he wants to authorize only a single slot facility.
Sounds like a loser to me. First, slot parlors are a bad idea. Second, if we are going to have them, restricting bidding on them to existing racetracks is a really bad idea. No-bid contracts (or, in this case, absurdly restricted-bid contracts) just generally suck – there’s no way around that.
Governor Patrick made his position pretty clear yesterday, according to the Globe:
Governor Deval Patrick said yesterday that he would accept creation of one slot parlor as part of the expanded gambling bill, if legislators agreed to break a logjam that has halted other major business on Beacon Hill….
The governor attached one other condition to accepting a slots parlor: Bidding for that license must be open to facilities beyond the state’s racetracks. House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo wants only the race tracks to be able to operate slot machines.
He reiterated in a campaign email that he was willing to accept “an open bidding process to build one slots-only facility.” Obviously, one does not equal two, nor does restricting bidding to existing tracks equal “an open bidding process.”
The Gov should stop this “deal” in its tracks (get it? tracks? oh I slay myself) before it gets to his desk.
If Patrick stands firm, he will have confirmed my trust in him…
<
p>Of course, really firm would be NO slot parlors. And why anyone wouldn’t understand that slot parlors and casinos are, basically, cut from the same damn cloth, is beyond me, but at least, this is something.
<
p>I hope this dies dies dies. Then DeLeo leaves, and we can stop fighting this issue every. Goddamn. Year.
office holders.
<
p>Because of his actions regarding casinos, charter schools (i.e. Gloucester), housing for the mentally ill, and tax break accountability (not enough), the Governor isn’t on my “trustworthy” list. He’s no crusader against the power of large corporations.
<
p>If he vetoes this monstrosity, it will be a step in the right direction.
At least, not enough to jump up and down opposing them; I don’t know the story vis a vis the mentally ill housing, and honestly, I don’t get a good picture reading the stuff on this blog – it’s kinda full of what sounds like propaganda to me; and I am not a one issue voter though I am passionately against casinos.
<
p>I do know that we are a leader in education, in green tech, and our economy is daaaaaaamn, compared to the rest of the country.
<
p>So sign me up for another term. No one ever believed, I hope, that Patrick was going to be the supastar progressive on every issue or even most issues. He is, however, quite nicely liberal. Even being wrong on casinos doesn’t gainsay that.
<
p>Purity tests are for losers. I am as interested in pushing us lefter as the next person, but the reality is, we have to do the work OURSELVES and stop blaming everyone else. Like, electing better Dems to the legislature which is the real problem.
Unfortunately, I am unable to enthusiastically knock on doors on his behalf with a straight face.
I had started looking into the charter school and care for the disabled issues in order to better defend the Governor against his critics. The more I learned, the more questions I had.
Press is reporting 2 slot licenses to be bid amongst the four tracks.
<
p>Let’s see, the tracks have common ownership / partnerships in some instances, they have been working together to achieve their goal of slots at tracks and now the Legislature expects them to bid aggressively amongst themselves. No wonder we have a perception problem on Beacon Hill, they just don’t get it.
<
p>Anyone want to make a bet (building on David’s backslapping above) that we get less money than expected and, shockingly, there is one license at Suffolk and one between the other two tracks. We will be seeing investigations into collusion between the tracks shortly after the bids are opened.
<
p>This is a sad day for the state of MA. We have blatantly sold out to the special interests in back room deals and for a lot less than we probably would have received had we had real competition.
Don’t underestimate the ability of powerful lobbies to fracture into petty interests who fight amongst themselves. Indeed, that’s the primary way we’ve been able to stop slots all this time to begin with.
The Gov has looked squishy on this whole issue. First he was against any slots. Then he said he’d approve one. Now that they’ve got two in the bill, he simply must veto it or risk looking extremely weak. Personally, the whole damn thing is odious. I’m sorry I even got sucked into commenting. Man, I didn’t support Deval four years ago thinking he’d help turn Mass into one big gambling parlor. This sucks.
I’d like them to revitalize traditional gambling spots. Suffolk Downs could be a great urban destination again.
On a casino or slots license. Giving it to them smells of an inside deal struck behind closed doors. Oops, that’s exactly what we seem to have after a week of closed door meetings.
<
p>They have the location, they have the infrastructure, all they need to do is be the high bidder. Anything less is a handout to the wealthy owners of the track. Corporate welfare of the highest order.
If anything Suffolk Downs and its lack of success is proof that legalized gambling would not be the economic panacea its proponents claim. If we really wanted gambling so much would we have voted for dogs over gambling? Would we be allowing Suffolk Downs to falter and fade into memory? I think the industry as it is wouldn’t be in trouble if it had a natural market to keep itself going, and I really don’t think it will. Go to Foxwoods, go to Aurora, IL, go to Hamilton, IN. I have seen towns that get so desperate they think gambling is the only way into an economic future, and its not, in fact it creates places where the casino is the only successful business in town while the number of boarded up local businesses goes up instead of down. And its mostly old ladies wasting their social security checks on the slots instead of feeding themselves, is that really the morally acceptable tax base we want?
it’s also a chance for the Gov to simply be strong. besides being right on the merits, there’s some political value in not wavering.
A remarkably bad idea and a worse compromise. The Administration’s desire to show some results – any results – no matter the consequences is very sad. I fear we will look back a few years from now and regret the legislation and the Governor’s capitulation. Sad.
<
p>
The Governor hasn’t capitulated. He said he can’t support the bill they described at the press conference. He had the opportunity to leave wiggle room, and he didn’t do it. So unless they change the bill, I don’t think he’ll sign it.
for the sake of the Commonwealth and the Governor’s legacy that you are right.
I admit I want the whole thing to collapse, but onme thing strikes me.
<
p>If we ARE going to have slot machines, what about the Alice’s Restaurant argument?
<
p>”We came to a side road, and off the side of the side road there was another fifteen foot cliff and at the bottom of the cliff there was another pile of garbage. And we decided that one big pile is better than two little piles, and rather than bring that one up we decided to throw ours down”. That’s what racinos seem like to me.
One could even argue the community around Suffolk Downs would be better off if the track just disappeared altogether, its really awful having that be the best way to get from Logan to my house since I always bitch about how ghetto and crummy the South Side looks compared to Boston and then my guests and I drive right by that whole strip of dying out businesses of the most seedy kind. The area would look a lot better if Suffolk Downs became a public park and you made it a family destination, where families go, good businesses are sure to follow. You can only make so much money off old ladies and their social security checks.