I am running for Governor because sound government needs to rest on a foundation of economic and social justice. With that in mind, I am supporting the ballot initiative now proposed to repeal the casino law.
I don’t believe that we should be teaching our children that economic development is best achieved through gambling institutions. Instead, we should invest in helping our communities develop and thrive, making Massachusetts a more attractive place to do business, and training our workers for the high-tech jobs of the 21st century.
I am well aware of the dire need in Massachusetts to expand job opportunities throughout the state and of the hope in some quarters that casinos will bring both employment and new revenues to our strapped state budget. Nonetheless, I believe, the costs are simply too high for this to be the best step for our state.
My chief concerns:
- The evidence is strong that they will do harm to many small businesses and distort the life of local neighborhoods. Studies have shown that casinos divert funds from local businesses, with an average of one local job lost per slot machine.
- Casinos will bring into Massachusetts enormous outside corporate forces – some, frankly, with questionable ethics – that have little real commitment to the long-term well-being of our state and communities.
- The net new revenues to the state budget will be less than hoped, because there is going to be a tradeoff between casino incomes and the state lottery, which compete for some of the same consumer dollars. Some say that lottery income may fall by as much as 30% or 40, offsetting some casino revenue to the state.
- And, as a physician, I know that casinos will bring with them (or uncover) a disease – gambling addiction – that hurts the addict, the family, and the community. At just the time when we are trying to bring our state’s health care costs under control, we will be adding a whole new cost burden for public health, mental health care, and addiction treatment.
I am supporting the repeal effort, because I believe the 2011 casino law is inconsistent with our shared values of economic and social justice. Our Commonwealth can do better.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue. I’m dedicated to helping the RTCD folks win their ballot question, assuming it gets to the ballot.
If anyone would like to see some of the key reasons why I personally oppose casinos, please get a look at this report (PDF):
Why Casinos Matter: Thirty-One Evidence-Based Propositions from the Health and Social Sciences. One of the major points raised in the report concerns the relationship between the state and casino interests, where the state is put in the awkward position of having to promote a business that is so detrimental to the health and well being of its citizens.
On a recent edition of my local access show, I had two members of Casino Free Milford on to discuss several of the elements of the report that applied to local concerns in Milford, here’s the YouTube version if you care to watch:
Here’s a link in case the video fails to load:
http://youtu.be/aZGLLvszIDQ
I am seeking an inspirational, intelligent progressive Democrat for the office of Governor of the Commonwealth in 2015. I am passionate about the casino issue because it in fact touches on almost all of the issues that matter to me including your statements and (not limited to) the following: social and economic justice/policy, taxation, environment, supporting small businesses vs. subsidizing corporate monopolies, career training and advancement across all populations and lifting distressed regions with productive, sustainable development, work ethic, transparency and keeping government out of the gambling business.
That written, I am not a single issue voter and look forward to finally seeing someone with broad based executive, policy and business experience step-forward. Nice job in Springfield reaching out and grabbing Williams and the O’Connells. Get to the younger family voters. You have some grassroots buzz with folks I didn’t even know where Democrats but they have become energized as their homes and communities have been threatened by the folly of the predatory gambling law passage.
Your health care proposals are intriguing.
I join heartlanddem in seeking “an inspirational, intelligent progressive Democrat for the office of Governor of the Commonwealth in 2015” and in welcoming you to BMG.
I was a Tim Murray supporter before his
political assassinationwithdrawal from politics. I am loathe to choose between Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker — I very much want a candidate I can enthusiastically and unreservedly campaign and vote for.I agree with your position articulated here. I particularly agree with your final bullet-point, and I like the succinct clarity with which you present it.
In addition to casino gambling, I have three other questions I would like to see you address (either here, on your website, or in your campaign):
1. What is your vision for public transportation in Massachusetts? If elected, what public transportation goals will you commit to achieve?
2. How will you raise the tax revenue needed to accomplish the missions and goals you have articulated?
3. What will you do differently from Governor Patrick to get the legislature to approve the increased tax revenue required for Massachusetts during your term as governor?
I look forward to your commentary here, I look forward to your primary campaign, and I look forward to the opportunity to vote for a Democrat from the Democratic wing of our party in the gubernatorial primary.
I welcome Mr. Berwick to the governor’s race and look forward to hearing more from him, especially about health care. But I hope the prohibitionist mind-set in this post isn’t typical of his thinking.
I agree casinos aren’t much of an economic development strategy, and Patrick (at least) never said they were. But when Massachusetts and other states are paying corporations to open businesses and create jobs here, you’ve got to have a pretty good reason to favor denying entrance into our state to businesses that actually want to pay us to open here. Mr. Berwick’s reason: casinos don’t sell a product Mr. Berwick approves of.
Yes, gambling can be addictive – for some people. Experts estimate that 4-6 percent of people who gamble become compulsive gamblers. The prohibitionist mind-set says 94-96 percent of Massachusetts residents must be denied the option of spending their Saturday nights being entertained in a casino in order to “protect” 4-6 percent from the evil that lurks within.
While he’s at it, the would-be governor has decided that a restaurant on Main Street, and its minimum wage workers, should be protected from competition from a restaurant in a casino, and its minimum wage workers. Shall we go ahead and create a state department of restaurant worthiness assessment so that government can choose the winners and losers?
I’m as much in favor of “social and economic justice” as candidate Berwick. I just think it’s possible for justice to co-exist with the freedom to play a few rounds of poker without having to drive to Connecticut.
One man’s freedom to gamble without traveling is another man’s neighborhood that is about to become riddled with crime.
we let neighborhoods – or communities – vote on whether they want one or not. And crime is why we have police and prosecutors.
Suppose the vote was “You can have a casino, or you can have a mall, condo complex, and T station?”
If there’s a real choice and the community still says “Casino,” OK then. But “Casino or nothing” is a desperate choice that only a desperate community will make.
Nothing – other than individual initiative, local zoning laws and the MBTA – is stopping those things from being proposed at any of these sites. But a community can’t force a mall or condo developer to build on a site of the community’s choosing. The Milford casino site, for instance, is a good spot for an office park and is zoned to allow one to be built by right. The closest neighbors won’t like that either, and an office park would generate far more rush-hour traffic than the casino would, without paying nearly as much in taxes and without paying the $100 million the casino promised to improve the traffic flow on 495. Still, Milford voters made their choice to reject the casino. When the next proposal comes around for that property – if it does – they can use the legal means available to make a decision on an office park.
But I have a hard time imagining a system of development approvals that puts alternative choices before voters at the same time.
But please, don’t pretend they’re comparable to other forms of development. They are not — they prey on communities.
That thinking may be fine for the Boston-area communities voting on casinos, but in Springfield, for example, the choice WAS between a casino and nothing. Mall? T Station? Some decent retail? Opportunity? Who is even thinking about that here? I work in Springfield and I don’t like casinos. But I have come to the conclusion that a casino in Springfield can only help.
I assume you looked at other places to make your determination on how a casino impacts an area. Which city was your model for why it would work in Springfield?
I mean, there are hundreds of casino cities to look at and I wonder where people look to find the good examples. I haven’t found any. Some of the worst examples: Cleveland, Detroit, Atlantic City, Queens, even Vegas which gets legitimate tourism has a myriad of unemployment and poverty problems. The highest unemployment rates in the country are in the places where casinos are now a mainstay. Given the way they destroy local businesses and replace workers with slot machines, it makes sense.
It’s simple economics: casinos take more money from a state than they will ever put in. They replace thousands of Massachusetts employees with slot machines. This is the very definition of a bad economic investment, and it’s not something our state needs to do or should have gotten involved in.
His opposition, and most people have I spoken with, has nothing to do with prohibition and everything to do with keeping our local economy strong.
I hope that even rick-holmes would choose to exclude multi-million-dollar heroin and cocaine parlors. I hope that we agree that our laws that regulate highly addictive and dangerous prescription drugs like Oxycodone are appropriate and needed. Businesses based on producing and distributing Heroin, Cocaine, Oxycodone, and similarly harmful and addictive products also produce jobs and draw customers. Are we acting from a “prohibitionist mind-set” when we make such businesses illegal?
This comment conveniently ignores the reality that the businesses he defends intentionally and quite effectively target that 4-6% as the focus of their marketing activity. The slots, in particular, are explicitly designed to provoke and encourage the addictive response of their players. The casino gaming industry epitomizes predatory business behavior — it is no accident that the ties between that industry and organized crime are deep and long-lasting.
Mr. Holmes doesn’t need to drive to Connecticut to “play a few rounds of poker” — he can play in the comfort of his home anytime he can gather a few other like-minded friends.
Casino gambling is bad for Massachusetts. The right answer is for Massachusetts to “just say ‘NO’ “.